France ‘was seconds’ from downing Israeli jet

[annabanana]

Source: The First Post, (Online Daily)

France and Israel are on a collision course in south Lebanon following incidents involving Israeli warplanes over- flying the positions of the French military contingent serving with the UN peacekeeping force there.

In the most serious confrontation, French troops were said by sources in Paris to have been "just two seconds" from launching an anti- aircraft missile at two Israeli F-15 fighters carrying out mock low-level attack runs over one outpost.

As this was happening, a pair of Israeli reconnaissance aircraft circled over the headquarters of the French battalion in the Jabal Maroun area, possibly taking aerial photographs there.

Even before these incidents occurred, French diplomatic sources had let it be known that President Jacques Chirac was urging Israel through diplomatic channels to halt their regular incursions into Lebanese air space.




Read more: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=1371

---

Just another fine wrinkle in the mess that is the Mid East.

[youngdem]

1. And surely Israel would whine like a bitch about being the victim, were it to happen

Israel needs to stop provoking the region. We are quickly spending our wad, and soon we may not be there to enable their petulant policies as much.

Running mock low-level bombing runs over a UN outpost? What in the fuck is wrong with Israel?

[Crayson]

2. I think it's not "Israel"... but their pilots

Israel is known for having problems controlling its own airforce.
Their pilots are "death from above" addicted.
About time one would get downed by a sophisticated AA missile.
And about time the UN gets to defend themselves when attacked or threatened!

We have seen what happens when understaffed underarmed UN troops have to retreat into their compound and watch the civilians around them get slaughtered.

[ixion]

5. Israel is known for having problems controlling

their military and their government, too.

[TheBaldyMan]

10. It's minor compared to the shelling of a UN lookout post in the 'Summer War'

where the UN peacekeepers repeatedly sent radio messages asking to halt the shelling. Israeli ground forces continued, resulting in the deaths of the UN troops.

Apparently, the reason for the attack was the UN post was reporting Israeli positions to their HQ over an unencrypted radio link, as all UN radio traffic is.


What's wrong with Israel? I can only guess.
Low-level bombing runs are a regular occurence over the Gaza strip in an attempt to intimidate those on the ground.

[annabanana]

13. I remember that....

(Wouldn't have been easier to pick up a phone and asked them to stop?)

[TheBaldyMan]

33. the UN did communicate directly, Israel continued to target the post.

Israel knew exactly who and what they were targetting, it was in a very prominent position, painted white with UN painted in 10' high letters. It was murder- deliberate, cold-blooded and pre-meditated.

[mnhtnbb]

12. What in the fuck is wrong with the UN that it tolerates this from Israel?

Flame away, but I'm pretty damn sick and tired of Israeli militants
wanting to push their way around all the time and crying 'anti-Semitic'
the minute anyone criticizes them.

[malaise]

15. Ditto n/t

[WiseButAngrySara]

17. Ditto Ditto. ....n/t

[earth mom]

19. Ditto Ditto Ditto. nt

[bigwillq]

26. Another ditto (nt)

[ComerPerro]

28. they get and do whatever they want, always have

[Nutmegger]

32. The UN doesn't tolerate it.

U.S. Vetoes of UN Resolutions Critical of Israel

On November 11, 2006, the United States used its veto to prevent the adoption of a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip. Ten countries supported the resolution, with four countries - The United Kingdom, Denmark, Japan and Slovakia abstaining. In explaining the U.S. veto, the U.S. representative said that the text did not display an even-handed characterization of the events in Gaza and was politically motivated. Nor did it advance the cause of Israeli-Palestinian peace to which the United States aspired and for which it was working assiduously. While joining other Council members in deeply regretting the loss of life in Beit Hanoun, he noted that Israeli authorities had admitted that the incident had been a mistake and intended to conduct an investigation into the events there, which he hoped would be completed expeditiously.

US vetoes 'biased' UN resolution attacking Israel's Gaza bloodbath

The United States last night vetoed a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel in the wake of the artillery attack which killed 18 Palestinian civilians last week in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun.

The veto on the resolution ­ on which Britain abstained ­ came despite efforts to redraft the original text to make it more acceptable to its opponents.

The US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, said the resolution, proposed by Qatar and also calling on Israel to withdraw its forces from the area "does not display an even-handed characterisation of the recent events in Gaza, nor does it advance the cause of Israeli-Palestinian peace".

Although the resolution was modified by Qatar to include condemnation of rocket attacks into Israel, Mr Bolton described it as "in many places biased against Israel and politically motivated". France and Russia voted in favour of the resolution, which called for secretary-general Kofi Annan to launch a 30-day fact-finding mission to investigate Wednesday's attack. Both Human Rights Watch and the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem have called for a fuller investigation into Wednesday's killings than the internal inquiry by the Israeli military, which found that a defect in the artillery battery's hi-tech guidance system had misdirected the shells.

The United States, the UN, and the Lebanon Ceasefire

The UN Security Council resolution for a ceasefire to the fighting in Lebanon is certainly good news in terms of ending the carnage. Passed on August 11, Resolution 1701 is also a marked improvement over the original U.S. draft and contains some positive language. Both sides, for instance, are called upon to honor “a full cessation of hostilities.” And Israel must provide the UN with maps of landmines planted in southern Lebanon during Israel's 22-year occupation that ended in 2000.

But the ceasefire resolution took longer than necessary to achieve. The fighting could have ended weeks earlier, but the United States threatened to veto previous draft resolutions. Instead, the Bush administration insisted on a version that would have allowed Israel to remain in Lebanon and continue at least some military operations, provisions rejected by other Security Council members. These delays cost the lives of hundreds of civilians and billions of dollars worth of damage to Lebanon's civilian infrastructure. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, however, was clearly unperturbed by the additional weeks of killings. “This has been time that's been well spent over the last couple of weeks,” she said at an August 7 press conference with President Bush.

Perhaps more troubling for the future, Resolution 1701 contains some disturbing ambiguities that may make a permanent peace between Lebanon and Israel elusive.

Thank permanent US veto power that continues to protect Israel. The UN isn't just sitting around twiddling its thumbs.

[Earth_First]

3. Has the whole world gone batsh*t crazy?! n/t

[HCE SuiGeneris]

29. yes n/t

[orpupilofnature57]

4. And being France isn't on Shrubs list of Sycophants , they'll be an

excellent scapegoat ,Kkkarl can make up funny names like " Freedom Fries " again ,what fun.

[Laughing Mirror]

6. Another round of Lebanon fighting with Israel "could not be ruled out"

Why is it that these two neighboring "democracies" in that undemocratic neck of the woods cannot get along? It would stand to reason that it would be in their better interests if they did and for all concerned.

It is in somebody's interest to keep those two neighbors fighting. Who in the world could that somebody be?

[Marrah_G]

8. Because it isn't about democracy

It is about water and land and religion.

[Red Zelda]

7. Impossible

St. Israel never does anything wrong.

[Selatius]

9. The French would've claimed self-defense the second any missile left the rails.

The problem for Israel is explaining to the world why those warplanes are violating Lebanese airspace even though the war is over.

[Benhurst]

11. Exactly.

Remember the USS Liberty.

[Solo_in_MD]

21. Shooting first would have violated the UN ROE

regardless of the provocatoin.

[Selatius]

24. No, if the French followed the drafted rules, then it wouldn't be a violation.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-22-mideast-UNforce_x.htm

While remaining "predominantly defensive in nature," the draft rules allow for the use of "deadly force" and offensive action, if necessary, to ensure implementation of the Aug. 11 U.N. resolution that led to the fragile cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah fighters after a brutal 34-day war.

...

The draft rules of engagement would allow "use of force, up to and including deadly force, while assisting the government of Lebanon, at its request to secure its borders and other points of entry to prevent the entry into Lebanon, without its consent, of foreign forces, arms or related material."

The rules would also authorize lethal force to "protect civilians under imminent threat of violence, when competent local authorities are unavailable or unable to render immediate assistance."

[Solo_in_MD]

25. Were they ever adopted?

Clearly they are not being followed WRT to Hezbollah

[Selatius]

27. Apparently, but the UN website doesn't list all the terms.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20106&Cr=Leban&Cr1

3 October 2006 – United Nations peacekeepers in Lebanon have the authority to use force against hostile activity of any kind, whether in self-defence, to ensure their area of operations is not used for hostile activities or to resist attempts by force to prevent them from discharging their duties, according to guidelines published today.

“Should the situation present any risk of resumption of hostile activities, UNIFIL rules of engagement allow UN forces to respond as required,” the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) said in a statement, laying out the terms of the Security Council mandate that established it in August to oversee the cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hizbollah.

“UNIFIL commanders have sufficient authority to act forcefully when confronted with hostile activity of any kind,” the statement added, noting that the force so far had 5,200 out of a maximum of 15,000 permitted under Security Council resolution 1701.

UNIFIL has set up temporary checkpoints at key locations within its area of operations, while permanent checkpoints are being established by the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) to stop and search passing vehicles. Yesterday it confirmed that Israel had vacated all but one of the positions it had taken during the fighting and that the LAF were taking over.

“In case specific information is available regarding movement of unauthorized weapons or equipment, the LAF will take required action,” the statement said. “However, in situations where the LAF are not in a position to do so, UNIFIL will do everything necessary to fulfil its mandate in accordance with Security Council resolution 1701.”

-------------------------

To me, it seems UNIFIL took up positions in areas previously occupied by Israeli forces. LAF, on the other hand, polices other areas, including those where there is a presence of Hezbollah. If Hezbollah isn't in UNIFIL's zone, it seems like it would be more the fault of the LAF for not disarming Hezbollah.

The statements above are very broad, which I suspect was worded that way on purpose.

A more brief summation could be found here:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/mandate.html

In that, there is nothing explicit about disarming Hezbollah. It seems its only task is to remove arms and equipment from areas of the border and to prevent any side outside of the LAF from moving in weapons back into those areas (Hezbollah). Hezbollah disarmament, ultimately, is a problem of the Lebanese government in Beirut. Your blame is probably better registered with the Lebanese government than with UNIFIL, as UNIFIL doesn't police the Syrian border where weapons are likely being smuggled in.

[Solo_in_MD]

30. I did some research on this as well

I found the UN pages, and as you said they are more than a little ambiguous.

I also found this: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3317310,00.html Titled "UN: UNIFIL won’t shoot IAF planes" and dated 20 Oct 2006 from an Israeli source.

Its an older story, and in my opinion, the *facts* presented are bogus, including the pictures. I covered that in another post in this thread (#20). I just reread it, and its more anti French than it should have been. It was that kind of day.

That UNIFIL is not in any way interfering with the rearming of Hezbollah is a bad thing. While it is not in the ROE for them to do so, there was nothing to say that they should not. When Hezbollah thinks it is adequately rebuilt, things will start all over again. A very bad thing. The level of hate on both sides has to be experienced to be believed.

IIRC, the 3 Israelis have not been returned or did I miss that with all the ANS stories and other serious news carried by the M$M?

[HamdenRice]

14. My guess: They are trying to learn about French anti-aircraft systems

Air forces around the world play this cat and mouse game for technical reasons. The Israelis probably want the French to lock their anti-aircraft radar onto Israeli gets, so that the Israelis can take radar snapshots to learn how the systems work. The French have highly sophisticated military hardware that has not seen a lot of action lately, but is sold around the world. This would be a way of gathering intelligence about those systems.

That's one reason the US airforce constantly probes Iranian airspace -- to learn where Iranian air defense systems are located and how they work.

[Solo_in_MD]

23. The picture shows an IR manpad, not a radar guided system

However, I agree that the if there were really going to shoot at the IAF, it would be with a battery of radar guided SAMs, not anti helo manpads.

The French systems are well known, its doubtful they have something not seen before in Lebanon. Risk of compromise is too high.

As I posted elsewhere on the thread, this is just hot air, and not a real threat or risk.

[Behind the Aegis]

16. FIRST POSTED JANUARY 25, 2007

Why re-print it now? Seems a few here are treating this as if it is a new incident. Was there a new incident?

[Norquist Nemesis]

18. It's not something I recall reading about before now

:shrug:

[Solo_in_MD]

22. Doesn't matter - its blatently false

[Solo_in_MD]

20. Old news and one sided...not to mention patently false

Indeed the IAF is over flying Lebanon, but mock bombing runs charge is silly. This is not Twelve O'clock High or the Bridges at Toko-Ri. Does the author or even the French ground pounder know what a bombing release really looks like? Bombs are not exactly thrown with follow trough. Also recon planes don't circle in pairs over an objective. The French sources and the author are either lying, incompetent, or both. That this story has been told before does not make it any truer than the last time it was pushed.

The picture was of a manpads with IR seeker, but I seriously doubt that is what the French were going to use. At the altitude normally flown over hostile territory, it would be a radar guided SAM systems. Also remember that manpads are not "one shot - one kill" weapons, infact no SAM is. The consequence of launching and missing, or launching at all make the story silly on its face.

An aircraft can tell if a radar is scanning or tracking on its RWR. Going into radar lock on an aircraft, from another airplane or the ground is considered as good as shooting at it. It authorizes defensive actions, including shooting back. However, in tense situations, the reaction may be to take evasive action and wait for a missile to launch before striking back. If the French were indeed seconds from launch, they would have been to been in a tracking mode. Were they doing it, the IAF would be telling the world. Occam's Razor says this is more French foot stamping, and little else.

Also note that the ROE for UN troops is that they cannot shoot unless fired upon, and even then they must attempt to retreat first. It is the ROE that has been followed by UNIFIL with Hezbollah. Seems odd that the French would insist on a different one for the IDF. No wonder their credability is being openly quesitoned. Launching without being attacked means the French would be forced to leave Lebanon, even if the Israelis aircraft immediately after being fired upon stuck back and caused many casualties. The French know thise. and the national ego would not tolerate such exile, so the threats to launch SAMs are just hot air.

This particular French general has been saber rattling on this for some time and as the article says, the IDF thinks he has gone over to the dark side. He would not be the first to do that (in their opinion). His foot stamping has been fruitless, so that should be a lesson for his replacement. Regardless the French lead UNIFIL has been totally ineffective in keeping Hezbollah from rearming. Under those circumstances case can easily be made that until Hezbollah is disarmed and the Lebanese actually control their territory and borders aerial recon patrols are justified.

Perhaps the Italian leadership will succedd where the French have clearly failed.

[alfredo]

31. Ask the survivors of the USS Liberty.