Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unifil(3)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Shame the US didn't bother reading the current mandate (it's a key part of the LAF's job (supported by UNIFIL)).

    I wonder will they contribute more troops (50 military personnel deployed on UN ops, 0 with UNIFIL) ?

    Wonder how much they owe the UN ?

    Comment


    • Did not the uge Orange mess recently praise the Lebanese pm for defeating hizb. Even tho hizb are partners in the current Lebanon government?
      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

      Comment


      • Well, Israel will do what they always do and ignore the UN and Lebanon's opinions anyway and they will ignore the Yanks when it suits them, so Haley is talking shite. If the UN got into a shooting match with Hizbollah, whose troops are currently getting lots of combat experience in Syria, it would simply result in pointless UN deaths and not US or Israeli deaths. No thanks.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
          Well, Israel will do what they always do and ignore the UN and Lebanon's opinions anyway and they will ignore the Yanks when it suits them, so Haley is talking shite. If the UN got into a shooting match with Hizbollah, whose troops are currently getting lots of combat experience in Syria, it would simply result in pointless UN deaths and not US or Israeli deaths. No thanks.
          Another shooting match

          Comment


          • If this was to happen it needs to work both ways, more power to UNIFIL to end the occupation of Lebanese territory by Israel as well as the multiple daily incursions.
            It is the occupation and incursions that gives Hezbollah the excuse to exist.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
              If this was to happen it needs to work both ways, more power to UNIFIL to end the occupation of Lebanese territory by Israel as well as the multiple daily incursions.
              It is the occupation and incursions that gives Hezbollah the excuse to exist.
              But would Hizbollah stop if Israel cease to occupy parts of Lebanon?

              What about the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza (I don't know if they are involved in the other Occupied Territories or not)?

              Comment


              • Israel flapping now over the hairies new and improved combat experience..

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                  But would Hizbollah stop if Israel cease to occupy parts of Lebanon?

                  What about the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza (I don't know if they are involved in the other Occupied Territories or not)?
                  The original newspaper headline is a bit out of date by more than 10 years. To say the mission should be expanded is wrong as the mandate and mission was expanded with Resolution 1701 back in 2006. Since then the mandate has contained the following paragraph:

                  Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL deployed in this area.

                  This means that only UNIFIL and LAF should have military assets within the operational area of UNIFIL. Sadly this is not the case and the Lebanese has said that it does not intend to enforce this element of the Resolution 1701.

                  The reason given by the Lebanese government for not disarming Hezbollah is that they are a “freedom fighter” organisation. This is based upon the assertion that the area known as Shab’a Farms is occupied by Israeli forces. To understand the issue it is necessary to go back to the 1920’s when what had been the Ottoman Empire was carved up. The countries we know today first came into being during this time, they had never before existed as nation states and the lines drawn on the maps in Europe were not always the best. Due to the usual high level of Gallic efficient that is to be expected from the French the maps did not always match the reality on the ground. Prior to the 1967 war there had been some discussion between Syria and the Lebanon over where the border actually was but nothing was agreed or changed before Israel occupied the Golan and thus also the area of Shab’a Farms.

                  It is the 1967 border line that the UN has recognised and set down in the definition of the withdrawal line in order to comply with Resolution 425. And this is what the Israelis have complied with. There was some discussion in 2007 and a proposal made but neither Syria or Israel has responded and without a Tripartite Agreement the internationally border remains that of 1967. That Syria sometime says it believes the Farms are part of Lebanon should not been seen as them agreeing to give the land away, more it should be remembered that Syria considers all of Lebanon as part of the old Kingdom of Syria!

                  The issue of Shab’a Farms is useful for both Hezbollah and the Lebanese government for different reason. For Hezbollah it gives them something to rally their supporters around, to claim that they are still needed to free Lebanon from the Israelis. For the Lebanese government this gives them a reason why they should not disarm Hezbollah, which is handy as if they did try to do that then the risk of another all-out civil war is high.

                  But would Hezbollah disarm if Israel withdrew from the Shab’a Farms……NO. They provide a good rallying point but the goal of Hezbollah is the complete elimination of the State of Israel, the elimination of any Western influence or ideals and the setting up of an Islamic State similar to that of their paymasters Iran. It is Iran that calls the tunes by Hezbollah; it was Iran that ordered them into Syria to fight for their ally. The Iranians provide the financial and military support that makes Hezbollah the force it is today. And the reason is not hard to find as the elimination of Israel is stated policy. They know they could never attack directly Israel without risking a nuclear war so they use proxies such as Hezbollah.

                  As for the fight within the Palestinian Territories they are not active this has to do with their support comes from Shia communities while most Palestinians are Sunni. Hamas is the main militant organisation and is mainly Sunni, it was initially funded by Saudi and Gulf nations but due to pressure from the US these funds dried up. But following the old adage “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” the Iranian jumped in to fill some of the gap, even if Hamas is Sunni. But we could be assured that is somehow Israeli was to vanish tomorrow this brotherly love would soon disappear and Hezbollah and Hamas would be fighting each other.

                  The UNIFIL mandate is up for renewal at the end of this month and so the statements of the General Secretary and that of Ambassador Haley can be understood. This is especially when we consider that next year UNIFIL will celebrate its 40th birthday. 40 years and still no end of the mission in sight, this cannot be! It must be our goal to have a normalisation of the relationship between Lebanon and Israel. That the Lebanon can once again become the shining light in the region it was before the start of the Civil war. And here Hezbollah is a major blocking point if not the blocking point. Just as we have had the disarmament of the paramilitaries in our own local conflict so it must be in the Lebanon.

                  But maybe even today there are too many elements with make such a move impossible. One is Iran and its regional power struggle with the Saudis. The Iranians would never allow their proxy arm in the Lebanon to be disbanded or disarmed. Then there are the contributor nations who do not recognise Israel and might not take any action to disarm Hezbollah. Even if they did are there enough and sufficient resources to do the disarming. But the main block is that of the objection of the Lebanese government, unless they support the moves nothing can happen.

                  Could the extension of the mandate be vetoed? Maybe, it could be a possibility even if unlikely. And it is not as if there are no other areas in the world where a UN force could be deployed, the list is long: Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Mali, Chad, Afghanistan, Iraq, South Sudan, Sudan, Congo and not forgetting East Ukraine!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                    The original newspaper headline is a bit out of date by more than 10 years. To say the mission should be expanded is wrong as the mandate and mission was expanded with Resolution 1701 back in 2006. Since then the mandate has contained the following paragraph:

                    Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL deployed in this area.

                    This means that only UNIFIL and LAF should have military assets within the operational area of UNIFIL. Sadly this is not the case and the Lebanese has said that it does not intend to enforce this element of the Resolution 1701.

                    The reason given by the Lebanese government for not disarming Hezbollah is that they are a “freedom fighter” organisation. This is based upon the assertion that the area known as Shab’a Farms is occupied by Israeli forces. To understand the issue it is necessary to go back to the 1920’s when what had been the Ottoman Empire was carved up. The countries we know today first came into being during this time, they had never before existed as nation states and the lines drawn on the maps in Europe were not always the best. Due to the usual high level of Gallic efficient that is to be expected from the French the maps did not always match the reality on the ground. Prior to the 1967 war there had been some discussion between Syria and the Lebanon over where the border actually was but nothing was agreed or changed before Israel occupied the Golan and thus also the area of Shab’a Farms.

                    It is the 1967 border line that the UN has recognised and set down in the definition of the withdrawal line in order to comply with Resolution 425. And this is what the Israelis have complied with. There was some discussion in 2007 and a proposal made but neither Syria or Israel has responded and without a Tripartite Agreement the internationally border remains that of 1967. That Syria sometime says it believes the Farms are part of Lebanon should not been seen as them agreeing to give the land away, more it should be remembered that Syria considers all of Lebanon as part of the old Kingdom of Syria!

                    The issue of Shab’a Farms is useful for both Hezbollah and the Lebanese government for different reason. For Hezbollah it gives them something to rally their supporters around, to claim that they are still needed to free Lebanon from the Israelis. For the Lebanese government this gives them a reason why they should not disarm Hezbollah, which is handy as if they did try to do that then the risk of another all-out civil war is high.

                    But would Hezbollah disarm if Israel withdrew from the Shab’a Farms……NO. They provide a good rallying point but the goal of Hezbollah is the complete elimination of the State of Israel, the elimination of any Western influence or ideals and the setting up of an Islamic State similar to that of their paymasters Iran. It is Iran that calls the tunes by Hezbollah; it was Iran that ordered them into Syria to fight for their ally. The Iranians provide the financial and military support that makes Hezbollah the force it is today. And the reason is not hard to find as the elimination of Israel is stated policy. They know they could never attack directly Israel without risking a nuclear war so they use proxies such as Hezbollah.

                    As for the fight within the Palestinian Territories they are not active this has to do with their support comes from Shia communities while most Palestinians are Sunni. Hamas is the main militant organisation and is mainly Sunni, it was initially funded by Saudi and Gulf nations but due to pressure from the US these funds dried up. But following the old adage “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” the Iranian jumped in to fill some of the gap, even if Hamas is Sunni. But we could be assured that is somehow Israeli was to vanish tomorrow this brotherly love would soon disappear and Hezbollah and Hamas would be fighting each other.

                    The UNIFIL mandate is up for renewal at the end of this month and so the statements of the General Secretary and that of Ambassador Haley can be understood. This is especially when we consider that next year UNIFIL will celebrate its 40th birthday. 40 years and still no end of the mission in sight, this cannot be! It must be our goal to have a normalisation of the relationship between Lebanon and Israel. That the Lebanon can once again become the shining light in the region it was before the start of the Civil war. And here Hezbollah is a major blocking point if not the blocking point. Just as we have had the disarmament of the paramilitaries in our own local conflict so it must be in the Lebanon.

                    But maybe even today there are too many elements with make such a move impossible. One is Iran and its regional power struggle with the Saudis. The Iranians would never allow their proxy arm in the Lebanon to be disbanded or disarmed. Then there are the contributor nations who do not recognise Israel and might not take any action to disarm Hezbollah. Even if they did are there enough and sufficient resources to do the disarming. But the main block is that of the objection of the Lebanese government, unless they support the moves nothing can happen.

                    Could the extension of the mandate be vetoed? Maybe, it could be a possibility even if unlikely.
                    Add to that Hezbollah has been part of the Lebanonese Government for a few years now.

                    UNTSO has been around since 1948




                    And it is not as if there are no other areas in the world where a UN force could be deployed, the list is long: Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Mali, Chad, Afghanistan, Iraq, South Sudan, Sudan, Congo and not forgetting East Ukraine!
                    Of those 12 countries, Somalia, Mali, Chad, Afghanistan, South Sudan and Congo all have UN (or UN mandated missions)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                      Add to that Hezbollah has been part of the Lebanonese Government for a few years now.

                      UNTSO has been around since 1948






                      Of those 12 countries, Somalia, Mali, Chad, Afghanistan, South Sudan and Congo all have UN (or UN mandated missions)
                      And all are pulling resources from the same pool. The UN is spread thin and the demand is going not shrinking.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                        And all are pulling resources from the same pool. The UN is spread thin and the demand is going not shrinking.
                        Some of them are EU or AU missions under a UN mandate

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                          Some of them are EU or AU missions under a UN mandate
                          The point I was making is that since 1978 the demands on well trained and equipped forces to serve on peacekeeping has increases and will continue to increase. We have see that a number have now come to an end and this is likely to continue. The question is how much longer will UNIFIL stay if the Lebanese government is not willing to force Hezbollah to disarm like the other militias have. The US and Hezbollah itself see the political and military wing as being the same organisation it is only the EU that treats them as separate units.
                          They are in the government with a veto due to the power sharing arrangement but what should also not be overlooked is they only represent 12 out of 128 MP's. So a minority movement is holding up meaningful dialogue that could return the Lebanon to a stable democratic functioning nation. But is that what we want? Because if the answer is No, then we are not alone because neither do Iran, the Saudis or any of the other surrounding Arabs states.

                          Either in the next years there is disarmament or the mission has been completed due to the Israeli withdrawal behind the Blue Line in accordance with Res425 and UNFIL can come home.

                          Comment




                          • US ambassador Nikki Haley sharply criticised the UN peacekeeping commander in Lebanon on Friday, saying he is “blind” to the spread of illegal arms and reiterating a call for the force to do more about it. He says there is no evidence it is actually happening.

                            With the peacekeeping mission up for renewal next week, the United States has been pressing to step up efforts to tackle what Haley describes as a “massive flow of illegal weapons” to Hezbollah-dominated southern Lebanon, where neighboring Israel has long complained the militant group operates with impunity.

                            But the peacekeeping commander, Maj Gen Michael Beary, pushed back on US and Israeli criticism. The Irish general said his force has no evidence of weapons being illegally transferred and stockpiled in the area, and that “if there was a large cache of weapons, we would know about it”.


                            But Haley said there is plenty of evidence including Hezbollah’s own boasts and Beary displayed “an embarrassing lack of understanding of what’s going on”.

                            “He seems to be the only person in south Lebanon who is blind to what Hezbollah is doing,” she said, adding that his view of the situation “shows that we need to have changes” in the mission.

                            Comment


                            • Update :



                              The United Nations extended the mandate of its peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon Wednesday night, and gave its forces widened powers to address Hezbollah’s weapons buildup in the area.
                              As a result of the changes, which were approved by the UN Security Council, UNIFIL will increase its oversight activities in southern Lebanon, including by entering villages where the Hezbollah terror group operates.
                              The byline includes " agencies " for the story so we'll see if any other source picks up on this, and if so, will there be any further comment from the DF or the Irish Government.
                              Could be there's little or no change and this story is for internal Israeli and American consumption.

                              Comment


                              • Potential for conflict there big time.UNIFIL troops ,up to BN Comd's have been attacked,when entering,or trying to enter,Hezbollah controlled villages in the last couple of years.
                                "Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X