Israel: UNIFIL hiding info about Hezbollah from Security Council

[Behind the Aegis]

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is intentionally concealing information about Hezbollah activities south of the Litani River in Lebanon to avoid conflict with the group, senior sources in Jerusalem have said. In the last six months there have been at least four cases in which UNIFIL soldiers identified armed Hezbollah operatives, but did nothing and did not submit full reports on the incidents to the UN Security Council.

The Israel Defense Forces and the Foreign Ministry are reportedly very angry about UNIFIL's actions in recent months, especially about the fact that its commander, Major General Claudio Graziano, is said to be leniently interpreting his mission, as assigned by Security Council Resolution 1701, passed at the end of the Second Lebanon War.

Senior IDF officials said recently behind closed doors that Graziano is "presenting half-truths so as to avoid embarrassment and conflict with Hezbollah," and that Resolution 1701 has been increasingly eroded in recent months. A senior government source in Jerusalem said that, "There is an attempt by various factors in the UN to mislead the Security Council and whitewash everything having to do with the strengthening of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon." The source also said, "The policy of cover-ups and whitewashing will not last long and, hopefully, now that the concealing of information has been revealed, things will change."

Israeli anger reached boiling point over a week ago after the release of a new report by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon with regard to another Lebanon-related Security Council resolution, 1559. The report briefly mentioned an incident at the beginning of March in which UNIFIL soldiers encountered unidentified armed men, and included no additional details. Officials in Israel, familiar with the incident, reportedly were aware that the Security Council had not been apprised of numerous details of the incident.

more...

[Hardrada]

1. You guys are working overtime tonight!

Stick to your guns. We'll stick to ours!

[guyanakoolaid]

2. Until Israel at least admits to its illegal nuclear program, it should shut the fuck up to the UN

I used to defend Israel. Until they learn to quit responding to rocks with missiles and ruined farms, they have no right to demand international justice.

[sabbat hunter]

9. how exactly is it illegal?

They are not signators to the non-proliferation treaty (Iran however is )

So how exactly is their nuclear program illegal?

[guyanakoolaid]

10. Only illegal according to UN and world law. But don't worry, Israel won't even admit it has them

[hack89]

11. No it is not

I don't think nuclear weapons are illegal - do you have a link?

From the International Red Cross:

Today there is no comprehensive and universal prohibition on the use of nuclear weapons in either customary or conventional international law.

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/section_ihl_nuclear_weapons?OpenDocument

If use is not banned then mere possession is certainly not banned.

[guyanakoolaid]

13. I guess the NNPT doesn't apply to Israel since it's one of 4 countries in the world not to sign it

The others being India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Not that Israel is ADMITTING they have nuclear weapons or anything :eyes:

I guess refusing to ratify essential international law on nuclear weapons is one way of claiming Israel's nuclear program is not illegal.

[msmcghee]

14. The NNPT is a treaty, it is not a law.

No state was ever forced to sign it. States that do sign it do so voluntarily - because they see it is in their interest to do so. There are benefits for signatories. Try to do a little reading on this stuff.

[guyanakoolaid]

16. Bullshit semantics. Treaties are a basis of international law.

An international treaty is as close as we can get to a binding law for disparate countries. And no treaty is more important for earth's survival than the NNPT. So please continue to play bullshit semantics games while Israel plays more deadly games with a nuclear arsenal it won't even admit it has.

[msmcghee]

17. Oooh, you said "International Treaty" . .

. . and "binding law" and "disparate countries". I can see I'm in this one over my head. I give you the floor. :woohoo:

[guyanakoolaid]

18. Sorry nuclear nonproliferation is such a joke to you

Not many people are laughing, though

[msmcghee]

21. I don't think nuclaer nonproliferation is funny.

Now, people who issue ignorant pronouncements about such things in order to smear Israel . . I guess seeing this happen so often, one looks for a little levity.

[guyanakoolaid]

23. But also note I'm not anti-Israel or Palestine.

I judge Palestinians harshly, too, because they basically could have had their own sovereign country, but insisted on also allowing Arab refugees back into Israel, which would have been disastrous for Israel. It will never happen. But instead of accepting this and moving on with at least their own nation to build, they continue to fight. And Israel continues to mete out even worse "justice" back on them. It's a horrible cycle of violence I'd sometimes rather just turn my eyes away from.

But Israel is now beating the drum of war with Iran, and that has shifted my criticism squarely on them, since instead of a small regional conflict with Palestinians they are now instigating international war.

[msmcghee]

24. Look, I don't mean to pick a fight with you. I just . .

. . wish people could use a little objectivity when discussing I/P issues. It is difficult because passions are high. I also allow those passions to overtake my brain at times. But, we all have to try - especially when we are discussing war and killing and situations where innocent civilians are being killed on both sides. It is the irrationality caused by those passions - that cause war and killing. The way to prevent or reduce death and unhappiness and suffering in the world - is first of all, not to add to the irrationality.

Perhaps, rational discussion of the issues is not something that interests you - at least that's the attitude you brought to this forum with your first comments. That's OK too but don't expect kind treatment. If you do want to have a reasonable discussion and are open to possibly being wrong about some things - then you might start over. You will find several people here who can disagree politely. Even me, when I find someone who returns the favor.

[guyanakoolaid]

26. If humanity is to survive, we must stop nuclear proliferation...

I am simply fed up with news reports and candidates constantly talking about Iranian nuclear weapons which are, to be frank, completely imaginary. And there's little doubt the accusations of Iranian nukes are coming from both our own neocons and Israel. I'm simply fed up with the hypocrisy and and lies leading up to yet another war and I won't stand for it, or sugar-coat my words. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it.

[msmcghee]

29. So much for calm reason. n/t

[guyanakoolaid]

30. What part of that didn't you understand? Do you dispute any of it, or just being snide?

[msmcghee]

32. I think you'll enjoy the discussion more here if I'm . .

. . not part of it. And I will too.

[Shaktimaan]

33. So let me get this straight...

you are going to fight against the hypocrisy and lies that may lead to war by disseminating your own hypocrisy and lies against Israel? It's an interesting strategy, most people choose to fight against official propaganda and lies with "the truth." I haven't seen your approach before.

After several posts where you kept insisting that Israel was breaking international law by owning nukes and not signing on to the NPT someone mentioned that neither are illegal, to which you said: Bullshit semantics. Treaties are a basis of international law. An international treaty is as close as we can get to a binding law for disparate countries. And no treaty is more important for earth's survival than the NNPT. So please continue to play bullshit semantics games while Israel plays more deadly games with a nuclear arsenal it won't even admit it has.

I gotta say, this is an AWESOME response. You've entered a place of such anger, simple terms have actually ceased to have definite meanings. It's like you've had a political-psychotic break from reality or something, where "That's illegal" can just mean "I disagree with their actions" and if someone points out that disagreeing with you isn't the same thing as breaking international law you accuse them of playing "bullshit semantic games" and insist that you're actually right! I mean, sure, treaties are the closest thing we have to international law, no disagreement there, but you ignore the fact that they only apply to those nations who ACTUALLY SIGN THEM!

Someone politely points out that you're incorrect and you accuse them of wanting to nuke Iran. Disagreeing with you means that you love Cheney! If there's future a war against Iran, it's Israel's fault! (Wow! How does he know the future?) Questioning your wild, imaginary facts means that you support nuclear war! Factual statements are "semantic bullshit" if you don't like them but schizophrenic ranting is smart discourse provided it disparages Israel.

OK, really... what happened? Did a rabid Bill Reilly bite you or something?

I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it.

That's the spirit! Cut their mikes.

[msmcghee]

25. BTW - Israel is defending itself from attack.

It is not "meting out justice". Defense by peaceful states against aggression is the reason the UN was created and the principles supporting that are the core principles of the UN Charter.

[guyanakoolaid]

28. You're not referring to their phony Iran claims, are you?

[LeftishBrit]

34. Actually our views on I/P *itself* are probably very similar...

I want a two-state solution; am very critical of the actions of both sides myself; and agree with your first paragraph.

However, I disagree with the second. Israel is not 'instigating international war' - at least, no more than other states in the region. Israel wants economic sanctions on Iran, not war. And if Israel did take any military action against Iran, or vice versa, then it would be up to other countries whether they got involved; Israel isn't forcing them. In general, other countries have not gotten directly involved in wars between Israel and its neighbours and Israel has no power to force them.

[sabbat hunter]

20. no

a treaty is just that a treaty. If a country doesn't sign it they are not bound by it.

And what games exactly has Israel played with its nuclear arsenal? Have they threatened to wipe any one off the face of the earth? Have they threatened to use nuclear weapons?

Are they required to admit what weapons they have in their arsenal.

[guyanakoolaid]

22. I'll go with Scott Ritter on this: “Let there be no doubt: If there is an American war with Iran...

...it is a war that was made in Israel and nowhere else.”

[sabbat hunter]

31. does Israel

control US foreign policy? Does Israel control the US?

[LeftishBrit]

35. Scott Ritter is/was a weapons inspector; not an expert on international foreign policy

I would trust him on issues concerning the existence or non-existence of WMD, and I wish that others had listened more to him on this matter.

However, I don't see him as an expert on where an 'American war with Iran' would be made; and I would emphatically disagree with his statement that it would be 'in Israel *and nowhere else*.' It would have to be primarily made in America. It's America's decision whether to enter or start a war. (Iran's too; but I really doubt that Iran would attack America first.)

Ritter has said some rather oversimplified things about British politics (e.g. excessive adulation of Galloway, and apparent unawareness of other anti-war politicians). He doesn't seem to be a world expert on international politics.

[hack89]

15. Show me the law - not a voluntary treaty. nt

[sabbat hunter]

19. There is no international law

that bans nuclear weapons.

[guyanakoolaid]

27. Great, go have a nuke party in Iran, Cheney will bring the dip.

[LeftishBrit]

36. How did you get from Sabbat Hunter's statement. about legalities..

to the idea that anyone here is advocating a 'nuke party in Iran'?

Sounds like Bush logic to be frank: "There is no evidence for WMD in Iraq"- "Oh, that means you must support the terrorists!" "There is no international law prohibiting nuclear weapons" - "Oh, that means that you want a nuke party in Iran!"

Personally, I wish there WERE an international law banning all nuclear weapons, and let's make it retroactive for all countries. But there isn't one; nor is there likely to be.

[oberliner]

12. Did you mean "rockets" when you typed "rocks"?

If not, I am not sure what rocks you are talking about. The Qassam rockets are the weapons of choice for Hamas currently.

[notfullofit]

3. The UN has proven

over and over again, it is no friend to Israel.

Next time they come up with some cockamamie incident to complain to Israel about, Israel should tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine.
Makes you wonder what their agenda is?

We should turn the whole damn building in New York into cheap apartments and let them relocate their hq to Damascus or some other godforsaken hell-hole.

[azurnoir]

4. Israel has no right to whine about anything

as long as Israel continues to colonize the West Bank and defy court orders concerning it's "security fence" Israel has nothing to say, it is almost funny to hear how UNFIL is not "doing its job or is lying to protect Hezbollah" I guess international law only applies to the other guy.

Oh and "welcome" to DU, yet another "newbie" with all "right" answers

[oberliner]

5. Sort of a faulty argument, isn't it?

It seems that you are suggesting that any complaints that Israel may have regarding UNIFIL are invalid for reasons unrelated to UNIFIL's actions themselves.

Certainly, I would assume that we would all want UNIFIL to execute its responsibilities fairly, irrespective of what else may be going on in the region.

I would note that the very existence of Hezbollah as a militia is in and of itself a violation of UN resolutions.

[azurnoir]

6. So it's OK for Israel

to break the law as long as it's a different law? All we have to go on are Israel's "claims", given the fact that Israel does want UNFIL or any other international observers in the area and killed several UNFIL personnel "accidentally" of course, during the Lebanon the conflict I am sure Israel's word on this should be taken as "gospel truth"

[oberliner]

7. One thing has nothing to do with the other

UNIFIL should do its job properly regardless of the fact that other UN resolutions have not been fully implemented.

[azurnoir]

8. And Israels military claiming that UNFILis not

"doing their job" should be taken as absolute truth? Do they have proof, or is their "unnamed source's say so" enough, it is not as though they could have a reason to try to smear UNFIL or anything, right.