I am not an expert on UNIFIL and its mandates. I will defer to your assessment of the utility of UNIFIL in allowing Israel to withdraw from Lebanon. I was certainly not a fan of the Israeli presence in Lebanon and am very happy that we are no longer there. Any role that UNIFIL may have played at the strategic/political level in this withdrawal is a good one in my book.
From the perspective of an Israeli infantry soldier who served a fair amount of time in the "security zone" and beyond, however, I would suggest that it is not difficult to see why many Israelis have a dim view of UNIFIL. On numerous occasions, UNIFIL soldiers allowed armed groups to approach our positions without offering fair warning, without trying to divert them, or disarm them. This cost us in blood. On the other hand, UNIFIL units regularly warned off armed groups in Southern Lebanon to the presence of our ambushes and patrols. This also cost us in blood. In other words, we had a very hard time regarding UNIFIL as neutral buffer forces. I can certainly understand that UNIFIL soldiers had a hard time staying neutral in this conflict. I can also certainly understand their lack of empathy for IDF soldiers operating on Lebanese soil. To us, however, the UNIFIL soldiers were not nearly as benign, neutral, and useful as your post makes them out to be. To us they were a serious operational liability, and their actions frequently cost us dearly. Given the (unfortunate) inability of senior Israeli politicians and officers to forget their glory days in the military and their tendency to think in the tactical terms of infantry NCOs or special forces operators it is also not surprising that they would view UNIFIL in this way.
Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
On UNIFIL (Updated)
Supporters of Israel are used to seeing that country get something decidedly less than a fair shake in the halls of the United Nations in New York, and I sympathize with them. But no organization has more selflessly served Israeli interests with so little appreciation as the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). On the one hand, and as I have written, UNIFIL has often failed to prevent hostilities from erupting along the border with southern Lebanon and northern Israel on account of, primarily, weak mandates from the Security Council as well as an inability to address the drivers of conflict. On the other hand, though, does anyone in Israel care to imagine how, exactly, the IDF would have extracted itself from southern Lebanon in August of 2006 without the face-saving announcement and deployment of a beefed-up UNIFIL? And does anyone remember the 258 U.N. peacekeepers who have died in southern Lebanon, most of them hailing from countries with no national interests in the Middle East, and several of them on the receving end of Israeli artillery barrages? This week, UNIFIL asked the IDF to delay tree-trimming operations along the border, the IDF refused, and people on both sides of the border were killed as a result. After the shooting stopped, though, UNIFIL backed up the IDF's claims with respect to the Blue Line, and U.S. pundits like Jeffrey Goldberg and Max Boot acted as if this was a once-in-a-lifetime event. I have spent a lot of time hanging out with the great men and women serving in UNIFIL in southern Lebanon and have particularly enjoyed visits to the long-serving Irish and Indian battalions. These guys don't get the credit they deserve for essentially putting their lives on the line in someone else's fight. And maybe if Israeli political leaders were not so quick to dismiss UNIFIL as a "joke" (Itamar Rabinovich) and "useless" (Ehud Olmert), IDF officers might pay a little more attention to UNIFIL's advice and fewer avoidable casualities would result.
[By the way, if any Israelis out there are looking to blame someone for the death of Dov Harari, they can start in, well, Tampa. In the annals of poorly timed press releases, this and this take the cake. (h/t Mitch and Josh)]
Update: A reader's objection.
Many thanks to the IDF veteran who wrote this. I can't defend or criticize UNIFIL's actions during the 1990s, though I am sure a response from an officer during that time would include a statement to the effect that it was not the job of UNIFIL to make Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon easier -- quite the opposite: one of UNIFIL's three core missions was to confirm an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, which they finally did in 2000. Also, I would point out that UNIFIL and Hizballah (less so Amal or other armed groups) had a pretty nasty relationship until the late 1990s. UNIFIL posts and convoys were frequently assaulted by Hizballah, so it's not as if the two were in cahoots with one another, even if it seemed that way to members of the IDF and SLA. Finally, in response to another comment, I am on the record as being very criticial of Israeli operations and strategy in southern Lebanon in the 1990s and in 2006. But that doesn't mean I have taken a "side". If anything, speaking as someone who rather likes Israel and Israelis, the incompetence of Israeli operations in southern Lebanon especially pains me because it has resulted in both the weakening of Israel and the suffering of the people of Lebanon, for whom I also have a well-documented soft spot in my heart. As far as UNIFIL is concerned, meanwhile, I have plenty of criticism for them elsewhere.
TMZ has learned Montana
TMZ has learned Montana Fishburne is starring in a porno flick for Vivid Entertainment -- explaining, "I've watched how successful Kim Kardashian became and I think a lot of it was due to the release of her sex tape."
http://www.tmz.com/2010/07/30/laurence-fishburne-daughter-porn-star-xxx-...
Why is there still trouble
Why is there still trouble on the Lebanese/Israeli border after Israel withdrew its forces under Barak?
To me, this picture says a great deal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Edward_Said_thowing_a_stone_at_Israeli...
Oh, man. I don't even know
Oh, man. I don't even know where to start, so I won't. I'm once again amazed to find just how hard it is for you to see the Israeli side, or even the non-Lebanese side, when it comes to this particular area of conflict-- in spite of a reasoned attention to nuance in nearly all other matters.
Real life preventing me from writing the multi-chapter essay this deserves in rebuttal. But i do wish SNLII were back on this blog to do it for me. Maybe i'll be back when real life goes away to start on the list of failures, incompetences, and fingers-on-one-side-of-the-scale this requires.
I am not an expert on UNIFIL
I am not an expert on UNIFIL and its mandates. I will defer to your assessment of the utility of UNIFIL in allowing Israel to withdraw from Lebanon. I was certainly not a fan of the Israeli presence in Lebanon and am very happy that we are no longer there. Any role that UNIFIL may have played at the strategic/political level in this withdrawal is a good one in my book.
From the perspective of an Israeli infantry soldier who served a fair amount of time in the "security zone" and beyond, however, I would suggest that it is not difficult to see why many Israelis have a dim view of UNIFIL. On numerous occasions, UNIFIL soldiers allowed armed groups to approach our positions without offering fair warning, without trying to divert them, or disarm them. This cost us in blood. On the other hand, UNIFIL units regularly warned off armed groups in Southern Lebanon to the presence of our ambushes and patrols. This also cost us in blood. In other words, we had a very hard time regarding UNIFIL as neutral buffer forces. I can certainly understand that UNIFIL soldiers had a hard time staying neutral in this conflict. I can also certainly understand their lack of empathy for IDF soldiers operating on Lebanese soil. To us, however, the UNIFIL soldiers were not nearly as benign, neutral, and useful as your post makes them out to be. To us they were a serious operational liability, and their actions frequently cost us dearly. Given the (unfortunate) inability of senior Israeli politicians and officers to forget their glory days in the military and their tendency to think in the tactical terms of infantry NCOs or special forces operators it is also not surprising that they would view UNIFIL in this way.
Anybody else confirms that
Anybody else confirms that UNIFIL asked Israel to delay the operation, except rabid Gideon Levy? And if it would be delayed, what would change? Lebanese deployed a sniper team to kill Israelis, you think they would back down?
FYI, your pdf link is borked.
FYI, your pdf link is borked.
Yeah, UNIFIL has actually
Yeah, UNIFIL has actually confirmed this: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/08/20108415406224759.html // I have not seen an IDF statement in response.Israelis' antipathy towards
Israelis' antipathy towards UNIFIL is rooted in their ineffectiveness at disarming Hezbollah, and their perceived role in protecting it. UNIFIL is ostensibly there to keep the peace, but under their watch Hezbollah has rearmed with more, bigger, and better rockets since the last Lebanon war. UNIFIL has also been ineffective at stopping attacks against Israel (like the one that set off the last war). At the same time, UNIFIL provides a shield for Hezbollah operations, since any Israeli action to prevent a Hezbollah attack must be weighed not just against the consequences of breaching Lebanese sovereignty, but also against the consequences of imperiling UN soldiers. Recall, for example, Hezbollah's use of firing positions very close to UN bases during the last war, secure in the knowledge that any Israeli counter-fire could accidentally strike UN positions and escalate into an embarrassing (and tragic) international incident.
When UNIFIL is dismissed as a "joke," it is not intended as a slight against the soldiers carrying out the mission. It is because the organization that sent them and the leadership that directs them are perceived to be completely ineffectual at protecting Israel from Hezbollah (whose stated aim is to destroy Israel), while limiting Israel's ability to respond to a very real threat. This isn't exactly the peacekeeper-as-neutral-arbiter role which UNIFIL is supposed to fulfill.
As to whether or not the deaths in this latest incident were avoidable, I'll leave that to more capable military analysts than myself. I would ask, however, how "spontaneous" this incident was, given the reporters that just happened to be on the scene, the Lebanese sniper that was in position to fire, and the fact that the one soldier he hit was the highest ranking Israeli officer on the scene at a fixed position well away from where the tree was being cut down.
some clarifications 1)
some clarifications
1) "Annan asserted that "dismantling Hezbollah is not the direct mandate of the UN," which could only help Lebanon disarm the organization.[5] Annan then said on August 25, 2006, "The understanding was that it would be the Lebanese who would disarm [Hezbollah]" and that "Obviously, if at some stage they need advice or some help from the international community and they were to approach us, we would consider it, but the troops are not going in there to disarm."[6]" (wikipedia)
Demanding that UNIFIL (with its limited resources and mandate) will disarm the Hezbollah is ridiculous. Only a future strong Lebanese state can do that. In the current situation only an operation of the size of the current coalition interventions in Iraq/Afghanistan could do that. The 2006 Israeli intervention with precisely that aim; involving 30000 Israeli soldiers (with total air superiority) against 3000 die-hard Hizbollah fighters ended in an epic failure. Then demanding that others go and "die for Israel" is borderline insulting.
2) Lebanon is actually in a state of war with Israel. So that LAF soldiers snipe Israelis isn't very strange. The only blame that could be given is that they "broke a truce". But as much can be said of the Israeli daily overflights.
3) a lot has been said that the famous trees were on "Israeli territory". In reality they were on DISPUTED territory. The Blue Line isn't a border but a demarcation line, which is very different. As a rule entering (more or less) uncharted territory in a buffer zone round a demarcation line is always very risky. Specially when it has to do with an enclave.
The Lebanese sniper took out
The Lebanese sniper took out a high ranking officer who stood 300 yards away in a rear command post. IDF witnesses said the sniper was hidden far away, and not part of the soldiers caught on video, standing 50 yards away from the Israelis. This makes the whole ordeal appear exceptionally like a semi-planned confrontation, instead of a 'miscalculation' or random flare of tension.
Regarding UNIFIL's role I very much appreciate the infantry soldier's perspective and I'll add two more tidbits from an Intel point of view.
First, it is widely believed (based on intelligence reports) that UNIFIL often knows about Hezbullah arms smuggling and arms caches set up in civilian buildings, but the issue is intentionally down played, and any evidence of such events are routinely denied by UNIFIL spokespeople. According to various evidence, this happens both by intentionally 'looking the other way' when possible, and sometimes actively suppressing evidence and witness accounts from official reports. Even recently on several occasions where the odd weapons cache exploded, UNIFIL pretty much shrugged and allowed Hezbulla clear the area before running inspections.
This defeats all arms proliferation clauses in 1701, and makes UNIFIL an active accomplice in Hezbullah's double game. In case of conflict, Israel would have no choice but strike weapons caches in Lebanese villages, yet UNIFIL publicly supports a false Hezballah propaganda, by which there are no weapons caches there. This goes very much against Israeli best interests, and puts UNIFIL in a non-neutral position.
The second tidbit, is similar in nature only dating to Sep. 2000. I can't vouch for this, but rumor has it UNIFIL soldiers knew ahead of time something was going down, on the morning of the kidnapping of 3 Israeli soldiers. Yet this info was not passed to Israel, and no attempts were made to foil Hezbullah's plans.
It is an established fact, that during Hezballah's escape, the car carrying the kidnapped IDF soldiers stopped for refueling and service in a UNIFIL base.
UNIFIL is in practice willing to silently go along with any Hezbullah provocation, diversion or stunt. This does not make it trustworthy in Israeli eyes, and most IDF soldiers feel quite a lot of animosity.
The Lebanese sniper took out
The Lebanese sniper took out a high ranking officer who stood 300 yards away in a rear command post. IDF witnesses said the sniper was hidden far away, and not part of the soldiers caught on video, standing 50 yards away from the Israelis. This makes the whole ordeal appear exceptionally like a semi-planned confrontation, instead of a 'miscalculation' or random flare of tension.
Regarding UNIFIL's role I very much appreciate the infantry soldier's perspective and I'll add two more tidbits from an Intel point of view.
First, it is widely believed (based on intelligence reports) that UNIFIL often knows about Hezbullah arms smuggling and arms caches set up in civilian buildings, but the issue is intentionally down played, and any evidence of such events are routinely denied by UNIFIL spokespeople. According to various evidence, this happens both by intentionally 'looking the other way' when possible, and sometimes actively suppressing evidence and witness accounts from official reports. Even recently on several occasions where the odd weapons cache exploded, UNIFIL pretty much shrugged and allowed Hezbulla clear the area before running inspections.
This defeats all arms proliferation clauses in 1701, and makes UNIFIL an active accomplice in Hezbullah's double game. In case of conflict, Israel would have no choice but strike weapons caches in Lebanese villages, yet UNIFIL publicly supports a false Hezballah propaganda, by which there are no weapons caches there. This goes very much against Israeli best interests, and puts UNIFIL in a non-neutral position.
The second tidbit, is similar in nature only dating to Sep. 2000. I can't vouch for this, but rumor has it UNIFIL soldiers knew ahead of time something was going down, on the morning of the kidnapping of 3 Israeli soldiers. Yet this info was not passed to Israel, and no attempts were made to foil Hezbullah's plans.
It is an established fact, that during Hezballah's escape, the car carrying the kidnapped IDF soldiers stopped for refueling and service in a UNIFIL base.
UNIFIL is in practice willing to silently go along with any Hezbullah provocation, diversion or stunt. This does not make it trustworthy in Israeli eyes, and most IDF soldiers feel quite a lot of animosity.
Hard to feel any sympathy
Hard to feel any sympathy for Israel when shooting individuals for the crime of standing too close to a badly demarcated border is its modus operandi.
Boo-effin-hoo.
And didn't Israel invade Lebanon and kill two thousand people a couple of years ago, or did I imagine that?
"Unifil asked Israel to
"Unifil asked Israel to delay cutting down the trees in order to "facilitate an agreement between the two parties," le Roy said. The Israeli army delayed the operation by several hours, but le Roy said the UN would have liked a longer delay".
That in a nutshell is an explanation why Israel is so short-tempered with UNIFIL. Lebanese don't answer the phones for several hours, and UNIFIL demands "more time" - from Israel, with the obvious intent that the planned routine maintenance will be cancelled - just as Lebanese wanted. In fact, the Lebanese used the time to prepare the ambush and to invite journalists to film their "heroic deed". And you demand that Israelis respect UNIFIL? We all know what happens to peacekeepers who take their job seriously in Lebanon. They get blown apart by Hezbollah. Those who want to live make deals with the devil. Sometimes it ends up in some Israeli shells, but it still better than certain death.
Maybe we can have UNIFIL
Maybe we can have UNIFIL guard the Cordoba House mosque at Ground Zero.
From us.
Then, after we get our point across to the UN, HezbAlAmiriki style, the UN will start taking us seriously again.
Abu Muqawama, I have read
Abu Muqawama,
I have read the exact opposite of what you've linked to, that Israel was asked by UNIFIL to delay the tree-clearing operation not once, but twice, and complied. The original operation was scheduled for 8am, and it was subsequently rescheduled for 11am, after agreement on all sides, then delayed again. Here's a rundown from a press conference by the IDF, which al Jazeera either did not attend, or did not bother reporting.
Btw, what's up with quoting "facts" from Gideon Levy and al Jazeera? Even if you find them credible sources, you should know that many people don't, particularly when it comes to Israel coverage, exposing the facts you present to unnecessary doubt and contention.
Also troubling is that certain people consider it perfectly natural that the Israelis should give Lebanon a veto over what happens in Israeli territory, whether that's trimming bushes or whatever. You really believe this is the way to prevent conflict, Andrew? Or will it embolden the Lebanese, Hezbollah, LAF, whatever, to make further claims on Israel's sovereign rights? Isn't that what happened? If Israel had put the fence right up to the border and established guard towers with heavy weapon emplacements and sniper nests, somehow I don't think the Lebanese would be so bold as to start taking head shots at innocent people half a kilometer inside Israel.
This incident is reminiscent of the "demilitarized zones" - all of them in Israeli territory - established by the UN on the Israeli-Syrian border after 1948. The Israelis considered the zones to be their sovereign territory, which they were, and reasonably understood "demilitarized" to mean that the zones were to be free of military equipment. The Syrians, however, considered the "demilitarized zones" - again, all in Israeli territory - to be an area of dispute and a partial extension of their sovereignty . If Israeli farmers tried to plow the land, they were shot. Israeli tractors trying to cultivate the land were subject to artillery bombardment, which usually extended beyond the zones to Israeli villages throughout the border area. The "demilitarized zones" were ended when Syria got its ass handed to it in '67.
@Visitor boo effin hoo, Yes,
@Visitor boo effin hoo,
Yes, you imagined it, unless we count 4 years as a couple.
And BTW Lebanon invaded Israel first. Yep. Way back in 1948, with 2200 people.
We'll end Israel's problems when we finally pull out of the UN.
Because that's the last thing propping up this farce.
Abu Muqawama, If even half
Abu Muqawama,
If even half of what I've read above is true, I'm not certain how you can first claim that the UNIFIL "serves Israeli interests", and simultaneously claim no bias.
I'm also unsure why cutting trees in an authorized area, at some scheduled time, deserves a violent response. The UNIFIL wanted to await their deployed commander's return, and this was the reason for delaying the clearing? And failure to await the UNIFIL commander's return from abroad led to attacks on the tree cutters and that was Israel's culpability? Why exactly? And what would he do differently, that his magical presence would have avoided the attacks on Israeli tree clearers? Life does go on when the commander is gone and it's actually his responsibility to be there for critical events or place another in charge. It isn't Israel's responsibility to await the commander's return. Surely this is a stab at humor? Belongs on Saturday night live.
Add your comment