Israel says UN can't be part of probe of deadly attack on post

[bemildred]

Israel's UN ambassador on Thursday ruled out major UN involvement in any potential international force in Lebanon, saying more professional and better-trained troops were needed for such a volatile situation.

Dan Gillerman also said Israel would not allow the United Nations to join in an investigation of an Israeli air strike that demolished a post belonging to the current U.N. peacekeeping mission in Lebanon. Four UN observers were killed in the Tuesday strike.

"Israel has never agreed to a joint investigation, and I don't think that if anything happened in this country, or in Britain or in Italy or in France, the government of that country would agree to a joint investigation," Gillerman said.

Haaretz

[thepurpose]

1. It didn't happen in their country though did it?

[truthisfreedom]

4. nope.

seems kinda silly, huh?

[The Stranger]

97. The UN can't investigate the UN being bombed and shelled?

[uppityperson]

2. need military peacekeepers? right. I like this line in the article

China, expressing frustration at the delay, earlier warned the United States that its opposition to the statement could could jeopardize UN negotiations on a resolution ordering Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment. One of the peacekeepers killed on Tuesday was Chinese. The other three came from Austria, Canada and Finland.

[rodeodance]

13. um.. China playing hardball with the WH.

[iverglas]

3. eh?

Dan Gillerman also said Israel would not allow the United Nations to join in an investigation of an Israeli air strike that demolished a post belonging to the current U.N. peacekeeping mission in Lebanon. ...

"Israel has never agreed to a joint investigation, and I don't think that if anything happened in this country, or in Britain or in Italy or in France, the government of that country would agree to a joint investigation," Gillerman said.

Have they annexed Lebanon already? I seem to have missed that. Is it just me here, am I missing something?

Otherwise, can't quite figure out why Israel's agreement would be needed at all. Let alone why Israel would even be one of the investigators.

But hell, they did such a fine job with investigating Sabra and Shatila, maybe the UN should contract the job out to them.

[Igel]

71. Perhaps because Israel's information is essential

to understanding what happened.

In a strictly observable-fact sense, a video of the event would be sufficient. That's the "the IDF killed an infant" kind of statement. "The IDF bombed a UNIFIL bunker." If an observation is all that's needed, Israel need not be involved.

If understanding of what happened is needed, Israel needs to be involved. It's the difference between "the IDF struck a bunker" and "the IDF targeted the bunker, intending to strike the bunker knowing it was a UNIFIL bunker."

I don't know how to investigate without the UN's participation; it would seem that they would have important information. I don't know if they would share it. UNIFIL's gone native.

The 2000 Israeli soldier abduction involved a videotape filmed by UNIFIL that just never showed up in records until long after it would have been useful, was widely reported to exist before UNIFIL even acknowledged having it, and then they edited the tape they released. The vehicles that the soldiers had been in turned up in Lebanese territory; when UNIFIL was returning them to Israeli territory for forensic analysis, Hezbollah stopped and demanded the vehicles--and UNIFIL turned them over, since they didn't want to risk violence. UNIFIL had information that might, just might, have saved some lives or identified the guilty. But it hemmed, hawed, and did what Hezbollah wanted.

[iverglas]

85. yes, well, that was fascinating

I guess maybe the reason for my confusion wasn't clear. It was kinda philosophical ... moral ... principled.

When an allegation of wrongdoing is made, the alleged wrongdoer just doesn't usually have power of veto over who gets to investigate.

If understanding of what happened is needed, Israel needs to be involved.

So hmm, gosh, I guess Israel not "agreeing" to be investigated would kinda defeat the whole purpose of the of the investigation. Eh? Would that be a good summary?

Golly. I wonder whether that would be an unintended perverse consequence of Israel not "agreeing" to be investigated ... or maybe the whole fucking point.

If only ... yup, I'm gonna say it ... if only those swastika-wearers had thought of this 60 years ago, they could have saved themselves a lot of grief. But they kinda had it impressed on them that they weren't the bosses of the world, and what they said just didn't really matter, and they'd be investigated whether they liked it or not, didn't they?

I'm going to try this next time I'm stopped on suspicion of speeding. Screw you, constable; I don't agree to be investigated by you.

UNIFIL, blah blah. I'll see your UNIFIL and raise you one Sabra and Shatila.

[IndianaGreen]

5. Rachel Corrie threw herself in front of the bulldozer because she was

suicidal. Dr. David Kelly was despondent for saying that Iraq had no WMDs so he killed himself by using a blunt garden tool to cut an artery in his wrist.

Who needs an investigation when the people doing the investigating are pathological liars.

[ThomCat]

89. Absolutely. People seem to take it on faith that governments

are honest (at least when it comes to their pet causes). Governments lie routinely. They are adept at blocking investigations and covering things up. It's a big part of what governments do.

I would trust the UN more than any government.

[AliceWonderland]

99. Yes, you said it.

Who needs tyranny when it flows so naturally from the status quo?

Say something was a suicide.

Say something is a conspiracy.

Say those who disagree hate America.

Say those who disagree hate Jews.

Say something was an accident.

Next time, repeat that it's an accident.

All subsequent times, repeat.

We are wading in lies that remain unquestioned.

[Sherman A1]

6. Perhaps

The nations who had the peacekeepers killed should head up the investigation. Since they suffered the actual losses. And at what point did it become up to the Israelis to decide who investigates?

[Kagemusha]

7. They have guns. Observers don't.

Issue closed.

[Sherman A1]

17. Israel does indeed have guns,

so does China, however, the point is moot. It will all be swept under the rug and no one will ever really know what happened. It may have actually been a legitimate error due to fog of war or Hezbollah operating in the area, but without an impartial investigation, will anyone ever believe that to be the case? Truth is the first casualty of war.

[ThomCat]

90. Peacekeepers can be sent in with guns.

So the issue is not closed.

[Kagemusha]

95. They won't have the guns the IDF has, so the IDF decides.

And if they have a problem with it, I'm sure the IDF will point to their tanks and assault helicopters and aircraft and say, "Make us."

[ThomCat]

96. Which just shoes Israel as the agressor again.

Using force to get away with not being accountable for their use of force.

[Kagemusha]

100. Bingo.

nt

[jrd200x]

12. Israel now controls the land. It is there land for now

That's how war works.

If you attack a country and they kick your but and take your land, too bad.

[BillZBubb]

16. "for now". That is the problem.

The other side will fight to get it back. Then the Israeli's will whine about the "terrorists" who are trying to gain back their land.

Israel's actions are only fueling continual, generational warfare. That is what is too bad.

[iverglas]

30. sheesh

If I punch you in the face and take your purse, too bad. I now control your money. It is my money for now. That's how mugging works.

Did you have some kind of point?

[ConcernedCanuk]

37. Yes - he/she does have a point if you think about it - -

.
.
.

That's what the USA has been doing with other countries for decades . . .

Sad, yes . .

But true

(sigh)

[funnymanpants]

40. Totally false

International law strictly forbids you from gaining land from a war. The UN has repeatedly criticized Israel for this behaviour through legally binding Security Council Resolutions. (Israel is a signatory member of the UN.)

Further, it is completely unclear what your actual point is in regards to the thread. First, Lebanon did not attack Israel--a terrorist group kidnapped two soldiers, an act regularly practiced by Israel itself. Second, the parties involved here are the UN and Israel. Are you saying the UN attacked Israel?

[bennywhale]

68. What a daft thing to say. When has this been the rules

of war for anyone other than tyrants and meglomaniacs. Democratic countries are supposed to go to war for reasons of self defence or impending threats to world peace and aggression (like WW1 WW2) You do not go to war for the booty unless you are an imperialist war mongerer.

[Igel]

72. I don't think they do.

I haven't heard of ground fighting around Khiyam. Most--all?--of it's been to the SW around Bint Jbeil.

[MUAD_DIB]

74. And kill all of their helpless civillians, right?

Israel has been hurt, but they are hurting others now.

Time for the ME to grow up, methinks.

[Bridget Burke]

79. It's an old story....

Joshua, Book 5:

<16> And it came to pass at the seventh time, when the priests blew with the trumpets, Joshua said unto the people, Shout; for the LORD hath given you the city.

<17> And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent.

<18> And ye, in any wise keep yourselves from the accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed, when ye take of the accursed thing, and make the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it.

<19> But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the LORD: they shall come into the treasury of the LORD.

<20> So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.

<21> And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

<22> But Joshua had said unto the two men that had spied out the country, Go into the harlot's house, and bring out thence the woman, and all that she hath, as ye sware unto her.

<23> And the young men that were spies went in, and brought Rahab, and her father, and her mother, and her brethren, and all that she had; and they brought out all her kindred, and left them without the camp of Israel.

<24> And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.

www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=902208

[daleo]

102. You would think the Lord could have just made lots of silver and gold

I mean, what's up with having to plunder anyway?

[ThomCat]

91. This was not war. It was an invasion.

And as long as the international community does not allow Israel to annex more land that is not theirs it continues to belong to Lebanon.

[ladjf]

56. The world court should head up the investigation in the form of

a war crimes trial and subpoena the Israelis officials. That won't happen, of course.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[daleo]

9. A neutral party should be responsible for any investigation

Normally, the U.N. is the most impartial international body around. Given that U.N. peacekeepers were killed, there might be some question of their objectivity. Clearly an Israeli investigation would not be considered impartial.

Who's left? It would have to be someone most people trust to be objective. One of the nordic countries? Japan? South Africa?

In practice, a joint U.N.-Israel-Lebanon inquiry would make the most sense. One would hope their advesarial roles in this matter would lead to the truth, as is supposed to happen in the court system.

[Solo_in_MD]

21. Without full Israeli cooperation there can be no meaningful investigation

since it would require full access to their Command and Control records, tactical doctrine, communications infrastructure, and weapons technology. I don't think that kind of access is going to be given to a 3rd party, no matter who it is.

We will get the Israeli side of the story, backed up my things like the email that recently surfaced. We will get other views. Both sides will claim conspiracy by the other. In the end the dead will still be dead.

[daleo]

25. The U.N. should release its transcripts to the world

There were supposed to be communications all day, and shelling. Release the records, and that will get the ball rolling on both sides. The dead will be dead, but at least some clarity might ensue.

[Solo_in_MD]

27. What makes you think there are transcripts?

Small outpost under fire and now blown up? I doubt UNFIL is like LAPD with recorders going on all communications. Little chance they kept many records to begin with and what there were is toast. I'm for publishing anything credible, but I would not expect much. The only thing that has gone public so far was an email that said Hezbollah was using the outpost as a shield (and I have no idea of its provenance or validity).

[daleo]

29. If there were radio communications, there would bound to be tapes

And transcripts. I assume so anyway. I got that impression from the way Kofi Annan was talking. I guess we will see.

[Solo_in_MD]

42. Not hardly

Outside of a public safety agency, that is not normally done. Certainly never seen it in an active combat situation. Consider the logistics. The recorders would have to be on site to capture all the comms including cell and land line. It would be a seriously large investment with no payback except in extreme circumstances. I really doubt there were tapes made.

There could have been external monitoring, but those with the technology to do it in the immediate area were also doing the shelling.

[daleo]

47. But these weren't combat soldiers

They were observers. It is the function of observers to observe and report. Central to this would be keeping records, tapes, transcripts, etc. That is necessary for reporting.

I would imagine there must have been some external link, possibly to a U.N. agency - else how would Kofi Annan have known that the observers got in touch with the IDF on multiple occasions? They may have been in email touch or other internet communications with an outside party, for example.

After all, any teenager can run a blog and a webcam these days.

[Solo_in_MD]

50. Several orders of magnitude difference between filing reports by

email and real timecomms recording. Also the IDF has pretty much made hash of the comms infrastructure in Lebanon. There may well be some, but I really don't think so. Be interesting to see what gets published about the facility and what capabilites it had.

[daleo]

62. Yes, we will find out in time what their capabilities were.

No doubt U.S. spy satellites and sig-int have a lot of data too, although that will only be released if it suits the political leadership. Time will tell.

[funnymanpants]

41. No, the email doesn't say this

>>The only thing that has gone public so far was an email that said Hezbollah was using the outpost as a shield

Someone posted the email on the thead you are talking about. The word "shield" was never used.

Here is part of the email. Note how the observer says the exact opposite of what the article implied: he states that he won't say anything about Hezbollah's position.

This is all the information of a non-tactical nature that I can provide you. I cannot give you any info on Hezbollah position, proximity or the amount of or types of sorties the IAF is currently flying. Suffice to say that the activity levels and operational tempo of both parties is currently very high and continuous, with short breaks or pauses. Please understand the nature of my job here is to be impartial and to report violations from both sides without bias. As an Unarmed Military Observer, this is my raison d'etre.

What I can tell you is this: we have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both artillery and aerial bombing. The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity.

(edit: I originally said the Hezbollah wasn't even mentioned, and I was completely wrong.)

[Solo_in_MD]

44. I quickly read a net article about it...

and that is what it seemed to say. Like I said, I am not accepting it as fact either...

[iverglas]

45. read the email here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2417633&mesg_id=2418669

Next thread up in this forum, at the moment.

[Igel]

73. The difference, if the report is correct,

is that one assigns intent and the other doesn't.

However, 'shield' would be the likely intent. There have been other reports of Hezbollah setting up shop next to a UNIFIL base; there are a few, but it's not like UNIFIL is so thick on the ground that Hezbollah has no other option.

But 'tactical necessity' is the guy simply saying, "We're bombed, and there's no avoiding it under the regular rules of engagement." It's also pressure on the guy's commander, saying "Look, dude, we could be killed, and the IDF can't be held responsible: clear out Hezbollah, or let us clear out." Response: zzzzz....

[funnymanpants]

84. Sorry, this doesnt' make sense

I don't understand what "one" means in the first sentence.

You raise a good question by asking what "tatical necessity" means. It is simply a guess at this point, so I don't see how the original claim that Hezbollah is using the UN as a shield is at best one of many inferences. It will be simple to clear this up by asking what other members at this post observed.

[iverglas]

86. now, who set up shop where, again?

Here's the full email:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2417633&mesg_id=2418669

Here's an excerpt:

I am currently writing to you from the UN Patrol Base Khiam, which is situated approximately 10 km from the nexus of the Israeli, Lebanese and Syrian Borders. I am serving with Observer Group Lebanon, or OGL, and I am on Team Sierra. The Patrol Base is named after the village it is situated in, El Khiam, which sits on one of four ridges which dominates both the Hasbani River valley, which then changes to the Houla Valley when it crosses the Lebanon-Israel border 10 km to our south.

The patrol base was initially an observation post and was built in 1972, but was later destroyed in 1976 during the fighting between the PLO and the South Lebanese Army (SLA). In 1978 it was rebuilt again and manned by elements of the Norwegian Battalion serving with UNIFIL. In 1980, Observer Group Lebanon (OGL) assumed responsibility for it. Historically, the area of the El Khiam and Hasbani valleys to the north and the Houla valley to the south have been the main axis for invasion in to Lebanon and Palestinian Territories.

Mission

The mission of Team Sierra and OGL within the greater context of UNTSO is to maintain the integrity of theWithdrawal Line (Blue Line), and report on any and all violations or activities that threaten the cease-fire and international peace and security here along the Lebanese/Israeli border, and Israeli Occupied Lebanon, and to support the UNSC resolution 1559, within our mission mandate.

So ... which came first: the chicken or the egg?

If we think for a moment about why the UN types were there we just might see it.


But 'tactical necessity' is the guy simply saying, "We're bombed, and there's no avoiding it under the regular rules of engagement." It's also pressure on the guy's commander, saying "Look, dude, we could be killed, and the IDF can't be held responsible: clear out Hezbollah, or let us clear out." Response: zzzzz....

Do you need a special device to read between lines like that?

Yeah ... I'm sitting here on the phone with you telling you that you've come close to killing us more than enough times now, so, like, would you just do it now and get it over with and we won't hold the IDF responsible?

Yeah.

[iverglas]

32. heh heh

Without the accused's cooperation, there can be no trial?

I'd suggest that Israel feel free to stand mute, and let the trial proceed.

[Solo_in_MD]

39. More like without the accused's cooperation, there can not be an effective

investigation, since they control almost all of the relevant data and the scene. Its not like the UN issues meaningful subpoenas or search warrants.

The results of the "trial" over this are a forgone conclusion anyway

[newyorican]

65. Likewise...

without full U.N. involement, there can be no meaningful investigation.

Both parties involved must be party to any investigation for it to be legitimate.

[jrd200x]

10. Israel - the only country in the world that has to take the UN bullshitt

seriously.

The UN is not a government. It's purpose is to TALK.

And they've always hated Israel.

[jrd200x]

11. Uh, the UN isn't a government is it?

It also has had Syria and Iran at the head of it's human rights council this year. How can anyone take them seriously?

[iverglas]

33. how can anyone take ... whom ... seriously?

(The UN) also has had Syria and Iran at the head of it's human rights council this year.

Did your father recently get arrested for lewd behaviour in a car?

http://www.undispatch.com/archives/2006/07/correcting_the.html

Senator Norm Coleman issued a statement condemning the Council because its members "include many of the worst human rights violators who had made a mockery of the previous commission -- Cuba, Iran and Syria." But Syria and Iran are not on the new Council. In fact, Iran stood for membership, but was not approved by a vote of the General Assembly.

Syria and Iran are not even ON the bloody Council.

http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/membership.htm

Who's feedin' you yer lines, pal?

[High Plains]

58. Dude, you are on the wrong board.

[canichelouis]

87. This is why I love DU...

[Just Me]

14. NO! Their purpose is to unite nations and protect basic human rights.

WHO ARE YOU???????

Are you AGAINST a world democracy? Are you against the "rule of law"? Have you pledged allegiance to imperialism rather than democracy and the rule of law?

WHO ARE YOU????

[Solo_in_MD]

20. You shall know a tree by the fruit it bears...

and the UN is producing a lot of rotten apples and has for some time.

I fully support the concepts and goals of the UN, but in the last 10+ years, it really seems to have lost its way. Not sure how it gets turned around. Slash and burn Bolton is clearly not the way, but we do need to see more effectiveness. Its current ineptness makes it hard for anyone to take them seriously. Congo, Darfur, Bosnia, and even Lebanon.

[BillZBubb]

23. They are no more inept than any current government.

Now are they?

[Solo_in_MD]

26. IME, yes they are

[BillZBubb]

53. What governments are less inept????

I need a good laugh. You sure are grasping at straws, lets see some.

[Solo_in_MD]

54. Most of the European nations tend to be. US and Canada as well.

[BillZBubb]

60. What a frigging laugh.

Yeah the US is doing so well in Iraq. And Katrina was a lesson in smooth operations.

How many hotspots has Canada helped sort out? Or any of the European nations? They did so well in the Balkans after all.

Get a clue.

[Solo_in_MD]

75. My comments were based on the ability to get things done

The UN suffers from extreme bureaucracy. They also have to cater to every interest group. It paralyzes them. I've seen good people get frustrated and walk away from UN efforts to work with private groups for just that reason. National governments are not always swift and agile, but again IME, do better over all than the UN. BTDT

Update: Spelling

[ShortnFiery]

77. So then, your take is, "Why even bother to be civil and work toward

a fair solution for all parties involved? Yes, I know how much Imperialists despise the "big C" of Diplomatic Relations, i.e., It works through all parties ... Through Compromise via mature and thoughtful leadership!

Yeah, why bother since "the tests" are too hard? So much easier to continue to bomb and kill innocents, thereby creating another generation seething for retributions. How lovely. :puke:

[Solo_in_MD]

80. Far from it

As I said in post#20 (up thread), I fully support the concepts and goals of the UN, but in the last 10+ years, it really seems to have lost its way. Not sure how it gets turned around. Slash and burn Bolton is clearly not the way, but we do need to see more effectiveness. Its current ineptness makes it hard for anyone to take them seriously. Congo, Darfur, Bosnia, and even Lebanon.

[ThomCat]

94. Within the authority granted to them

They are the single most effective peacekeeping force on earth, and the single most effective disaster releaf organization on earth.

What world are you living in?

[leesa]

81. The US is less inept???? OMFG you are really 'out there'

[funnymanpants]

36. Misleading conclusion

>>Congo, Darfur, Bosnia, and even Lebanon

The UN cannot do anything in Lebanon because the US would veto any SC resolutions, which are the only way to achieve concrete results.

As far as rotten apples, is it really producing any more than most governments in the world? Your post strikes me as gratituous UN bashing.

[ThomCat]

93. The UN has a much better track record than Israel

with regard to negotiating peace and being honest in their international dealings. If you are criticizing the UN because they haven't sided with Israel then look at WHY they haven't sided with Israel. Israel has been continually violating people's human rights, they have been stealing land and access to water, and they they have been killing people more or less indiscriminately.

[The Stranger]

98. That is what John Bolton and his Neocon handlers think too.

[ShortnFiery]

76. Don'tcha know, Us Imperial powers don't need no stinkin' UN ...

Resolutions. We make it up as we go along. :P Well, sometimes the UN is useful in passing the Resolutions *we* (US, UK, Israel) submit.

The UN does the Imperialists' bidding, otherwise, they're totally worthless and promptly discounted! :sarcasm:

[BillZBubb]

15. "they've always hated Israel."

And always with good reason.

[Just Me]

19. Yeah,...go ahead and feed the savages.

:eyes:

[BillZBubb]

22. So, the UN is a bunch of savages now! How low can you go????

[iverglas]

34. I'm not sure ...

but I think it was the feeding of another indigenous species that was being referenced. (And I'll share the blame.)

;)

[funnymanpants]

38. Not true

>>The UN is not a government. It's purpose is to TALK.

The charter of the UN gives it power to enforce Security Council Resolutions. Hence a resolutions was passed condemning Iraq in 1991 and many countries waged war on Iraq.

As far as the UN always hating Israel, that is just a talking point. In fact, Israel is the only country formed *by* the UN. Did you forget resolution 181?

The UN has condemned Israel agression, as have every other human rights group--Amnesty International, B'Tsleem (based in Israel), a Palestinian human rights group, and Human Rights Watch. Do these groups all hate Israel too?

Further, you can look at a General Council Resolution passed in 2000, condemning Israel for "deliberate killing" and "torture." Something like 140 nations endorsed this resolution, with only two voting against, Israel and the US. You can look at the Resolutions passed this year and you will find about 15 passed by simliar margins.

What is occuring in these votes is not UN hatred, but the world hatred at Israel's aggression. It is the world that dislikes Israel aggression. The ambassadors apointed to the UN by other countries have the approval of the governments they come from, so they reflect the government. When Germany's ambassador to the UN votes that Israel has committed human rights violations, he is reflecting the will of the democratically elected government.

To claim that the UN somehow hates Israel is a ruse.

(edit: I said Israel when I meant Iraq.)

[Solo_in_MD]

43. Don't forget Taiwan

[IndianaGreen]

48. Funny, it was the UN which created a Jewish state in Palestine

or did you conveniently forget that?

[AlphaCentauri]

59. it's like having a teenager son going crazy n/t

[bennywhale]

69. When has Israel ever taken UN Bullshit. You mean Israel is the only

country who is able to ignore every UN resolution and wishes of the international community.

"The purpose of the UN is to talk. Its called collective decision making for a more peaceful world idiot. The people at the UN believe in a world based on co-operation not jingoistic posturing and dropping bombs on children from 30 000 feet by people with little dicks and marital problems.

In the words of the great Winston Churchill, a man who would eat the hawks today for breakfast and break every war mongering fuckers balls on the planet.

"Less War War, more Jaw Jaw"

The problem is people who feel inferior, probab;ly even jealous of the past and need to make their insignificant moment on the planet somehow mean something. The only way their imagination can see to do this is to create conflict, war and destruction. it makes them feel important.

[ThomCat]

92. That's just more B.S.

The UN doesn't hate Israel. The UN has simply been witness to Israel's repeated aggression and illegal activities. Don't blame the witness. Blame the criminal.

[ConcernedCanuk]

18. So, if the WH is attacked, the USA can't investigate it . . right?

.
.
.

[John Q. Citizen]

24. Just like 9/11. No investigation, just take our word for it......

[madrchsod]

28. big dan is the man....

"Ambassador Gillerman has played a prominent role in helping to steer Israel towards economic liberalization and a free market economy. He has also been deeply involved in the economic aspects of the peace process and has been intensively engaged in talks with Palestinian and Arab leaders trying to further economic cooperation within the region."


http://www.israel-un.org/mission/perm/default.htm
Permanent Mission of Israel to the UN

[David Dunham]

31. The UN should suspend Israel if the UN cannot be involved.

[smacky44]

35. So why does any other country or people have to abide by UN

resolutions? I think Israel has just declared 1559 null and void. And in view of the fact that Israel has been in violation of at least 16 resolutions that it says it never intends to honor, why should Syria, Lebanon or any other country abide by resolutions? Why don't these nations just withdraw from the UN and nix anything they have to say? Like Pakistan, Israel, and India have thumbed their noses about nukes, why should Iran or N. Korea care what the UN passes?

[funnymanpants]

46. Isreal has done this in the past

The UN passed a legally binding Security Council Resoution demanding that it be allowed into Jenin to investigate alleged war crimes when Israel invaded in 2001. Israel initially agreed and then refused, so no meaningful investigation could take place. I believe it was SC 1405.

[HuffleClaw]

49. hahhahahahaa

why just admit guilt now and get it over with? they couldn't be more clear about their intentions to whitewash this.

[theanarch]

51. Israel didn't allow any outsiders to help them

investigate the now infamous beach bombing incident, and they sure as hell won't allow the UN anywhere near the incriminating documents now. It's no different than the Pentagon investigating itself re: torture, contract fraud or atrocities against civilians...in all cases, a few friendly bureaucrats (Colin Powell and My Lai come to mind) will be assigned to make the most cursory of over-views, and write a report that exonerates the upper echelons (even if the occasional grunt or NCO has to be sacrificed) and white-washes the matter. Kofi's just pounding sand, and he knows it...but doing so is required etiquette of the game. Think of it as just one more log on the bon-fire of resentment the world feels towards Israel.

[Matilda]

52. I guess this means that Israel will investigate itself

and find itself innocent (again).

And will decide that the only peacekeeping forces well-trained enough to keep the peace in Lebanon
will be its own.

Same old, same old ....

[samhsarah]

55. don't forget....

about the Lebanese people who probably won't be too thrilled with Israel occupying more of their land. They will fight the occupation. Maybe it will be Hezbollah, maybe a new resistance movement, whatever, doesn't really matter because they will immediately become "terrorists" that need to be "rooted out". More war, more death, more occupation, more resistance, more terror, and on and on.........

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BillZBubb]

61. Perfect! That about covers all their statements.

[leesa]

83. There ya go....it's the draft they got from our DOD.

It's alwasy the same.

[iverglas]

88. well isn't that interesting

The post that was deleted contained an image that was a parody of a target that is fair game. It did not contain cartoons of people with big noses or bomb-laden turbans, and it did not portray anyone as practising usury or baby-eating, or blowing up buildings in exchange for heavenly virgins.

It was a caustic comment on the Israeli military's practices that was very relevant to a thread all about the entire issue of investigating the practices of the Israeli military. It was not based on prejudice or bigotry, it was based on reality as a large number of very unprejudiced, unbigoted people see reality. It was a pretty damned accurate representation of some very real reality, actually. If there's a better way of succinctly describing what happened at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, and what Israel's "investigation" of its military's role looked like, I can't imagine it.

To censor an extremely mild parody of an organization that simply is not immune to parody -- it is not sacred; it is merely, apparently, a sacred cow -- is inexplicable.

To delete this ... hm, it would be a cartoon, wouldn't it? ... well, I'm just gobsmacked.

And this here is a proper contribution to this discussion, because the cartoon that was deleted goes to the heart of the discussion and it is thus the discussion itself that is being censored, for no decent reason.

I have the link, if anybody wants to laugh 'cause if they don't they'll cry.

[Canuckistanian]

63. Does Israel have a veto on the Security Council?

If not, then they should STFU.

If they do, they should be treated as the US was during the Bay of Pigs or Iraq during the Kuwaiti invasion.

[uhhuh]

64. Of Course they do

They just have it cast under the name of the U.S. I don't think it has ever failed.

[mogster]

70. You are right, there are exceptions, though

But that won't stop the Israeli hawks from using that against the UN, here's an answer from the Israeli ambassador to Norway, in responding to reader's letters:

Q: Can Israel define which resolutions should be followed and which shouldn't?

Shomrat:
One must distinguish between resolutions decided upon by the UN General Assembly, which are not binding, and resolutions made by the UN Security Council which are binding according to International Law. Israel is adhering to Security Council resolutions. It is some of our neighbors in the Middle East that unfortunately disregard Security Council Resolutions, like Syria who only in 2005 fulfilled resolution 425, calling for its withdrawal from Lebanon and resolution 1559 which is not yet carried out by Lebanon.

You can read the rest of her answers here. The Q's are in Norwegian, but the answers pretty much speaks for themselves.
http://tux1.aftenposten.no/nettprat/shomrat_270706/

She refers to Security Council resolutions as binding, but avoid to mention the ones demanding Israeli withdrawal:

1967: Resolution 242

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity
For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_242

Interestingly enough, this was reaffirmed in 2002 - just when Sharon escalated the conflict, and the Jenin massacre occurred:

04.02.2002: Norway sponsors a resolution against Israel
"Norway ended this weekend it's leadership of the UN Security Council with big drama. For the first time in the UN history, the US agreed to a resolution that Israel is firmly against.
(...)
The resolution demands, among other things, Israels withdrawal from the West Bank.
- It was a very dramatic night, says UN-ambassador Ole Petter Kolby, who yesterday left the chairmanship to Russia."
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2002/04/02/322209.html

The resolution in question is 1402:

Reaffirming its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22
October 1973, 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002, and the Madrid principles,

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/310/53/PDF/N0231053.pdf?OpenElement

1973: Resolution 338:

Two clauses were attached to this decision: clause two, calling for the implementation of Resolution 242 "in all of its parts," and clause three, to begin "negotiations ... between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace."
(...)
The continuing importance of Resolution 338, often missed in many accounts incorrectly claiming that there are no binding Security Council Resolutions relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, stems from the word "decides" in article 3 (also appearing in its immediate sequels SC 339-341). This use of the language of chapter VII and article 25 of the United Nations Charter demonstrates that it is not just a UN Security Council Resolution, but a rare Security Council "Decision" (The resolution also refers to itself as a "decision" in article 1). By the UN Charter's article 25, and because it is addressed to a problem under Article 39 of Chapter VII - a threat to peace, it is international law which is binding on all UN members, and the warring parties in particular, rather than just a chapter VI recommendation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_338

The resolution 1397 was weaker in language than the 1402:

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular resolutions
242 (1967) and 338 (1973).

versus

Reaffirming its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22
October 1973, 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002, and the Madrid principles.
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/283/59/PDF/N0228359.pdf?OpenElement

[IndianaGreen]

82. Yes, he's called John Bolton

and his nomination will be voted on by the US Senate shortly by Senators facing reelection this year, and by some that hope to become President.

[Seabiscuit]

66. We're gonna investigate ourselves, just like Tricky Dick did.

Because we can. And Condi has our back.

[ShortnFiery]

78. It's also good enough for the Executive Branch of our Dear Leader ...

It's also just as "Double Plus Good" for The Pentagon and our best buddy allies, i.e., UK and Israel can do no wrong. Amen and Thank-You for asking - move on now, nothing to see here. If you continue to ask questions, chocolate rations will be decreased next week. :P

[HongKonger]

67. Um

This is not right.

[Malikshah]

101. Who the f*(& do they think they are-- it's on Lebanese territory

Oh. Sorry.

Forgot I was dealing with the "candonowrong" country.