The United Nations got pledges of 3,500 troops for an expanded UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon, but it was unclear whether the soldiers represented the right mix of countries and units and could deploy very quickly. Bangladesh made the largest offer of up to 2,000 troops, but France offered just 200 new troops, a disappointment to some who expected more from the country likely to lead the force...
According to UN diplomats, Bangladesh pledged two mechanized infantry battalions, Indonesia pledges one mechanized battalion and an engineering company, Malaysia pledged one mechanized battalion and Nepal pledged one mechanized battalion. Battalions range from 600 to 1,000 soldiers.
All I have to say is, "Thank God." The last thing I want to see are major European and American powers patrolling a supposedly demilitarized zone between Hezbollah and Israel. That's like asking for World War III.
Oh wait...that's what this whole thing was premised on to begin with.
And on one last note, life, such as it is, continues in Gaza:
Crushed cars, looking like crumpled soda cans, lie at the side of the road. The tank's revenge. Here is the home of the Al-Masri family in Beit Hanoun: 13 souls and one tank that plowed through the living room as it went on its way. It drove forward and backward ? and the corner house was gone. Why? What happened? Now 13 people are homeless.
They sit among the ruins of what was once their home, with no ceiling, no hope. Youssef-Shafiq, the father, says in poetic Hebrew: "On Monday, July 17, this huge tank came. It passed once, passed twice; on Monday, it entered the house. We were sitting where we are sitting now. We yelled: Stop! Stop! He didn't hear. Iron crushed iron. He doesn't hear, doesn't know. He doesn't know old people, doesn't know children, doesn't know women ? just moves forward and destroys, destroys and goes. I have never seen a human being like that. He has no pity. There is no person like that in the world. He drove backward and did it deliberately. The girl stood like a pillar in front of the tank. She saw the tank with her own eyes."
Here's more news about Palestinians and Lebanon.
Enjoy your day.
- saurav's blog
- Login or register to post comments
-
Saurav, thanks for putting this up.
.
If only 1) the UN troops could actually do something, and 2) it made a difference whether they were European and American or not!
The UN troops, realistically, can't do anything. The word "troops" is misleading. They are not a military entity- the UN doesn't have such a body. They cannot intervene with arms in any conflict. The "Blue Helmets" cannot respond with fire. This is why many state that they can "only stand by helplessly" when there are, for example, massacres. One example of this is the Sabra and Shatila massacre. There had been UN troops and an "multinational peacekeeping force,", but they couldn't effectively intervene. Even if they are given a "mandate" to take over military aspects, it largely hasn't been so. The UN website states:
Despite a "mandate" that would give the UN authority to shoot back, the UN webpage also concedes (in its own, round about way:)
Furthermore, the New York Times states:
In addition, having UN troops doesn't mean that the warring parties will actually cease hostilities, and that the UN itself will not become a target. Recall that Israel in fact targeted the UN in 1998 (correct year? In Qana, the link I provided on another post) as well as this time when 4 UN observers were killed:
The question one should ask is: why, after more than 850 dead Lebanese, would Israel now "hand over" the situation to UN troops? Basically because 1) the UN is a benign presence, 2) Israel can still strike if it wants to (as it has done in the past), and 3) the presence of UN troops gives the facade of some sort of international involvement, when in fact, Israel's only allies in this war have been the US and the UK.
There's more to say, but must run!
Because the combination of mounting international pressure, the difficulty of gaining territory and the advantage of the territory they have gained have made this, apparently, the best option for them in the eyes of the Olmert government. What I want to know is what they're going to do if/when Hezbollah controls the Lebanese government.
What "combination of mounting international pressure?" As far as I can see, there really is not any "mounting international pressure." The fact that all the other countries are not diplomatically backing Israel doesn't present any formidable and real obstacle. And even if there were this international pressure, it's not like it ultimately matters, since Israel is backed by the US. Now, the fact that the US and the UK are virtually the only two countries to back up Israel, with arms when needed, gives Israel the upper hand in any political/military contention-- with or without the UN "troops." But having the UN present on the scene gives the entire invasion of Lebanon some sort of legitimacy (well, maybe "legitimacy" is not the right word. How about "now that we've razed Beirut to the ground and decidedly have the upper hand, we can let in the 'international community' so as to give the sense that there is an 'international presence'?") Let's say it is a "diplomatic illusion."
Plus, it's not like now that the UN troops are there, Israel is just going to hand over the situation to the UN troops and the UN troops are going to be some sort of "middleman" or "broker." Like I said, the warring parties make the ultimate choice.
If anyone is interested,
Full Text of the UN Lebanon Resolution
Well, as you pointed out, no national governments except the UK and the U.S. supported Israel. But more to the point, in the court of world public opinion, Israel was clearly the loser. Imo, that's one of several factors (though by no means the only one) that led to this ceasefire. I do think that credibility ultimately does matter, particularly for 2nd-tier powers like Israel.
I don't disagree with you though that the whole thing was machiavellian. It seemed pretty clear even before the ceasefire that the U.S. and Israel were stalling for enough time for Israel to carve out as much territory as possible (or perhaps it was the other way around and they were waiting for Israel to carve out the territory it wanted and then agreed to "an immediate" ceasefire--though i suspect Israel didn't get everything it wanted, even by its modified post-"oh, hezbollah is not disappearing" goals).
Yeah, I agree with you. But credibility matters not only for 2nd tier powers, but for the superpower as well. Remember to what incredible, specious lengths the US went to "prove" that Iraq had WMD as a justification to invade Iraq? Then, once they got there, they felt no need to back that claim up, even when it become increasingly evident that in fact, Iraq had no WMD- the very pretense upon which the US launched its invasion in the first place.
Same with Israel-- in the beginning it was the pretext of three captured soldiers as a justification for invading Lebanon and stepping up the offensive in Gaza; but now that they have effectively invaded, no need to talk about soldiers.
Too bad some people don't get to sit in the dock at the ICC.
Israel violates truce:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14420157/
Italiana, to be fair to UN peacekeepers, I dont think they were anywhere in the vicinity of Sabra and Shatila during the massacres. That territory was still controlled by the withdrawing Israeli army, which surrounded the camps entirely at the time that they allowed the Phalange milita in. But on the other hand, yes, there have been Srebrenica and several other examples. Still, if you were a Palestinian refugee living in a camp, you'd probably be happy to pick Bangla blue-helmets over the IDF led by Ariel Sharon.
This is true. On this, you are totally right.
True again, but what could the Bangla blue-helmets be able to do?! Israel has already violated the ceasefire! What's more is that the "rules of engagement" are not clear, which is why all the rich countries (ie France) are hesitant to volunteer their respective blue helmets. So Bangladeshi blue helmets will be in the "cross fire," so to speak, in a situation where their role is not clearly defined.
Or, has their been a recent development and the rules of engagement have been defined? Haven't checked the news yet....