From the Jerusalem Post:
UN military personnel on the ground along the Israel-Lebanon border say the munitions that hit the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) position early Wednesday were precision-guided, a UN source told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.
Furthermore, the source added, the strike came after repeated requests by UNTSO commanders to the IDF not to strike that specific position.
The IDF spokesman told The Jerusalem Post that the army was looking into the allegations and that it deeply regretted the “tragic death” of the UN personnel.Wednesday morning, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressed “deep regret” over the strike on the UNTSO post.
UN chief Kofi Annan said Israel appeared to have struck the site deliberately.
Olmert said the peacekeepers were killed mistakenly and expressed dismay over Annan’s accusation, according to a statement by Olmert’s office. The prime minister promised a thorough investigation and said the results would be presented to Annan.
[my emphasis]
Atlas Shrugs sees in Annan’s allegations a not too well-disguised bit of anti-semitism; me, I couldn’t care less what Kofi Annan thinks about Israel and Jews beyond how it affects his performance as UN Secretary General, but what is worth noting here is that Annan’s desire to see international forces step in is part and parcel of his reign of impotence—and is yet another cosmetic attempt to both paper over the real problems in the middle east and prevent Israel from acting effectively in its own interests.
As adjunct fellows of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Michael Krauss and J Peter Pham, remind us in this NRO piece:
[…] What many seem to forget is that there already is a U.N. military presence in Lebanon  and one armed, at least on paper, with a robust mandate. Alas, the blue-helmeted “peacekeepers†are part of the problem, not the solution.
Established in 1978 pursuant to Security Council resolutions 425 and 426, and renewed in January 2006 by resolution 1655, the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) has the mission of “confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring its effective authority in the area.†The UNIFIL operation has an annual operating budget of $99.3 million, approximately one quarter of which (as with all U.N. operations) is paid by the American taxpayer. The force comprises 2,000 troops from China, France, Ghana, India, Ireland, Italy, Poland, and Ukraine, along with 400 international and local civilians, and is commanded by French major-general Alain Pellegrini, who has a pro-Lebanon record in the Middle East.
There’s something very familiar about Kofi Annan’s 2006 call for U.N. troops  just take a look at the 1978 documents pertaining to UNIFIL for the reason why. As the U.N.’s own website concedes, an invasion on northern Israel on March 11, 1978, by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) caused “many dead and wounded among the Israeli population.†When Israel responded in self-defense by targeting the then de facto PLO state in southern Lebanon, the Lebanese government denied responsibility for the Palestinian terror and appealed to the U.N. The Security Council  where the Carter administration was represented by neophyte diplomat Andrew Young  agreed to a resolution demanding Israeli withdrawal and creating UNIFIL with its three objectives. Twenty-nine years later, the only goal that UNIFIL has achieved is the first, the verification of Israel’s complete withdrawal from Lebanon.
When Israeli forces completed their pullout from Lebanon in early 2000, Foreign Minister David Levy reminded Annan that it was now up to Lebanon, in collaboration with UNIFIL, to live up to their obligations to deploy the Lebanese army in the south and to secure its border. That the present conflict is occurring is proof positive of the failure of the Lebanese government and of UNIFIL to even attempt to fulfill these obligations. The arsenal and forces that Hezbollah has amassed on Israel’s northern frontier were assembled under the eyes of UNIFIL. In fact, accusing the U.N. troops of “failure†would be inaccurate; “enabler†might be a more apt description.
[my emphasis]
I think tacit recogntition among many western powers (and even some Arab countries) that international peace keeping has already failed (and in fact may have been compromised) is one of the reasons why the pitch of Israeli condemnation has been so (relatively) muted—and why I think we’ll continue to see fits and starts and dithering on the “diplomatic” front while Israel continues their attempt to clean out the Hezbollah strongholds.
How successful they’ll be depends on their willingness to do what needs to be done—which involves a prolonged offensive that could reach into Syria and potentially engage Iran—but I’m beginning to sense that many in the international community are willing to give Israel a rather long leash here.
Because as Krauss and Pham further remind us:
UNIFIL’s only apparent action this past week has been to voice concerns that its troops might get hit in the crossfire. This is indeed a risk  because UNIFIL has long permitted Hezbollah to locate its forces, including its missile batteries, in the very shadow of installations belonging to the “peacekeepers.†UNIFIL has thus turned into a very convenient and high-profile human shield for terrorists.
The U.N. force commander in Rwanda, Canadian Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire, remains haunted by the refusal of U.N. bureaucrats to let him intervene to prevent the 1994 genocide by seizing the arms that Hutu killers were stockpiling. Gen. Dallaire’s boss in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations at the time was one Kofi A. Annan of Ghana, who argued that any such action would exceed the peacekeepers’ mandate. There is no evidence that the Dallaire’s UNIFIL counterparts have even attempted to fulfill their duty in South Lebanon. If we are friends of peace, we must prevent the U.N. from foiling it again.
Could it be that, finally, even many of the UN-philes have gotten the message?
We shall see.
****
More at Macmind and Liberty and Justice
****
update: From LGF, “Hizballah Firing from Vicinity of UN Positions”—which cites a UNIFIL press release (pdf).
I was shocked at Annan’s response yesterday. It was over-the-top, even for him. What possible reason, what motive, would the Israeli’s have for targeting UN forces? Israel’s response to Annan could have easily been, “We were targeting a source of Hezbollah’s military stockpiles, which was successful, except for the deaths of the UN forces….we are now left to wonder what these forces were doing in that location. Were they doing Hezbollah’s work?” Of course, such a response would be inappropriate and inflammatory, but it would be a heckubva lot more believable and thought-provoking than Annan’s response.
I blame Karl Rove. Just because it keeps the moonbats playing their version of six degrees of separation.
Could it be that, finally, even many of the UN-philes have gotten the message?
In some foreign circles? Perhaps.
Here at home, amongst our Left-wing “friends”? Not a chance.
Skull and crazy stick not included.
I’m going to be brutally honest… I could not possibly care less. Then again, I don’t like the idea of (relatively) innocent, impotent bureaucrats getting killed, but if they catch a few Israeli missiles, I’m willing to chalk it up to accident and move along.
Then there’s that whole accessories to kidnapping a couple years back hanging over UNIFIL’s heads…
http://volokh.com/posts/1153523571.shtml
Jeff, you sound more like a pro athlete than a linguistics instructor here. The phrase is, “couldn’t care less”.
Heh. ‘bout sums it up. Preventing Hezbollah from attacking Israel exceeds the peacekeepers’ mandate. Now, preventing Israel from retaliating . . . well, now that’s something a good internationalist paper tiger can sink his teeth into.
TW: It all makes sense to me now.
The political paralysis of UN ‘peacekeepers’ has been well documented. By their ‘neutrality’ they give tacit permission to the power-mad to abuse
the innocent without fear of consequence.
However advanced the necrosis of the UN, the personnel who died did not deserve to do so as
just recompense for the sins of the Bureaucracy.
Israel may not have targeted the UN specifically,
but it is likely little care was given to avoid
unnecessary death and destruction.
And Hezbullah, whichd eliberately plaxced itself close to the UN outpost? How much care did thay exercise to try to avoid unnecessary death and destruction?
Or are those “brown people” not to be expected to act all “civilized” and stuff?
Reminds me of this, from P. J. O’Rourke:
Thanks.
And let me know when I’ve built up enough “smart” cred that you’ll be willing to email me rather than point out my errors in phrasing here in the comments.
Didn’t you play a little cornerback for the Broncos before you blew out the knee?
me, I couldn’t care less what Kofi Annan thinks about Israel and Jews beyond how it effects his performance as UN Secretary General
I never really paid a great deal of attention to the UN prior to about 1990 or so. I don’t even remember the name of the SecGen prior to Mr. Kofi.
So with that in mind… what exactly does the UN Secretary General do? Does he have any particular authority to do anything at all?
They need to use some of those presion weapons on the UN building in NY.
UN forces got nailed? Gosh, that’s too bad. Why shouldn’t Israel consider the UN an enemy? Give cover to a belligerent, and share their fate.
How could you forget Boutros-Boutros-Boutros-Boutros-Ghali (to quote the illustrious Ali G)?
That’s why God invented the MOAB.
By Koffi’s rationalization it has to be intentional, after all the UNFIL was being so effective patrolling the border & Hezbollah has only gotten off what a few thousand rockets so far… & it is only jews after all. But then again what do I know, I am only hoping Israel wipes them completely out. I guess that makes me a “chicken jew†because I haven’t volunteered in the IDF.
Mmmmmm, what’s the recipe?
I don’t think Kofi was trying to be anti-semetic by accusing Israel of “deliberately” attacking a UN outpost. He’s using the incident to pressure Israel to commit to a ceasefire.
What’s more telling is that he’s not doing in Lebanon what he did in Iraq: use a single attack as a pretense of pulling out the entire force. No one had to tell him twice to leave Iraq after their headquarters was attacked. Lebannon, though, well that’s a different story. And we can guess at the purpose that binds the two disparate reactions: a desire to undermine the US and/or Israel. Now, I’m not saying he’s putting his own peacekeepers in harm’s way specifically to see them hurt–I don’t think he’s that craven–but I do think that he believes the UN’s presence can undermine Israel’s mission, and that bringing about a ceasefire justifies the risk to his personnel.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that he won’t fold to pressure from other UN members to remove the peacekeepers, but I suspect that he won’t otherwise.
Or is it “jewish hawk”? Maybe one of the enlighten few or one of GiGi’s “vistors” could clarify.
You should, though, if for not other reason but the pleasure of saying it: Boutrous Boutrous Ghali. Just rolls off the tongue.
Yeah, that’s the problem. Who’s putting “pressure” on Hezbollah to stop killing Israelis? So far, only Israel so far. So what, exactly, is Israel’s motivation to stop?
Proof-reading is for suckers.
It’s probably silly to expect the UN to take any other position.
There is one Israel and one US. There are many majority Muslim nations. We’re outvoted. Like any bureaucracy, the UN is primarily motivated by keeping the good times rolling. In fact, world peace and an end to poverty would put them out of business.
I do feel very sorry for the “UN peacekeepers” who were killed. They were most likely enlisted and junior officers who were sent under orders which they may or may not have agreed with. As usual, the guys at the bottom are the ones who take the hit.
works for me.
Don’t want ‘em gettin’ dead?
Move ‘em the fuck outta the combat zone.
Israel alone, unless you count our tacit approval, and the lack of effort by Europe and Arab countries to stop them. Hezbollah was either hoping for a regional war, or for Israel to be constrained to the usual tit-for-tat measures, and they’re now sorely dissapointed to find themselves alone and on the receiving end of a vicious ass pounding.
Well, I think Israel is a more moral country than most of its enemies, or it’s critics in fact. Israel doesn’t like that it’s killing civilians, and will want to stop attacks in Lebanon once they feel that they’ve provided for themselves an acceptable level of security. I seriously doubt they’ll kill every last Hezballah terrorist they can if it means a great deal many more Lebanese civilians will die. After all, Israel could totally wipe out Hezbollah by carpet bombing all of Lebannon, but no one needs to tell them not to; they know that would truly be a disproportionate response.
Bombing the United Nations position was obviously a mistake. If Israel had meant to hit the UN with a precision weapon, I believe they know that Turtle Bay is a little farther to the north and west.
Turing Word: back, as in, “get back, get back, get back to where you once belonged.”
mojo, that would require BRAINS.
We’re talking the UN, here.
TW: Hey, Kofi, ever think of putting them somewhere else?
Any chance anyone can pressure Kofi Annan to make public his evidence for such an accusation? Because if he said it without evidence to back it up, then he clearly has forfeited his right to be a diplomat at any level above an Ned Lamont strategy meeting.
Tuuring Word: ball, as in Kofi just dropped the ball, big time.
The real difference between those two situations is of course that in Iraq, the attack unquestionably was an intentional targeting of UN personnel. Which might lead one to conclude that if Kofi really believed his rhetoric on Israeli aggression against the UN, he’d be evacuating all UN personnel rather than holding pressers.
Rich Lowry at NRO reports that during a recent visit to Israel he observed UN and HzB outposts physically close enough together that they could talk! How is that for ground level diplomacy:
UN guy: Resolution xxxx requires that you lay down your weapons.
Hzb guy: Not this year.
UN guy: Works for me. Know any hot chicks…preferably under 16?…
The Pod has a great perspective on Kofi’s statement in The Corner:
Go Pod!
My immediate response on reading the title of thisi article in the RSS reader:
Yeah, so…Yawn!
The other day we learned that criticisms of groups, races or nationalities is because of racism. Not anti-semitism.
How could you forget Boutros-Boutros-Boutros-Boutros-Ghali?
You’re right! How could I forget the Kris Kristofferson of the international set?
But I’m still left with the Office Space question with respect to the SecGen:
“What exactly would you say it is that you do?”
Michelle Malkin has an interesting photo on her site. It’s possible it was doctored, but for some crazy reason, I think it’s legit. Go there and have a look.
OK, then I’ll say it.
He’s putting his own “peacekeepers” in harm’s way specifically to see them hurt.
Either that, or he’s dumber than Democrats.
Maybe both.
If they tried to leave now, they’d have to fight their way out. The Hizzies likes them some human shields, they does.
SB: per
ardua, exitum (stage right)
So called U.N. peace keepers and terrorist observation post located within 20 feet of each other, sharing water, food and telephones. The U.N. makes a bigger joke of itself on a daily basis. Get the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. criminal, rapist and terrorists out of the U.S. Tomorrow would be soon enough.
mojo – the TW going Brit on ya? Per Ardua is the motto of the RAF Regiment. Go figure.
Still wondering when actus is going to post an entire thought, in place of random fragments of…whatever.
Not until they learn how to reverse a lobotomy.
Chairman Me, the U.N. delegation that was bombed in Iraq was made up of diplomats; you know, the kind of people you have 3-hour/3-star lunches with on the Big Blue Expense Account.
The guys getting shelled while waiting for someone to return their calls are just soldiers.
So the “repeated requests” probably went something like this:
Rule #1 for playing with artillery and air bombardments: NEVER tell them your position, ya dumb bastids!