Truemors-1.jpg)
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
UPDATE UNIFIL complicit in Lebanese ambush?
Share:
by tikun | August 3, 2010 at 05:34 am
286 views | 4 Recommendations | 9 comments
Photos
An Israeli soldier was killed, and another wounded, by Lebanese army forces in an apparently pre-planned provocation.
An opinion piece by Well respected journalist Richard Landes said today that:
"Most baffling, and as yet unanswered in military briefings or media coverage is the role of UNIFIL in all of this. UNIFIL has confirmed that the Israeli activity was coordinated with them, that the Lebanese army was aware of the activity, that the IDF was within Israeli territory: there was no reason for the Lebanese to open fire. So from here the questions abound.
It is clear from the photographs and videos issued by international news agencies very quickly after the clash that the incident was prepared for and staged. Photographs and footage was prepared to be sent out within minutes before the truth surfaced, leaving an indelible media impression. It is also clear from the photographs that as the scene unfolds, until seconds before the actual firing takes place, the UNIFIL forces were relaxed and at ease with the snipers and RPG gunners taking careful aim at the Israelis. Then something strange happens. A video shown on Israeli TV, taken and directly translated to Hebrew from Lebanese footage gives the Lebanese version. From about 5 seconds into the video, UNIFIL soldiers start waving and shouting at the Israelis to “stop”, “stop everything”, “get down” and “go back”. Were they staging a show for the cameras? Given that UNIFIL knew that the IDF was in Israeli territory and that there was no reason for the Lebanese to fire, why did they shout at the Israelis to stop? Wouldn’t it have been their job to uphold UN resolutions and tell the Lebanese to hold their fire?
So once again, we seem to have UN complicity in an attempt to blacken Israel. UNRWA, UNIFIL, the UNHRA, the Goldstone report, the list goes on. Every opportunity and every agency of the UN is complicit in the delegitimization of Israel. One has to wonder whether, in this environment, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will reconsider cooperating with the proposed UN inquiry into the flotilla incident.
Two IDF commanders were gravely hurt Tuesday during exchanges of fire between Israeli and Lebanese forces on the northern border, the IDF Northern Command chief told reporters Tuesday.
Speaking at a press briefing, Major General Gadi Eisenkot said Israeli troops encountered a "planned ambush" by Lebanese forces
debkafile's military sources report indications in Beirut and Jerusalem that, despite UNIFIL's call on both sides to exercise "maximum restraint," the incident which flared at 12:30 p.m. may not be over.
On the Israeli side, helicopters, tanks and artillery are in action and all Lebanese units in the south have gone on full alert since President Michel Suleiman, at two p.m. called on the Lebanese people to be prepared to lay down their lives to defend their country and UN Security Council Resolution 1701 which terminated the 2006 war with Israel.
In Jerusalem, Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu urgently consulted with security chiefs on Israel's response to what it sees as Lebanese aggression. The possibility that the Lebanese soldiers who began the shooting were Hizballah gunmen disguised in military uniform is under investigation.
The incident flared when they ordered Israeli troops to stop installing a surveillance camera on the border fence near Kibbutz Misgav-Am opposite the Lebanese village of Adeisseh village. They accused the Israeli soldiers of encroaching on Lebanese territory. When the Israelis replied they had kept to their own side of the border and refused to back down, the Lebanese started shooting.
According to debkafile's military sources, the clash was staged deliberately by the Lebanese side to divert attention from the radical change in the balance of power in Beirut as a result of President Bashar Assad's abrupt switch of patronage from Hizballah's Hassan Nasrallah to Prime Minister Sa'ad Hariri.
To read debkafile's earlier article on the events leading up to this outbreak, click here.
It coincided with a 'major speech' expected later Tuesday by Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the Iranian-backed Hizballah, and came a day after six missiles were fired towards the Jordanian port of Aqaba and Israeli Red Sea resort of Eilat, killing one Jordanian.
By JPOST.COM STAFF
It has been reported that at least three Lebanese soldiers were killed in the clashes that erupted between the IDF and LAF at the northern border Tuesday.
The Foreign Ministry said Tuesday that there were harsh violations of Resolution 1701 in reaction to exchanges of fire between the IDF and Lebanese army forces on the Lebanese border. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman instructed Israel's UN representative to submit a complaint UN secretary general and security council.
Lieberman said that Israel holds the Lebanese government responsible for the very serious incident.
n a statement, the Israeli government blamed Lebanon for provoking the clash, saying it took a particularly grave view of the action as IDF soldiers had been working in complete coordination with UN peacekeepers.
"Israel sees this incident as a violation of UN Security Council resolution 1701, one of a long line of violations, first of which is the massive arming of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon," the statement read. "Israel views the government of Lebanon as responsible for this grave event and warns of possible consequences if these violations continue."
Also on Tuesday there were reports that a Katyusha rocket fired from Lebanon struck the northern Galilee - but police dispatched to the area could find no trace of an impact.
Residents living close to border reported hearing several loud explosions.
Aharon Valensi, head of the Upper Galilee Regional Council, told television news that residents of the area had been told to take cover in bomb shelters.
"We're ready," he said. "The IDF prepared us for situations like this and we just hope that it is only a localized incident."
Israeli military engineering units maintain a security fence along the border with southern Lebanon. The region has traditionally been a stronghold for Hezbollah but regular Lebanese troops returned to the area in 2006 following Israel's summer war with the Shi'a militant group.
A 12,000-strong United Nations peacekeeping force, UNIFIL, is also deployed in the area.
Following news of the incident, UNIFIL issued a statement calling on both armies to show "maximum restraint" and prevent an escalation of hostilities.
Tuesday's clash follows rocket attacks on Monday on the southern city of Eilat and neighboring Aqaba in Jordan, in which a Jordanian citizen was killed and five others were injured.
According to Israeli sources Lebanese army started firing on Israeli forces on the border and it turned into a major skirmish. At least three Lebanese soldiers are known dead and a Lebanese journalist t died of his wounds.
Ynet reports: Explosions rock northern border Tuesday as IDF clashes with Lebanese forces; three Lebanese troops, journalist said to killed; Northern residents in Israel report major blasts, UNIFIL urges both sides to show restraint.
Jpost reports that, “Exchange of fire between IDF and Lebanese troops prompts both Israel and Lebanon to cite violations of UN resolution 1701; FM submits complaint to UN; says Lebanese gov’t is responsible.”
Advertisement
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (9)
at 11:53 on August 3rd, 2010
Is it any surprise that both sides are pointing the finger at each other? The probability is that, to some extent, they are both correct in pointing the finger at each other. Both sides have been known to act in a hostile manner to each other with little or no provocation.
Hezbollah is extremely capable of starting, and capitalizing on such a conflict, and posing in the uniforms of Lebanese troops would be an effective method of instigating just such a confrontation. However, it is equally possible, considering the disputible nature of borders in that region of the world, that the Lebanese army was responding to what they felt was an unlawful intrusion into their territory by Israeli troops.
Both sides have been known to commit atrocities, and resort to acts of terror in order to force their opponents to act in a way that will benefit their cause. Indeed, <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 />Israel prior to proclaiming its nationhood, relied upon acts of terror, prior to, and immediately following, the Second World War, in order to oust the British from what was then the protectorate of Palestine. Hezbollah, equally, is renown for its use of terror tactics, which have forced the international community to acknowledge that, rather than the legitimate military force protecting Lebanese Arabs that they have claimed to be, they are indeed a terrorist organization.
To lay blame in such situations, on one party or the other, becomes nearly impossible for a body such as the UN, which has neither the man-power, nor the inclination, to either enforce a truce, or even investigate properly who truly fired the first shot when said truce is broken.
Either the international community needs to step in, and resolve this issue, through supporting the UN properly, and enforcing the decisions passed by the security council, or else they need to stop interfering in such matters with bureaucratic half measures. Indeed the pontificating inaction of the UN on such past occasions as the genocide in Rwanda, or in the former Yugoslavia, has given it a reputation for being as weak and useless as its predecessor, the League of Nations.
The world stares in shock and disgust at the actions taken by both sides in this seemingly endless conflict. And yet, when asked to respond in some way, we do so by sending bureaucrats in to look at the issue, and come back to say only that something need be done. This self defeating act of meritocracy is the very thing that both sides in the dispute can count on to let them continue committing crimes against humanity. An air strike on a school, or a suicide-bomber in a school bus, they can rest assured, will go unpunished by outside influences. It remains up to them to settle the issue as they see fit. And on both sides, those who suffer the most are those who are the most innocent in it all. Do children on either side choose what race to be, or into what nation they are born? Do the young Israelis who grow up in fear have any choice but to take up arms? And what of the young Arabs, who, through the actions of people dead long before their birth, and who have equally grown up in fear, have options other than to take up arms?
Conflict breeds conflict. That atmosphere of terror that both sides grow up in, inundated with the hatred of their elders to the perceived enemy, raises generation after generation of young men and women who feel their only choice, their only hope for stability, is through force of arms. Both sides have wronged and been wronged. But unless something is done to stop the violence on both sides it can only continue. And unless that something results in a lasting system to ensure the peace, safety, and stability on both sides, the conflict will inevitably return, as was the case in Yugoslavia after the death of Tito. Centuries old conflicts and blood feuds were reignited there. This is the nature of conflict. As was the case under the British Protectorate, when there is a greater mutual enemy, the two sides can put aside their differences. Also, as was the case with Yugoslavia, when there is a powerful charismatic leader, mutual gain outweighs mutual destruction. But once that outside factor is gone, the conflict returns.
To see peace, generations must pass without cause for conflict or hatred towards each other. In the United Kingdom, the violence between Scotland and England eventually abated. There is still conflict between the two nations, however, now it is usually (unless over a foot-ball match or the like) peaceful. This took centuries to be the case, centuries of suspicion distrust, and mutual disdain, tempered, however, with mutual gain, and imposed peace. France and Germany, also, once sworn enemies, now have become so closely allied that they have together formed a military force combining the strengths of both nations, and seek to achieve mutual gain and stability. Trust may not be quick to form, and without a common ground will not last. But if a lasting situation of peace can be established, this centre of conflict that so captivates and terrorizes the world could become a lasting testament to peace and prosperity. That is what the global community should hope for, and what all nations should be striving for. Lasting peace does not form naturally. Human beings are too hardwired towards self interest for that. Lasting peace starts through imposed peace, and forms slowely over time.
at 11:28 on August 3rd, 2010
I like that http://lilwayne-brasil.blogspot.com you can find out more!
at 14:07 on August 3rd, 2010
Sorry but It does turn out in spite of Piobar's remarks, Israeli soldiers were on Israeli soil and UNIFIL in fact was notified that there was going to be maintenance on the fence. Video to prove it. This was a clear provocation by an extremist Lebanese commander and caused the senseless loss of life..
at 14:41 on August 3rd, 2010
I did not deny the possibility that the Lebanese army were responsible. I simply stated that the UN, who are calling for moderation, are incapable, on their own, of giving just cause for the moderation. Moreover, my point was not about laying blame for one incident, but that this is only one small confrontation in a senseless war. Both parties have provoked each other over the years, and will continue to do so, because they have no reason to stop. Why stand down first, when you have no reason to believe your enemy will do the same. It's a classic prisoner's dilema. Whoever backs down, and agrees to peace first puts themselves at risk.
at 21:32 on August 3rd, 2010
All war is senseless. That is why people generally go to war. I must disagree with one part of your editorial. Israel has no interest in WAR..It is NOT in Israel's interest to go to war. It destroys its foundation and economic base. It is more interested in growing and improving. However, the folks and neighbors surrounding us do fit your category. The populations have been hijacked by the terror organizations in order to feed the desire to destroy Israel as a country as it encourages cooperation and creativity in the region.
Also, UNIFIL officially stated that in fact Israeli army did indeed inform them of their work on the fence. The Lebanese army was also informed. This is a sad display of stupidity and waste of life.
at 07:39 on August 4th, 2010
A sad, stupid waste of life, yes. I must disagree about <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 />Israel's willingness to go to war. As they have economic and technological superiority in the region, any conflict, without outside intervention, will end, as have all previous confrontations, in Israel's favour.
Moreover, as long as the Israeli government can come off looking like the victim of the confrontation, it can legitimize many acts as self defence, which in other connotations would be ascribed as war-crimes. I do not take sides on the issues facing the Middle East. I feel for the people on both sides, who get hurt, by and large, as “collateral damage” or in some vain attempt to subjugate through terror. It is an unfortunate fact that both sides of this seemingly endless confrontation are forced to accept that only through force of arms are they likely to achieve stability and safety. This leads to an endless spiral of fear, hatred, and further conflict. The point I was trying to make is that the tendency of western powers to verbally back one side or the other, while taking no action one way or another, to try and stop the violence, to the benefit of all, only further adds fuel to the flames. Both sides have their legitimate grievances. The more powerful nations of the world respond by hard words for or against one side or the other. But for a variety of reasons, those same nations seem content to sit back and let two peoples be forever locked in a struggle of mutual destruction. There is no value in this. There are, however, wars that are of value, and for a good cause. Going to war against the likes of Adolf Hitler, for example, was a justifiable conflict. The sad thing is that the other nations of the world waited so long, while he carved up Europe, and massacred Jews, Poles, Blacks, Homosexuals, Socialists, the disabled, and anyone else he saw as “lesser” levels of humanity. Going to war for reasons of race, religion, or economy may be unjust. In fact, I have written a number of essays in past to this very point. You can, by and large, show that the great majority of conflicts through world history have been geared towards economic and political gain, even when religion, race, or national security are the given causes. Was the Crusader era a time of heightened faith in Christianity over previous times in that religion’s history? To some extent. Was Crusading seen by the majority of the knights and nobles who rode off on those endeavours as a way to expand their estates and gain more capital assets? Where the French wars of religion truly only about a trifling thing such as how one should show faith, and who should hold authority over it? Is it not the case that the Protestant faction were able to use the poverty of French protestants to mobilize them to the cause of placing a different Monarch on the French throne and in so doing establish a regime in which they had greater influence. Wars are by and large motivated by capital gains, or the potential to achieve them. But not always. Who gained, economically, from the defeat of Hitler? The Americans, certainly, but what of France, Great Britain, Russia, China? These nations bankrupt themselves in the pursuit of his fall from power. Why? To what gain? World stability? An end to the genocidal reign of a sociopath? The answers are not clear cut, but likely a combination of factors. Yet all just, sensible, and calculated. The only disappointing part of it is these nations took to long to do these calculations, and in the interim, so many innocent men women and children were put to death, or enslaved, for no crime other than birth. There are just, sensible wars. Sadly, there are far more wars motivated for reasons of self interest and greed. This is not a war to protect human rights, or bring peace to all parties. It is time outside powers stop fanning the flames. That is my only point. I agree that most wars are senseless, and I agree that the evidence, this time, shows the Lebanese to be in the wrong. But this is the latest in a long line of senseless flare-ups, for which both sides of this conflict have some resplonsibility. Indeed, at one time, Lebabon would have been the greatest Ally of Israel in the area, as the only other predominately non-Muslim state. It was through Palestinian refugees flooding into the south of that nation that the demographics changed. And still, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, around the world, I hold out hopes (and I am sure that others will support my somewhat naive hopes) that the great poet, Robbie Burns was right when he said "It's coming yet for a' that, that man to man the world o'er, shall brothers be, for all that."at 12:41 on August 4th, 2010
Piabar I am not going to get in a tit for tat but when you make statements such as "Moreover, as long as the Israeli government can come off looking like the victim of the confrontation, it can legitimize many acts as self defence, which in other connotations would be ascribed as war-crimes." It only shows your real intent. What can I say, if someone is crazy enough to attack me the best I can do is kill him first period. If that is a "war crime" then so be it.
BTW, you certainly do take sides. Read your own rants..
at 13:04 on August 4th, 2010
hypocracy and name calling to not lessen my argument that both sides have been prone to acts of violence. I am neither for nor against either side in the conflict. Read the history, both sides have used bloodshed, unjustifiably. My "rants" may seem to take sides, but the point in that is simply to spark conversation about an issue that I am interested in. My views often greatly differ than the arguments I articulate. I am infamous among my friends for playing the devils advocate. If I have hurt your feelings, by attempting to draw attention to things that perhaps were missed, or omited, that was not my intent. Again, as I have said throughout I would much rather see both sides lay down their arms. I cannot see that happening because of a long standing climate of fear, without some new factor entering the equation. What that will be, I do not know, but I hope it comes soon, to the benefit of all involed. No tit for tat intended.
at 03:44 on August 5th, 2010
There is an old saying in these parts. If the Palestinian govts: Fatah and Hamas were to lay down their arms and their intent to destroy Israel there would be peace in a minute. If Israel were to lay down their arms we would be finished in a flash. That is the reality here. It is sometimes very hard for some people to understand the the fanaticism of a Hamas, Hezbullah and their capabilities.
Pie in the sky has no margin of error here. One screw up and there isn't an Israel any longer.