Regarding the UN observers killed yesterday – below is a link to an interview this morning on CBC radio in Toronto with retired Maj. Gen. Lewis MacKenzie. MacKenzie states he knew the Canadian member who was killed and had been in recent e-mail communication with him. The observer had stated that Hizballah had been using the UN observers as human shields hoping to draw Israeli fire.

It’s the first interview of today (July 26).
http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/

Also a interesting point of view from M Medved @
Townhall.com

It should come as no surprise that some of the same angry leftists who stridently deny Israel’s “right to exist” similarly challenge the claims to nationhood of the United States of America.

After all, the two allied and embattled democracies achieved independence in the same way – the patient settlement of largely desolate and under-populated land, the building of a new civilization virtually from scratch, and a long, bloody fight against determined, sometimes implacable opposition.

In order to place these realities in proper perspective, it’s first necessary to reject some thirty years of wildly irresponsible anti-Israel propaganda. First of all, it’s not true in any sense that the modern Jewish State ever supplanted or destroyed an existing nation of “Palestine.” From the time of definitive destruction of the ancient Jewish commonwealth in 70 A.D., the land that comprises the current State of Israel never enjoyed independent existence but, rather, passed back and forth among competing world empires—Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Crusader, Mamaluke, Ottoman and British. Over the course of more than 1,800 years, no nation with the name “Palestine” appeared on any maps, anywhere. The distinguished Arab-American historian Philip Hitti, professor at Princeton University, testified to the Anglo American Committee in 1946: ‘There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not.”

Moreover, the Jewish title to the land of Israel received long-standing recognition from international organizations that didn’t even exist at the time of American independence. On July 24, 1922, the 52 governments of the League of Nations formally recognized and endorsed the British Balfour Declaration calling for “reconstituting….a national home for the Jewish people” in the land with which that people enjoyed “historical connections.” Twenty-five years later, the United Nations (successor body to the League of Nations) validated this title with the partition plan, dividing the British Mandate in the area into two states—one Jewish, one Arab. The Arab leadership violently rejected that solution, but after Israel’s bloody war for Independence the UN recognized Israel as a full member state in 1949.

www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2006/07/26/does_israel_have_a_right_to_exist_does_the_us

Just thought you folks might be interested.

always at least 2 sides to a story eh?

anyway, OT:

drum roll please !!!
performance review of the harper government:

whatsisname a bomber pilot veteran is FINALLY given back pay exceeding 1 million when the mil ombudsman pushes hard for a review of his pension claim. check.

1 billion with a 'b' is allocated to include a huge swath of victims of the hep c tainted blood scandal. check.

harper supports Israeli response to this latest attack by hezbollah the iranian string puppets. check !!

3 for 3, so far, so good.

John B,

Great find. As the picture shows the Hesbos are setting up shop next door. WHy the UN would let that happen is beyon me. Personally I would have been telling them to move away, for that very reason.

Thank goodness Order of Canada winner General Lew is calling it for what it is. Why Kofi would take that position I have no idea. Perhaps someone better informed than I can comment on Mr annan's position vis a vis Israel.

At the end of the day Kofi strikes me as the kind of guy who would spout whatever his advisors told him. This means it came from the people around him...and they are???

What do Syria,* Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan have in common with Israel?

Prior to gaining independence from French and British mandate rule in the 1930s and 1940s, none of these countries existed.

However, you'll note that no one ever seems to question THEIR right to exist.

* Indeed, Syria is the only one to share something in common with Israel: it has the same name as an ancient kingdom or empire in the region.

According to a report in today's Scotsman, (it's online-check it out)- that 'United Nothing' Observation Post was hit by a BOMB, (not arty),
which "impacted the building and the shelter", killing the unfortunate occupants.
Smells like a 'bunker buster' to me........
The Scotsman (online), is worth a read, just for the comments on this topic- the best of those was posted by Alexander from Canada. (Ya got it right on that one, Alex)!

Annan: Gross negligence of duty.

Annan must resign now. ...-

Kofi Annan Could Have Ordered Peacekeepers to Leave

The four UN peacekeepers killed in an apparently accidental airstrike on a UN observer post were required to stay there until ordered to leave by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan—an order he never gave. (Hat tip: vxbush.)

Haifa, Israel (CNSNews.com) - The four United Nations peacekeepers killed in an Israeli attack on their outpost were required to stay at that post “until they were ordered by the [U.N.] secretary general to withdraw,” said a member of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization on Wednesday.

But the peacekeepers apparently never received such an order, despite the fierce cross-border fighting that erupted in southern Lebanon two weeks ago. ...-
via LGF

" Kofi, who are his advisers ?" One is Canada's owm Maurice Strong, Oak Lake MB. ... of One World Governance fame, also Earth Charter fame, any yes, Kyoto .

Commenter at Belmont Club:

The_Head_Jimmy said...

So it seems, to me anyway, that the four UN Soldiers killed were not a part of the UNIFIL mission but were from a separate mission (UNTSO) and were "visiting" the UNIFIL compound for some reason. I wonder why? Maybe it was the safest place for them? I dunno. Sucks pretty bad to lose a troop to the Israelis though, accident or not. Goes with the territory I guess. I'm still waiting for official confirmation from Ottawa before I believe it. ...-

"Sucks pretty bad to lose a troop..."

Yes it does.

That was going to be my next question: Who gives INIFIL its orders?

Is the answer really Kofi Annan?

I wouldn't trust my life or anyone I cared for to this smooth-talking, dressed-like-a-banker leader-imposter. If Annan is the best the U.N. can do, then it's obviously time to pull the plug on ALL U.N. forays into peacekeeping (sic) and war zones.

He doesn't know his a** from a tea kettle.

Man, do you guys ever question anyone who isn't one of the hated 'liberals'? Israel blows up a UN post and it's Anan's fault or the crazy lefties again. I just want to let you know that it's OK to breaks ranks once in awhile and admit that mistakes have been made or at that very least that Israel should not have been firing on a UN post.

War is such a nice, neat, orderly process. No mistakes ever happen when being fired on. You always have that current, up to date google map of the battlefield with combatants clearly marked.

Keep it up you Israel haters. You do more damage to your jihad with every comment you post.
enough

Hmmmm, maybe I've been too hard on Israel. The situation is just sooooooo complicated, and who can trust any news source these days?

I've an idea: let's invite Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and whoever was in charge of the IDF unit(s) that just delibrately targeted and killed a Canadian peacekeeper to Canada to give a speech or something so they can educate the Canadian people on the plight of the poor, defenseless Israelis.

Now, some crazy commies might say that Olmert and his gang of thugs would be arrested for crimes against humanity the second they step foot in any self respecting first world country, but that's just crazy tinfoil hat talk!

Paul, you have been provided with a wealth of informed commentary as to why this accidental shelling occured, and who was culpable - yet you seem incapable of absorbing it.

Of course, you have plenty of company in that - it's why they remain "hated liberals".

A UN peacekeeper in an interview states that they could tell that the kidnappers of the Israeli soldiers who were dressed as UN troops were Hezbollah "I wish we had done something "
The Indian army is conducting an inquiry into report that Indian soldiers sold UN uniforms to Hezbollah for booze and Lebannese women.Hezbollah sets up outposts alongside UN outposts to prevent being attacked.UN does nothing WHY

Bob: evidence, proof, please that Israel "deliberately" targeted the UNIFIL post. They have ADMITTED that they made a mistake.

But I guess the only mistakes allowed are those from Hezbollah. If you read Kate's most recent post, they fired on UNIFIL personnel as well.

Do your homework. That goes for you too, Paul.

Nuance, clarity, and hilarity by Josh.

Josh calls the Muslim Islamist terrorists:

"fighters", "guerrillas",and "militants".

Oh, .... and "bodies". ...-

Israel Collecting Hezbollah Bodies
Josh Pringle
Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Israeli troops are collecting the bodies of Hezbollah fighters killed in Lebanon.

The military won't say why it is keeping the bodies in refrigerated containers in Israel.

Israel has used the bodies of Hezbollah fighters in the past as a bargaining chip for prisoner swaps with the Lebanese guerrilla group.

Israel has said it would not negotiate with Hezbollah over the release of two Israeli soldiers the group captured earlier this month.

Israel has special cemeteries for Palestinian and Lebanese militants killed in fighting with Israel.
cfra.com

To whom do Canadians serving with UNIFIL report? Do they report solely to the UN? Or would they also report to Canadian Forces commanders?

I guess what I am asking is this: did anyone in CF command know what was going on in UNIFIL? Did our military, the Ministry -- and ultimately the Minister -- know that the UNIFIL bases were so close to Hezbollah positions? Did we know that UNIFIL may have been -- inadvertantly or not -- providing support and cover for Hezbollah?

Note that I am not trying to smear anyone here. I am not attacking our military, and I am certainly not attacking the Canadian soldier who died in at the UNIFIL post.

I just want to know what we knew -- and what we should have known -- about what the UN is up to while Canadians are serving there.

Jeff Cosford :

Excellent post. Informative as well. Thank you

I think it's well known that the un hates israel! So what is the point of setting up un posts in a war zone. Wouldn't be to help sheild the hez would it? Lets set Kofi up in the middle of town and see what happens. How about the story the other day about the un indian observers takeing bribes from the hez to let them attack and kidnap the israeli soldiers. Who keeps blowing up bus loads of people in israel, who keeps shooting rockets into israel, and who's supplying them. What would you like the israelies to do? Lay down and die.... I say get the **** outa the way and let israel take care of these thugs! God bless israel!

To whom do Canadians serving with UNIFIL report?

They report to Romeo Dallaire

Kate-I'm perfectly capable of absorbing whatever either you or the CBC or whoever posts. What you posted is just as logical as what I've read a dozen times already today from a bunch of different sources.

My point, which I clearly did not get across, is that no matter what happens it seems that the pro-war camp is willing to blindly accept that Isreal can do no wrong in this situation. A handful of people have acknowledged that it was a pity to lose the UN observers, but generally most are blaming 'liberals' for everything.

Thanks,
Paul

Sorry, I meant Israel...

While there are denials about deliberate targetting, if this was the same post where that allowed the Hesbos in then it wouldnt shock me one bit if this was a "happy accident".

The US did target the Al Jazzera bureau to send a message. Although that too was "a mistake"

No judgement here, just saying thing arent want they always seem. Additionally, why those observers are still in the middle of the war zone is beyond me, once again no judgement just an observation.

Being cold about all of this, Israel is defending itself, sad but true. I dont think anyone questions their right to do so. How different is it from Iran's sovereign right to possess a Nuclear weapon, just like Canada has the right to have one, we just choose not to.

Dont swallow the rhetoric. Israel will defend itself, Lebanon should defend itself, notice they arent fighting the israeli's except rhetorically. The lebanese want the israelis to do the job they can't.

End result needs to be a sovereign lebanon that exerts the monopoly of power and authority in Southern Lebanon. Which means no Hesbos and no israeli's. One of those two will elave willingly, I'll let you guess which one it will be.

Wow. I didnt know Canada had Republicans. Arent you folk on the wrong side of the border?

I dont care much for the inherent bias but I have noticed a lot complain about how media coverage in Canada has been too leftist. Well, in any case, here are some inconvenient facts that dont reflect well on your heroes:

"UN peacekeepers in south Lebanon contacted Israeli troops 10 times before an Israeli bomb killed four of them, an initial UN report says.
The post was hit by a precision-guided missile after six hours of shelling, diplomats familiar with the probe say"

"The four unarmed UN observers from Austria, Canada, China and Finland, died after their UN post in the town of Khiam was hit by an Israeli air strike on Tuesday."

"The UN report says each time the UN contacted Israeli forces, they were assured the firing would stop."

"A senior Irish soldier working for the UN forces had warned the Israelis six times that their bombardment was endangering the lives of UN staff, Ireland's foreign ministry said."

Had Israel responded to the requests, "rather than deliberately ignoring them", the observers would still be alive, a diplomat familiar with the report said.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has expressed "deep regrets" over the deaths.

Israel is conducting an investigation into the incident.

It has rejected accusations made by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan that the targeting of the UN position was "apparently deliberate".

White House spokesman Tony Snow said "something went really wrong" to cause the deaths, but also said there was no reason to suggest the bombing was deliberate.

The UN Security Council is meeting to discuss the incident." Its all on the BBC. Frontpage.

So tell me about your antiUN bias. As it is Canada is a tiny country with no real power of any sort. To put it mildly, the UN has given Canada a role to play in the world. We dont have a military, and even if we did, it wouldnt be as large as we would need it to be to be relevant in a world of million man armies. Canada plays to her strenghts. We have smart people, fine educational institutions, and a whole lot more money than most countries. Somebody has to take a moralist/idealist stance. Why not us? I suppose you d rather have us be spineless US sidekicks.

Now I know you Republicans love your FOX News and George Bush and America, but why dont you do the rest of us a favor, and move, instead of demanding that this country simply fly the Star Spangled Banner. A Canadian troop has died, but God knows it wasnt Israels fault. Nope it was the UNs fault for sending them there in the first place. I suppose there would be a whole lot more indignation if the victim had been American?

Altogether now, "o' say can you see..."

yup.

Having spent six months on the Golan Heights, I feel somewhat qualified to answer Lickmuffin's questions.

I believe it was/is common knowledge that Hezbollah has been building/built its positions close to UN positions. They have been doing so for some time and you can bet that the UN Military Observers reported it immediately when they began. Remember, all the guys on the post have to do is watch, so if anything happens, they tend to report it immediately.

As for the chain of command, while there is a UN chain of command, a parallel chain exists through ones own country, so that Canadian issues can be addressed. If a Canadian soldier was unhappy about something going on in the mission and it was not addressed through the UN command, he/she would be able to report to the CF what was going on.

There is no doubt in my mind the the CF has known for years that Hez has built positions right along side of UN positions and that this was reported, if not by the UN to Canada, then through Canadians to NDHQ. I am not that familiar with the specific mandate of UNIFIL, but I suspect that there was nothing the UN could do to stop Hez from building those positions. Remember, the UNIFIL is there to observe, and when they observe someone breaking the agreement, all they can do is report that. I doubt the UN purposely provided cover to Hez. The UN is a huge organization. Most mistakes are due to that plus incompetence, not on purpose. I have seen it many times.

My big surpirse about this situation is that UNIFIL personnel were not withdrawn immediately from the area when the fighting started. You would have something like 2-4 unarmed observers with little protection right in the middle of a war. My experience with the UN is that it is risk adverse, and I am surprised that they did not immediately pull ot the observers.

Anyone remember the UN inspectors leaving Iraq just before Gulf War 2?

Read somewhere that Annan was the first chairman to rise through the ranks, that he's not an antisemite per se, but adopted the anti-Israel stance to advance to the top; in other words, standard "office politics". It's obvious though that the UN, which permitted a member to openly call for Israel's destruction and other members to prominently display a map sans Israel, has allowed Hezbollah to use it as a human shield. Very effective propaganda as we've seen from some posters here, and my old friend who I thought had finally seen the light, but alas! no, as per e-mail this morning citing the deliberate attack on the UN. Sigh.

Mb -- thanks for the comments.

Wow. I didnt know Canada had Republicans. Arent you folk on the wrong side of the border? ... why dont you do the rest of us a favor, and move, instead of demanding that this country simply fly the Star Spangled Banner.

Left-wing gits still believe they and they alone represent "da Canadian values?" Amazing.

... the UN has given Canada a role to play in the world.

The quintessential left-wing view: Canada exists for the U.N., not the other way around. Similar to the way in which socialists believe that citizens exist for the government, and not the other way around.

Middleton,

Agreed. We should complain about Canadian soldiers being killed. We should be complaining to the Taliban about the killing of many more Canadian soldiers. Strenuously, in fact we should take action....

That being said, yes there is a little too much Israel is right even when its wrong here, but thats my opinion just like you have yours and others have their opinions. Live with it rather than say move....

As for the UN. Well it hasnt been terribly effective, even for Caanda. Just ask Mrs Kazemei's family, or Bill Sampson, or even Mahar Arar. The Canadian government wasnt terribly effective in those areas either.

The story on the UNIL unit selling uniforms etc is troubling, would you not agree. Especially since the use of those uniforms is the immeadiate cause of the current conflict. Is the UN properly investigating that incident, or is it only the lives of UN soldiers that matter to the UN and not the lives of those they may have been accomplices to, albeit unwittingly.

As I said above it wouldnt surprise me one bit if the UN post was directly targetted, perhaps as retribution, perhaps because there were HEsbos taking refuge in there....Israel has a right to defend itself, but it will be be judged by itself and others on how it defends itself.

If you agree that the military arm of Hesbos must go and the Isareli's must leave and the Lebanese should have full and effective sovereignty over their entire country then we have lots in common. We can defintitely debate the best way to acheive that, there may be differences but at least they are differences on methods and not end point.

But I wonder if there are more fundamental differences on objectives here?

Okay, Mb says that his "experience with the UN is that it is risk adverse, and I am surprised that they did not immediately pull ot [sic] the observers."

My first reaction, since I've begun to read these posts, is why weren't the U.N. personnel immediately pulled out of Lebanon once hostilities began between Israel and Hezbollah?

My second and very cynical reaction is, did someone want to blame Israel for casualties in case/once they did happen? Leaving the U.N. observers in war-torn territory just doesn't make any sense, and it's hard to imagine that Kofi Annan could be that stupid/negligent.

Plato's Stepchild's answer to my question "To whom do Canadians serving with UNIFIL report?" was "They report to Romeo Dallaire." I'm assuming, because of ignorance in the field of the military and wars, that P'sS is being sarcastic...?

A few years ago I attended a Rotary Dinner (as a Rotarian's guest), at which Romeo Dallaire was the guest speaker. I was looking forward to his talk, as he had just written his book about the slaughter in Rwanda. I was pretty sure that he was going to expose the U.N. for the corrupt and ineffectual organization it has become.

I couldn't have been more disappointed.

Perhaps suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, Dallaire sang the praises of the U.N. I was aghast but, unfortunately, most of the people around me were entranced and swooning.

Go figure.

Now HERE's a good one via LGF:

The Danish embassy in Lebanon was attacked in February by a Muslim mob enraged over the dreaded cartoons of blasphemy.

And Ahmed Akkari, the Danish imam who toured the Middle East inciting Muslims against Denmark, has just been evacuated from Lebanon—by the same embassy he helped burn down.

middlemuddler, simpleton, er, middleton:

I don't know if you've noticed but the country elected a Conservative government and Harpers approval ratings are quite high. And I suppose you didn't happen to read the first post on this thread did you? No, of course not, your mind is already made up. Anti-UN bias? There's no bias here. The UN is a proven corrupt organization. But I guess you haven't absorbed those facts either.

Perhaps you should consider your own suggestion and take your "idealist" stance elsewhere.

Middleton,

Excellent post (for a change).

Daisy Dukes,

Take your Zionist views to Olmert.

A little snippet of the whole situation by the Canadian Ambassador to Israel.

It is printed in the Toronto Star (the Red Crescent as we call it in Alberta), so there can be said to be no Conservative bent.

Its a short synopsis of events for folks with short memories.
This is Hezballas fault & other terrorist who have made a mockery of the word Peace.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1153864209355&call_pageid=970599119419

Simpleton.
It's obvious you don't know the words to The Star Spangled Banner.
Or it seems from your comment , much of anything.
Fair enough, you sound like a dipper or lib, you're supposed to be as dumb as a bag of hammers.
I'll bet you could lead us all in a shrieking chorus of UUU LU LU LUing though.

News flash: Knee jerk anti-Americanism is no longer a Canadian value.
You lost the last election with that clever party platform plank.

Dallaire: I read his book. My nearly immediate impressions were: drastically out of his depth but bilingual. But I do believe he beat up on the UN and Kofi Annan.

Kofi IMMEDIATELY knew this was premeditated murder... but a day later, he's climbing down trying to pry that foot out of his mealy mouth.

Hezbollah digs in close to civilians and the UN and everybody is shocked when there's collateral damage.

Bob:

"Now, some crazy commies might say that Olmert and his gang of thugs would be arrested for crimes against humanity the second they step foot in any self respecting first world country, but that's just crazy tinfoil hat talk!"

Aside from the lack of proof for the claims that Isreal purposfully targeted UNIFIL trrops, why dosen't anyone level charges of War Crimes or Crimes Aagainst Humanity on the part of Hizbollah?

Also, please consider this excerpt from the Geneva Conventions (picked up on Andrew Coyne's blog)

"The First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions reads in part: “The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.... The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.”

If you attempt to use civilians or in this case UNIFIL troops (civilians for all intents and purposes anyway?) as human shields, you are yourself guilty of war crimes. What is more, the responsibility for any civilian deaths that occur as a result falls on you, not the attacking party.

So if anyone is guilty of crimes against humanity its Hizbollah.......should be common sense.

So what does it take for someone to decide to criticze Isreal here? I've just moved up from the thread where someone said that the Canadian soldier deserved it because he was under UN auspices. Kate would you post that one on a remembrance thread for the widow?

Can Isreal do no wrong? If you think that, then I'd love to hear your opinions on the The Liberty or Pollard?

At the very least the attack was manifestly incompetent. It was a static position that had been there for years. How bad UNIFIL was, how close Hezbollah postions have been or how yucky the UN generally is, none of those are a legal, moral or tactical justificaton to attack the position.

Oh and before I get accused of being a terrorist supporter or any of the other nonsense some people here spout when they are contradicted , I'm not questioning Isreal's right to defend themselves and if they can wipe out Hezbollah well and good. But that doesn't excuse any act in pursuit of those goals

I don't think people are saying that Israel can do no wrong.

Israel expressed regret and is investigating what went wrong.

Israel makes mistakes just like any other country. And they investigate and they press charges if there has been wrongdoing. (check out the proceedings of the Israeli Supreme Court or the tribunal which ended Ariel Sharon being a general, or all the times that IDF investigates questionable actions of soldiers.)

I think people are responding to the speed at which Mr. Annan concluded that Israel did it "intentionally".

Goods points by gray and ex-lib.

The Israelis are no saints. They make mistakes. Did they target the UN on purpose? I don't know but I find it unlikely. Just like any democracy, if they did, it will come out and someone will wear it.

Did Hez deliberately set up their positions close to UN ones hoping it would protect them or cause UN casualities if Israel tried to hit them? No doubt in my mind.

ex-lib is right. One side consistantly puts civilians at risk as part of their strategy, while the other goes out of its way to limit/prevent civilian/non combatant casualities.

Israel will do what it thinks is in its best interest, to hell with the UN and Canada. However if there is any doubt, I would give the benefit of that to Israel, until the evidence proved otherwise.

The dead Canadian soldier was actually part of UNTSO, not UNIFIL. UNTSO has been in the area since 1948, with Canadians participating since 1954:
www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=914

"In June 1948, the UN Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO) was established to observe and report upon any violations of the armistice between Israel and its Arab neighbours. Canada's involvement in UNTSO started in 1954 when four officers were seconded to it. A Canadian Major-General was named as UNTSOs Chief of Staff in that year."

So the dead soldier was an "observer", not a "peacekeeper"--a word that did have the current meaning in 1948.
www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976661268.htm

Headquarters are at Government House, Jerusalem.
www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/untso/

Canada was only part of UNIFIL between 19 March 1978 and 06 October 1978.
www.rcsigs.ca/ViewPage/History/UNIFIL-CANSIGS/

Mark
Ottawa

If Hezboolah terrorists go right up to the walls of an UN post and start firing their rockets.....MIGHT that not increase the chances of a mishap with Israeli fire.

My advice to the UN soldiers would be - shoot the terrorists!

You have to wonder, how would we have won WW2 with the amount of handwringing now going on over a tiny country fighting the terrorists who want to wipe them out.

and aren't these the same terrorists who were obligated to disarm? but not compelled to by the Lebanese government?

Yes, Israel can be critized. Informed criticism.

gray, from what I've read, it seems that Hezbollah set up their bases right next to the UN bases. Their base was hit after six HOURS of intense shelling. So do you think that the IDF are such lousy shots that it took them six hours to hit their target? Or, more likely, that after six hours of shelling their target, one of their missed shots happened to land on the UN base?

AFAIK Robert, the UN military observers are unarmed. Could be wrong, but I recall reading that. Regardless...

Kofi needs to be moving those UN posts away from Hezb posts as fast as possible. If we have other Cdn assets camped out beside Hezb posts, I hope DoD is making loud noises in Kofi's ear right now.

Who is Kofi Annan? How does this guy keep his job as UN Secretary General for over 10 years? Isn't there something in the UN charter that requires mandatory elections? I get a strong feeling that Kofi exists as he does for the pleasure of his masters in a world where words like democracy, equality and freedom are treated as cheaply as tubes of Bangkok lipstick.

Got to hand it to Kofi, when he moves you can hardly see the strings.

this incident should keep CryBitchComplain network busy for days without ever digging out that the Hezbollah and the UN shared toilets and phone lines. CBCpravda will keep up the rhetoric until Isreal captures a couple of Iranians.then the story will be dropped completely.
anyone see the picture of the UN post on fire-- what do they keep there- binoculars made of rocketfuel.

Great observers--

like Captain Peter"wrongway"Peachfuzz. looking the other way.

Hizballah Firing from Vicinity of UN Positions

There’s an amazing amount of press coverage of Israel’s airstrike on a UN observer post yesterday, but today’s UNIFIL press release (PDF) contains some information you aren’t hearing about on the nightly news.

Another UN position of the Ghanaian battalion in the area of Marwahin in the western sector was also directly hit by one mortar round from the Hezbollah side last night. The round did not explode, and there were no casualties or material damage. Another 5 incidents of firing close to UN positions from the Israeli side were reported yesterday. It was also reported that Hezbollah fired from the vicinity of four UN positions at Alma ash Shab, Tibnin, Brashit, and At Tiri. All UNIFIL positions remain occupied and maintained by the troops. ...-
via LGF

pete

The facts, as I understand them so far, is that the postion or very near to it, was engaged by artillery for some time and then the bunker was engaged by a bomb, which destroyed it and killed the occupants.

I've not seen any sources to confirm this, but I would suspect that the bunker would have been built to survive a direct 155 hit.

I hold the professional competence of the Isreali army in high regard and I was was once trained to call in artillery fire and airstrikes myself. So on the contrary I think the exact opposite, the Isreali army are excellent shots and they are using weapons that will generally hit what they are aimed at.

Gray et al: go (re)read Ryan's 03:08 PM comment, where he quotes the Geneva conventions. While it is certainly regrettable/distressing that civilians and foreign nationals are killed in military operations*, where such deaths are not the intent, the responsibility of the deaths lie upon those who deliberately placed them in such a situation. If there has been no “civilian shield” occurrence, then moral blame cannot be fixed.

*NB. While this conflict IS a military operation (by the Israelis), it is NOT a war. Wars are conducted between states, and Hizballah does not constitute a nation. Israel has not declared war on Lebanon. One may argue that, since the Lebanese government is de facto powerless, it is now illegitimate. As Israel’s security is significantly breached, it now de jure has the right to undertake what otherwise would be an invasion of a sovereign state.

Me No Dhimmi: Thanks for filling me in on Romeo Dallaire's book. I haven't read it, but was pretty sure he'd be "beat[ing] up on the UN and Kofi Annan."

That's why I was delighted to accept the Rotary invite, not my thing really, and then was shocked, appalled, and puzzled when Dallaire began to sing the praises of the U.N. I was thinking that maybe he was in line for some kind of posting, either at the U.N. or somewhere in Canada at the behest of the U.N.-loving Librano government...

'Anybody know what he's doing now?

oh dear. i anticipated some anger but damn. ok so i ll try to respond.

Mississauga Matt

"Left-wing gits still believe they and they alone represent "da Canadian values?" Amazing."

I m not left wing. I m centrist. I dont claim to speak for the left.

"The quintessential left-wing view: Canada exists for the U.N., not the other way around. Similar to the way in which socialists believe that citizens exist for the government, and not the other way around."

Non. I didnt say that. I did say that the UN gives Canada an opportunity to punch above her weight. And win some respect globally. Its easier being a Canadian traveller than an American one. For good reason.

Stephen,

We are on common ground. I take issue with UN bashing, which I find to be a most American trait. I support Israel. I support Israel's right to exist. I think they ve earned it the hard way.

The Hesbos have to - theres no doubt about that. But deliberate strikes on UN personnel, despite pleas from the former to stop, and apparent confirmation from the latter that they would, is absolutely unacceptable. And I say that as a Canadian anggry at the fact that a Canadian has been killed. There is no justification.

The Israelis are doing what they have to. Is it an overly large response? to the extent that it affects civilians, yes it is. That said, it was a long time coming. I m no fan of religious fanatics, regardless of their religion, and I would like nothing more than to see Hezbollah turned into pulp.

People here are angry that roads are being fixed by the UN. They are, perhaps like their American counterparts, unaware that roads are used to allow foreign nationals to move to Beirut to be evacuated. There are thousands of Asian migrants stuck in the southern cities who cant make it to Beirut. The Chinese have every right to open that road.

The Kazemi case is one that I have very strong feelings about. I dont think the UN was to blame there. It was Canada that didnt show any spine or resolve. If Canada had wanted to, we could have made things a hell of a lot worse for Iran. For reasons even I cant fathom, we didnt. I dont have nice things to say about the governments response. I hope it changes. Though to be quite honest, I dont think Harper'll do much.

As for Lebanon, you really gotta feel for them. I mean really, they ve been the battlefield for a proxy war between the Syrians and Iranians on the one hand, and Israel. I think the best solution would be to put in an international force. But where will they come from? And what powers will they have? I have no idea.

Soldiers of the UN misbehaving should not be blamed on the UN. The UN can only ask its members to contribute troops - it cant train them. The situation is troubling, and I agree that Peacekeeping needs a massive overhaul, but criticizing the UN is a bit over the top.

Its easy to forget that ICAO based in Montreal is also a UN body. It governs Air Traffic. These things are important on a global scale. WHO et al are also UN bodies and they do a lot of good things.

If the observers were there to report on violations of the truce, then the UN has a lot to answer for!
How could the UN allow "truce observers" to remain in Lebannon this late in the proceedings, for goodness sake the Israellis activated 18,000 reservists days ago.
This was yet another preventable tragedy.

It has been suggested to me that the Canadian soldier killed in Lebanon is the writer of this report:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060718/mideast_lebanon_UN_060716/20060718/

I am told CTV is interviewed his wife, but no official info has been yet released.

Update: Just released on CTV main page

"middlemuddler, simpleton, er, middleton:"

And the name calling begins.

"I don't know if you've noticed but the country elected a Conservative government and Harpers approval ratings are quite high."

Yes I know. I voted for him. Well I voted against the Liberals. Well mostly I just voted against Paul Martin. Interpret it however you want.

"Anti-UN bias? There's no bias here. The UN is a proven corrupt organization. But I guess you haven't absorbed those facts either."

There have been incidents, yes, but nothing that undermines the good that it has done. Tell me, does the fact that virtually every party in Canada engaged in systematic corruption, and that lovely concept of patronage, undermine the Government of Canada. Sure theres a couple of crooked elements within the UN, but I wouldnt go so far as to accuse it of being a corrupt organization. For the most part, it works. And well. Most countries, in fact most peoples, dont have a problem with it, except for our American neighbours, and their copycats across the border. More royal than the king, eh?

"Perhaps you should consider your own suggestion and take your "idealist" stance elsewhere."

Why? Is this a conservative only blog? Or is it a blog run by a conservative. Like I said earlier, I m a centrist, nee left nor right. And it rocks.

The visceral hatred here for Kofi Annan is something to behold. One racist says he "couldn't tell his ass from a teakettle." (Pot, Kettle,--Black, get it? Hyuck! Hyuck! Yee-haw!).

Annan's sin, though, is not immediately clear. Was it being critical of Israel for targeting UN observers, including a Canadian? I for one am glad that someone's spoken up for that dead Canadian. Not a word out of the wretched Stephen Harper. Not. One. Word.

The IDF have strafed convoys of evacuees, shot rockets at Red Cross vehicles, used white phosphorus and cluster bombs, killed hundreds of civilians. And some of the people here probably don't stop cheering even in their sleep. Wa-hoo!

What did someone say we ought to export to that part of the world? Civilization? No way. It's obvious that we don't have nearly enough of it for ourselves.

richfisher,

"Simpleton."

I can be if you want me to ;)

"It's obvious you don't know the words to The Star Spangled Banner."

C'est vraie. I m always confused as to whether its "O' say can you see..." or "Jose can you see..."

"Or it seems from your comment , much of anything.
Fair enough, you sound like a dipper or lib, you're supposed to be as dumb as a bag of hammers."

If you say so.

"I'll bet you could lead us all in a shrieking chorus of UUU LU LU LUing though."

Okay.

"News flash: Knee jerk anti-Americanism is no longer a Canadian value."

I m not Anti-American. I am, however, anti-Republican because most of the people who vote for them are, imho, racist intolerant bigots. Their base stands for everything Canada doesnt stand for. And I dont like that.

"You lost the last election with that clever party platform plank."

Nope, didnt vote Liberal. But I do recall Conservatives losing the election before that simply because the Liberals played a very intriguing card: They suggested that Harper might actually win. This time round, it was apparent that the Liberals need to go and sort some things out. I didnt vote for the Liberals in either.

With apologies to Kate for the repost, but repetition is the only way some people ever learn:

While it is certainly regrettable/distressing that civilians and foreign nationals are killed in military operations*, where such deaths are not the intent, the responsibility of the deaths lie upon those who deliberately placed them in such a situation. If there has been no “civilian shield” occurrence, then moral blame cannot be fixed.

Statement by the Prime Minister on report of Canadian Forces member missing and presumed dead

July 26, 2006
Ottawa, Ontario

Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued the following statement today on Canadian Forces member Major Paeta Derek Hess-von Kruedener who is missing and presumed dead in Southern Lebanon:

“I am deeply saddened by reports that Major Hess-von Kruedener serving with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) mission in South Lebanon is missing and presumed dead as a result of an incident yesterday.

“Our Government fully intends to investigate the circumstances that led to this tragic incident. I have asked our military to investigate and work in conjunction with the Government of Israel and the United Nations to determine what occurred.

“This regrettable event underscores the dangers that our Canadian Forces members face, in all the roles they undertake, to serve our country with distinction and honour and provide assistance to citizens in countries far from our shores

Hey Middleton,

You have committed a false characterization, to whit...

"I am, however, anti-Republican because most of the people who vote for them are, imho, racist intolerant bigots. Their base stands for everything Canada doesnt stand for. And I dont like that."

Racist intolerant bigots? I thought the republican base was evangelical protestant and conservative Catholics, the precise opposite of your characterization.

Peaceful people. Let's have more of them in the middle east...

Middleton said: " nothing that undermines the good that it, (the UN), has done".

Do you, perhaps, have a list?

Thank you for the update. Harper didn't say much, but he said something, at least.

Interesting to parse it, though. What happened was "an incident." No comments about who caused the "incident." He could have slipped in the bathtub.

The matter will be "investigate[d]." I've been around the block a few times. I know what that means. Even the BBC knows that the IDF blasted away after being contacted numerous times, asked to stop, and giving assurances that they would. But not Harper. He's going to have it "investigate[d]."

He's "saddened" by this "regrettable event." But he's damned if he's going to name the folks who did it, much less blame them.

"Regrettable." "Tragic." I'm "saddened," too.

What I find absolutely alarming is that the support here for Israel actually outweighs support for Canadian troops. The position was being shelled. They requested the Israelis to stop. The Israelis said that they would. And then they promptly fired a precision guided missile that killed a Canadian.

I ll be dead honest. Israel has a right to do whatever it wants, but it does not have the right to kill a Canadian citizen. They can go wage war on whoever they want, but the moment they take a Canadian life, you can bet every last cent that I ll be damn angry about it. Theres no excuses. They were told that UN people were there. They even agreed to stop. And this wasnt a stray shell, it was a guided bomb.

If it is a mistake so be it. But till its proven that this is a mistake, I expect Canada and Canadians to make a hell of a lot of noise about it. We are not obligated to tolerate the death of a Canadian citizen, especially in avoidable circumstances. All you Israel lovers can have whatever opinions you want, but your allegiance lies to Canada first and foremost. If you dislike that, go to whoever you want to fight for.

Come off it, Dr. Dawg. I say that Kofi Annan can't tell his a** from a tea kettle and that makes me a racist? My kettle is white, as a matter of fact. Give me a FRIGGIN' BREAK.

Kofi Annan's remark, immediately after the strike on the U.N. post was that the Israelis had made a "deliberate" attack. How would he know? I would suggest that if he was inept enough not to get the U.N. "observers" out of harms way, then my suggesting that he can't tell his a** from a tea kettle is perfectly justified. I could have said something a lot harsher.

The English language has a number of expressions which speak volumes using only a few words: he knows which side his bread's buttered on, if the shoe fits wear it, etc., etc. Now the political correctness police--your're an officer in this outfit, are you?--are going to censor those of us who use this linguistic shorthand? Might I, as politely as I can, suggest, Dawg, that you shove it?

I can't believe I'm having to "defend" my comments, but calling me a racist has got my Irish up. Whoops. I guess you'll now be calling me Irish-phobic...

In reference to an earlier post about Canadians reporting to Romeo Dallaire.The retired General was appointed to the Senate last year by Paul Martin and sits as a Liberal Senator, so i don't think it is him they report to

Briefing the Council behind closed doors, assistant chief of U.N. peacekeeping operations Jane Hull Lute suggested the attack on the observer outpost may have been deliberate.

She said 21 strikes had occurred in the immediate vicinity of the U.N. position before it collapsed, killing the four military observers. She said that unlike in other areas, there had been no firing by Hezbollah militia units around the U.N. base.

She's either
a) lying,
b) wrong, or
c) it looks really, really bad

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-07-26-voa51.cfm

Nemo2

"Do you, perhaps, have a list?"

Here. Not my list, but it serves the purpose:

1. Food Aid: The UN's World Food Programme is among the most effective multilateral bodies bar none. They feed 104 million people a year in 80 countries. They feed people in war zones, natural disaster situations, health emergencies, and just plain poor countries.

Methinks thats 104 million more people than would have been the case without the UN.

2. Aid to Refugees: There were 17 million asylum-seekers, refugees and the like in 2004 who got help from UNHCR. They both help refugees directly and work to ensure that governments meet their responsibilities to these displacees.

Some parts of the world are hell to live in . People have no choice but to leave. But they need help to leave. The UN provides that.

3. Protecting Children: UNICEF has built a reputation as an advocacy and service powerhouse, with programs ranging from immunizations to AIDS prevention to education and protection against exploitation.

4. Intervenor of Last Resort. In peacekeeping but also more broadly, the UN gets involved in messes when noone else will. The meltdowns in Congo and Liberia are prime examples. When the U.S. and Europe have no interest in getting involved, and there's no regional player with the will and capabilities, the choice is often letting slaughter and mayhem continue untrammeled, or throwing the problem to the UN. The UN deserves credit for taking on these quagmires.

5. Fighting AIDS. Self Explanatory.

6. Bringing invisible issues to the fore. Were it not for the UN, an awful lot of suffering around the world would go even less noticed and addressed than it does today. Landmine victims, Marburg fever and cholera sufferers, child soldiers, modern-day slaves, lepers and thousands of other populations beleagured by one or another either visible or obscure plight have a place to turn at the UN.

Not the complete list I saw, but some things up there are worth thinking about. I think the last one is key.

Middleton & Dawg

Would you two please grow up? There is a difference between fantasy and reality. The death of civilians and/or neutral personnel in any military conflict is a given. The Geneva conventions acknowledge this, and acknowledge that the possibility of such deaths do not forbid the action attempted.

This is morally obvious. To insist otherwise is to cede victory to the vicious.

The point at which non-combatant deaths ought to prevent a major battle is usually very much greater than one.

Please, just because bad things happen does not mean one must immediately find a scapegoat. Our Prime Minister’s response befits a head of state. What do you wish him to do? Declare war? Calm down.

It goes without saying that my deepest condolences and sympathy go out to the families of the deceased.

Henry

"Racist intolerant bigots? I thought the republican base was evangelical protestant and conservative Catholics, the precise opposite of your characterization."

Yes, I suppose after you take away the fact that they think they re superior to all others by virtue of their religion, and believe anyone who doesnt believe the same as them is damned to hell, well, I suppose you could argue that they are nice folk who just really dislike anyone who dares to want to be treated as an equal.

I ve dealt with the religious Republicans. They re racist - Middle East/South Asia=terrorist, intolerant - Gay people should either become straight or get back into the closet, and bigoted - i m right you re wrong, go to hell.

The claim was that the UN does a good job.

Here is an independendent view from only two sources:

First:

web.amnesty.org/wire/september2001/east_timor

"UN fails to guarantee justice and human rights in East Timor"
~~~

Second:

w.foreignaffairs.org/19940901faessay5137/saadia-touval/why-the-u-n-fails-it-cannot-mediate.html

Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan and independent membership organization has a huge website on "Why the U.N. Fails: It Cannot Mediate"

"Summary: Its diplomatic debacles in the past few years demonstrate one thing: the United Nations cannot mediate. It has too many mouths to speak with one voice, lacks the resources needed for political leverage, and diminishes the credibility of its own promises by its incoherence..... and no amount of revamping the United Nations will correct them......

....Between 1987 and 1991, the United Nations mediated a series of agreements that helped end fighting between Iran and Iraq, led to the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan, established a broad-based coalition government in Cambodia, and ended El Salvador's chronic civil war. ........

... In hindsight, those successes clearly stemmed from unique circumstances. Successful U.N. mediation was made possible by the exhaustion of local parties and the unwillingness of external powers to continue supporting clients whose usefulness had expired with the Cold War.

....Those heady days inspired the false hope that the United Nations could be an effective mediator of international disputes.

Since then, U.N. negotiators, however talented and experienced, have tried for years to resolve or reduce conflicts in Afghanistan, Angola, Haiti, Somalia, and the former Yugoslavia, all without success.

In fact, U.N. mediation seems to have extended or aggravated many of those disputes, as belligerents have been able to manipulate the organization?s obvious weaknesses......

It is increasingly apparent that the United Nations possesses inherent characteristics that make it incapable of effectively mediating complex international disputes.....

.... It does not serve well as an authoritative channel of communication.

....It has little real political leverage.

....Its promises and threats lack credibility.

.....And it is incapable of pursuing coherent, flexible, and dynamic negotiations guided by an effective strategy.

Those limitations are ingrained."

Thanks, ian, for pointing out that Romeo Dallaire is now a Liberal Senator. I figured there were extenuating circumstances for his back-pedalling on his real feelings about the U.N. in his public speaking forays a few years ago.

Bingo! Senator Romeo Dallaire. Money for life and it doesn't even matter if you barely show up or if you sleep through the proceedings...

Thanks for saving me the effort BB.

Unfortunately this occurence is another example of the UN failing to act.

The UN observers note that Hezbollah has set up shop next to them and file a report. They dont move or try to get them evicted, they just file a report.

The UN oberservers notice that Israel and Hezbollah seem to be involved in a military conflict. They file a report. They still dont move or try to get rid of hezbollah.

The UN oberservers notice that they are coming under some pretty direct shelling directed at hezbollah. They file a report and ask that Israel stop shooting. They still dont leave.

The UN obeservers notice that the shelling has not stopped. They file another report and ask Israel to stop shooting. They still dont leave, nor does the UN ask them to get to safety.

The UN notices that it is no longer being updated from the observers. They file a report and conclude that the base has been destroyed and their personnell are dead. Still no action but now Koffi gets to go on camera and say something.

If at any point in the story the UN and their personell had acted the story might have ended differently, but by not acting and instead sitting inside a bunker that is being shelled four people are dead.

Sounds like a typical UN operation, watch, listen, file reports but do not act...

Henry

Acknowledging that collateral deaths are a "given" in conflict is a truism, not a legal or moral defence for specific acts.

I recommend "Britain has a Big Problem" (video) at LGF.

Henry,

If Canadians arent going to make noise when Canadians are killed, then who is? Its not a matter of growing up. The Canadian killed was in a UN post. He was not in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I think Harpers response was what I expected. Theres no need to declare war, but there is a need to send a strong clear message: We will not tolerate it so make sure you dont touch ours. Its certainly better than saying "mistakes happen", because then they wont be too worried about making mistakes. They need to be a little more careful with their targetting. And Canada does not have to accept mistakes.

Henry

"Our Prime Minister’s response befits a head of state."

Harper is Head of Government, not Head of state. Minor and inconsequential, but worth knowing for future reference. The Head of State for Canada is usually either the Governor General (as the Queens representative) or the Queen herself.

Way to split that hair middleton. No hair too small for you to split, no sirree...

Gray, you are being obtuse. The point I’ve been trying to make (and I’ve not been subtle about it) is that no legal/moral defence is necessary (there are caveats to the generalization of this statement, and these deal with the “anticipated good”).

Please deal with the argument, not mischaracterizations or side points. Such is the mark of the beast, er, troll.

Stand with Israel.

Stand with Prime Minister Harper.

Stand with Canada and the United States.

Long live freedom and democracy. ...-

60 Targets Attacked Today in Lebanon
Israel Defense Forces ^ | 26/07/2006 | Israel Defense Forces

IDF carried out airstrikes against approximately 60 terror-related targets in Lebanon today (Wednesday), striking 45 buildings and headquarters used by the Hezbollah terror organization. Among the structures was a number of weapons storage facilities, three of them south of Tzur. A number of rocket launch sites and access routes leading to them were bombed as well to hinder the terrorists' ability to launch rockets against Israel. Rocket launchers were also attacked, including a truck-mounted mobile launcher southeast of Tzur. The truck was seen fleeing the site of a rocket launch and was attacked aerially upon arriving at its hiding place. Members of the terror cell, who attempted to flee the area to another hiding place, were struck in a followup airstrike. Likewise, during the afternoon the Air Force bombarded a headquarters of the terror organization Amal in the vicinity of Anatzrya.

IDF is also continuing artillery bombardment of rocket launch sites throughout southern Lebanon. Since Operation Change of Direction began IDF artillery batteries have fired upwards of 45 thousand shells.

IDF will continue to operate decisively to defend the citizens of Israel against the terror threat from Lebanese territory and to bring about conditions leading to the safe return of the two kidnapped soldiers, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. ...-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1672823/posts

henry
Such is the mark of the beast, er, troll.

And so is name calling . . . . .

OK for the sake of argument what is your argument?

That collateral deaths are a given? Conceded as a truism.

that no legal/moral defence is necessary
Are suggesting Isreal is under no obligation to justify its acts legally or morally?

"Are you suggesting"

Sorry about the typo

"Britain has a Big Problem" (video) at LGF.

Watched it, you are correct. They have a problem.

New Kid:

I'd never heard the "ass from a teakettle" expression before. "Ass over teakettle" I'm familiar with. So I Googled the former, and found a handful of references. Hence I do apologize.

My kettle's white too, btw. (No snappy comebacks at this point, please.)

Henry:

Would you two please grow up? There is a difference between fantasy and reality. The death of civilians and/or neutral personnel in any military conflict is a given. The Geneva conventions acknowledge this, and acknowledge that the possibility of such deaths do not forbid the action attempted.

But the Fourth Geneva Convention takes a dim view of collective punishment. And deliberate attacks on convoys of civilians and Red Cross vehicles are a no-no.

Now go back to sleep, and don't forget to keep cheering.

Did anyone see the 'cease fire' news conference this a.m. with Condi and Kofi? I was half asleep (still on holidays) and thought a reporter's question (about Anan's anger over the U.N. bombing) seemed to be directed to him alone but Condi answered for him? Did anyone catch that?

Sigh, Grey... you are also humour-deprived. Be a mensch...

I will not repeat my original comment. Kate has been tolerant to this point.
See smalldeadanimals.com/archives/004344.html#c92129

So, as to your question:

"Are you suggesting Isreal [sic] is under no obligation to justify its acts legally or morally?

I addressed this issue in my response to Middleton & Dawg
See smalldeadanimals.com/archives/004344.html#c92171

"He was not in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Surely you jest... Middleton.

Colin,

What part of "minor and inconsequential" didnt you see? I think its worth knowing for future referrence. I didnt berate him or make comments about anything.

Dawg,

"And deliberate attacks on convoys of civilians and Red Cross vehicles are a no-no."

Agreed. Are they happening, or are you hoping?

"Now go back to sleep, and don't forget to keep cheering."

Sleep is indeed too precious to waste. But I persist in thinking that some things are actually important to discuss.

"He was not in the wrong place at the wrong time."

It would seem so wouldnt it? But when you think about it, he was in a UN bunker, not out in the open, and certainly not in a Hizbollah bunker. The Israelis had been made aware that this was a UN bunker. They acknowledged it in their radio signals after recieving pleas to not fire at the UN bunker.

And he wasnt hit by a stray bomb or stray shell. That was a precision guided bomb. It was aimed specifically at the bunker.

I stand by my contention that that bunker was for all intents and purposes a safe place to be. He wasnt in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I expect Canada to make it clear that such incidents will not be tolerated in the future. Israel can do what it wants, but Canada is not obligated to endure Israels mistakes.

Henry,

"And deliberate attacks on convoys of civilians and Red Cross vehicles are a no-no."

"Agreed. Are they happening, or are you hoping?"

I dont know if its already happened, but if things get worse, it might happen.

Heres an excerpt:

"The embassy in Beirut has advised Sri Lankans in the south to head to the capital if they can, with or without passports.

But it is urging them to avoid travelling in trucks which are being targeted by the Israeli aerial bombardment."

Some of the foreigners there dont have the means to get out. The Israelis for their part, have no issues with destroying trucks roads and leaving these foreigners stuck in the middle of a conflict that they ve played no part in.

Middleton: "I did say that the UN gives Canada an opportunity to punch above her weight. And win some respect globally."

In response: Liberal Senator Colin Kenny speaks the simple truth (full text only for subscribers):
www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=e9a03eb0-6076-486b-b227-004437e24842

'The senator said the idea of Canada as an "honest broker" mediating international conflicts is a mirage, simply because no country or world body is ever asking the country to take on that role.

Mr. Kenny, chairman of the Senate's national security and defence committee, also said Canada needs military assets if it wants a voice in global conflicts. Decades of government neglect of the Canadian Forces meant Canada's forays into foreign affairs have rarely had any teeth, he said.

"For years, Canada has tried to have a foreign policy without having a defence policy, and (past governments) wondered why no one gives a damn about what we think," he said.'

Not much punching, and Afstan takes all we have.

Mark
Ottawa

Middleton,

I stand corrected on terminology. Let me amend it to "Harper gave a royal response" :-)
(Lest anyone think I am being flippant, the point is that PMSH did his job well.)

As to your 6.14 comment – this is more moderate than the earlier. However, stating “We will not tolerate it so make sure you dont touch ours.” is nonsense. Yes, we should hold them to account…as in “Israel will need to account for the manner in which it conduct its military operations.” Afterwards…not now; they are busy. And should our government “not tolerate it” now, what are our options? Think about what you write…

But I have thought about what I ve written. I dont care much for a shoot first ask questions later. This particular incident was wholly avoidable.

"And should our government “not tolerate it” now, what are our options?"

When you make a firm statement, you are increasing pressure on Israel to exercise that extra little bit of caution. It is important that they exercise that extra bit of caution if only because it saves Canadian lives. If we were to simply ignore it and write it off as a mistake, the Israelis would be just that little bit more careless and perhaps take out another Canadian.

It is important that Canada make it clear that mistakes arent tolerable because quite frankly, mistakes shouldnt be made, certainly of this magnitude, where a guided bomb is dropped on 4 foreign nationals AFTER they ve indicated their presence.

There is some value to taking a harsh and loud approach. It increases pressure to be more careful. The Israelis know we arent going to declare war on them. But they should also know, that as allies, we expect better treatment than the Hizbollah. Sounding off helps.

As far as I m concerned, Canada has to make it clear that it will not tolerate such accidents. We re simply not obligated to. I suspect that if the man killed was an acquaintance of yours, you d be yelling bloody murder. Why not extend this to cover all Canadians. Like I said, if we dont stand up for Canadians, who will?

Middleton: "Canada has to make it clear that it will not tolerate such accidents."

What then do we do to express our absence of toleration that will have any effect in the real world?

See my post at 07:23 PM.

Mark
Ottawa

Middleton, I see from your 7.19 post (my taking a passing Dawg by the ear), that I have not got the central and pivotal point across.

Let us create the following fable, as you suggest might happened:

Israel attacks a convoy of trucks carrying civilians and hundreds of innocents die.

Is Israel to be faulted? Only if Israel knew they were non-combatants. The opportunity to strike a probable Hizballah supply convoy outweighs the possible evil (as in misfortune) of slaughtering a relief convoy. The moral guilt belongs to Hizballah and it supporters.

Is this clear? And do we agree?

Henry:

Agreed. Are they happening, or are you hoping?

Obviously your sleep has been sound:

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=33&idsub=125&id=4624&t=Israeli+missiles+hit+Red+Cross+ambulances

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1692091.htm

There's lots more, but you have to wakey-wakey and have a little coffee first.

...sorry: might yet happen

Mark Collins,

I completely agree with the Senator. I certainly think Canada has squandered its position as a "helpful fixer/honest broker". And to be quite honest I am an active critic of Canadian Foreign policy.

"The senator said the idea of Canada as an "honest broker" mediating international conflicts is a mirage, simply because no country or world body is ever asking the country to take on that role."

This only tells half the truth. While Canada isnt being sought out to mediate between warring nations, Canada is working on such initiatives as R2P - Responsibility to Protect. Canada is working alongside Australia on this particular project and it is fast gaining ground. Of course its got a long way to go, but I think its important that the World consider this because it opens the door to removing autocracies - somehting I feel is long overdue.

When you think about it, only a country like Canada, with few if any identifiable vested interests can propose such a venture and have it taken seriously. We all know what the world thinks about the same proposal from Bush or Blairs mouth. Therein lies the key. Many Canadian Foreign Policy achievements have gone virtually unnoticed, but that doesnt mean that they dont exist. The Senator is being a tad bit harsher than is neccessary.

"Mr. Kenny, chairman of the Senate's national security and defence committee, also said Canada needs military assets if it wants a voice in global conflicts. Decades of government neglect of the Canadian Forces meant Canada's forays into foreign affairs have rarely had any teeth, he said."

See now this is a trick question. The only concievable "threat" we have is the United States. We dont have the resources to match them. Is there any point to maintaining a large military? What will the military do? What would give us teeth - a couple of Aircraft Carrier task forces? Do you know how much that would cost? Its easy to say that Canada doesnt have a strong military, but what purpose will it achieve. Who are we going to threaten with the military? And how is the military going to get there?

Besides, what military is large enough? And where will the money come from? Canada spends 11 billion and was the 13th highest spender in terms of military budgets.

"For years, Canada has tried to have a foreign policy without having a defence policy, and (past governments) wondered why no one gives a damn about what we think," he said.'

In all fairness, no one gives a damn about what any country thinks if you re not the US, UK, China, Russia, sometimes France, and in more recent times, India Brazil and South Africa. Canada never had the resources and its unlikely that it ever will. For this line of thinking to work, one would have to have mobile task forces. And its not possible

See the post above yours Dawg, dampen the ghoulish glee, and answer the two questions.

Henry

"Is this clear? And do we agree?"

Yeah we do.

Dr. Dawg, apology accepted. You must be a lot younger than I am not to know that expression!

From this blog both you and I have learned something today...thanks, Kate!

Henry:

There's no talking to the "Israel can do no wrong" crowd. They're saints--angels. They're above reproach. They never kill civilians. Everything is an accident.

Sleep well. Not that you've wakened up recently.

Middleton,

Then like all reasonable people, we just had to keep talking. The urge to hold people accountable is a good one; run with it.

As to your remark to Mark (forgive the pun), Canada does have military capability worth considering (JTF2 are my neighbours), and economics are a military weapon too. While the USA is the only present “threat” (for a given definition of threat), it was not that long ago that the USSR presented a much more worrying one. And please do not discount Denmark. No, I do not jest. What prevents nations from claiming isolated real estate that they covet if not the fear of reprisal/escalation? I give you the Falkland Islands as a case in point.

I think you have presented well the most reasonable sort of position in this debate, Henry. I'm happy to have you on the same side as me in this debate.

Yes Henry very good posts!

I am so fed up with the simpleton notions of Canada as a "honest broker" or the BS of "our traditional role being neutral"

(or the big lie that we can't afford a decent military)

I'd rather people see Canada as being the nation that supports what is right. And uses its muscle to support it.

Supporting Israel is right. Fighting terrorists is right.

Hezbollah not only was obligated to disarm but disband. Before anyone starts smacking the Israeli's, there's a long list of others that come before Israel.

Switching back again, Canada -is- one of the richest nations on this planet. We may not have the largest population but that is hardly an excuse for the usual defeatist "we're so small" bleating. We act like sheep and so we are viewed as sheep. What a connection!

We can afford a larger army and a more vigourous navy and a well-equipped air force.

We're spending how much every year in interest payments on the Trudeau/Chretien/Lalonde debt?

If we had the military that we should have, we would have more clout.

(We should also have a more vigorous space program, but that's another story.)

"In reference to an earlier post about Canadians reporting to Romeo Dallaire.The retired General was appointed to the Senate last year by Paul Martin and sits as a Liberal Senator, so i don't think it is him they report to"

That's EXACTLY why I said what I did.

Well, it didn't work!

There's plenty of blame to go around.
1. Hezbollah. They've been masquerading as UN observers, siting themselves close to UN positions, deliberately trying to draw fire onto UN positions and generally tried to provoke such an incident, not to mention started this whole mess;
2. The UN. Once the war started, exactly what were the UN observers supposed to be observing? -- CNN? -- to know that there was a war on? -- fall of shot? -- "left 150 drop 50, fire for effect"? Why the h@%# didn't the UN pull the observers out once the shooting started (if feasible)? What were they supposed to "report" -- "There's a war on and oh, by the way, they're trying to kill each other."
3. The IDF -- If there was concentrated artillery landing then there was a Forward Observation Officer (FOO) and if there was a FOO, there was a Forward Air Controller (FAC), or should have been. Shouldn't he have informed the pilot that there was a strategically sensitive position that was definitely not to be hit? With GPS and air recce photos, shouldn't the pilot have been aware of the UN position when coming in on his bomb run? I suspect at least one IDF junior officer's ears are ringing tonight, (and not from artillery fire) for having given Israel a diplomatic headache it didn't need.
4. Canada. We've pulled our troops out of UN observer forces in the past (ICCS Vietnam) for the simple reason we're not mediaeval Heralds i.e. we don't observe wars. Perhaps we could have been a bit quicker off the mark with this one too.
There's questions still to be answered esp: was it an errant 155 round? I rather doubt a UN OP would have the overhead protection (OHP) to withstand a direct hit. Or was it a "bunker buster" bomb? In which case even a near miss would create a big enough crater to take out the UN OP. Did the bomb hit a bunker complex with subsequent secondary explosions from stored munitions that ultimately destroyed the OP?
The only heroes in this episode are the brave men who stayed at their post and have paid with their lives. God bless them.

To add to Robert in Calgary; I came across a T.O. Star link at Bourque: What Canada should do: Part I by Alan Baker - Isreal's Ambassador to Canada. A very good comment on what we should be doing, with whom and why.

O/T also a good link about China threatening Canada over Dalai Lama.

Five Myths That Sanction Israel's War Crimes

"The first myth is that Israel was forced to pound Lebanon with its military hardware because Hezbollah began "raining down" rockets on the Galilee.

The second myth is that Hezbollah's stockpile of 12,000 rockets – the Israeli army's estimate – poses an existential threat to Israel.

The third myth is that, while Israel is trying to fight a clean war by targeting only terrorists, Hezbollah prefers to bring death and destruction on innocents by firing rockets at Israeli civilians.

The fourth myth is a continuation of the third: Hezbollah has been endangering the lives of ordinary Lebanese by hiding among noncombatants."

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=9407

DrD

The latest report I've seen says the bunker was ultimately engaged by a missile.

Middleton > "I did say that the UN gives Canada an opportunity to punch above her weight. And win some respect globally. Its easier being a Canadian traveller than an American one. For good reason."

I’m sure Middleton is sincere in his beliefs but these are typical left/Liberal conceits and delusions about Canada’s international performance and reputation.

”Being geographically huge and low in population Canada can't effectively defend herself using her own resources. That’s why Canadian strategy has been to join in alliances with other democracies for mutual defense. Alliances such as NATO, NORAD and AUSCANUKUS have given Canada superb security. Unfortunately, successive Liberal governments since Lester Pearson have steadily cut defense spending (reaching its lowest ebb under commie sympathizing Pierre Trudeau). So, except for a brief boost under Brian Mulroney, Canada has punched well below its weight with per capita defense spending consistently near the bottom of the pack for the past 40 years.

As for "the UN giving Canada an opportunity": Maybe so, but Canada under the Liberals, we have completely squandered it. The left/Lib admiration for the UN and their conceits concerning Canada's contributions and reputation are largely hot air. At last count Canada placed around 30th in its actual contribution to UN peacekeeping. So much for “winning ...respect globally”. [not that the UN is worth supporting]

”It’s easier being a Canadian traveller than an American one.” Perhaps but this has more to do with America's superpower status and wealth than with Canada's sterling reputation. America is a target for anyone with a gripe (including, unfortunately, too many Canadians).

Canada punched above her weight in WWI and WWII. It earned respect in the early days of the UN. It can regain it's long lost reputation only if it once again starts to put its money where its mouth has been. Harper has made a start.

Dr. Dawg,

that's a really interesting link you've provided. Full of emotion, horror, dismay, sadness and more. But very short on facts. The kind of article that pulls on people's emotional heartstrings. It stops them from thinking, and lets their emotions dictate their responses. Not good at all when trying to make an informed decision. It's the kind of story you use when you can't justify a position on facts, so you play to people's emotions. This link provides a much better source of information: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0010656

Specifically, from the article:
"Reporters said the Israelis kept firing for nearly half an hour after being told they had mistakenly hit a UN post. Apparently they were aiming for sites 300 m away, from which Hizbollah had just been launching Katyushas."

Yes, that's right. Hizbollah, the great instigator of violence, launching their Katyushas at Israeli citizens from a site only 300m away from the UN refugee site. Israel, trying to defend their citizens, returns fire. As sorry as I am that so many innocent civilians died, it does not change the fact that the ultimate responsibility for their deaths lies with Hizbollah. Israel does not launch unprovoked attacks on civilians, Hizbollah does. Period!

JR

Who was Prime Minister when Canada first fought in Afghanistan under US command ?

Who was Prime Minister when Canada commited to the mission in Kandahar?

Cheers

I think it's time to add the word "racist" to the spam filter. It's become completely meaningless. On one thread I'm accused of racism for criticizing the content of an email written by a person whose name is not given, and now it's teakettles.

Good grief - no wonder we don't take the left seriously. You are completely and utterly unserious people.

If it is the case that the Lebanese government cannot control Hezbolah and this terrorist outfit if allowed to rule the land, then just maybe they do rule the land. If that is the case just maybe Israel should state that they recognize that Hezbolah are the actual rulers of Lebanon and declare war against that country.

Think about it. Isn't that what is actually happening and no one is willing to say it. The Lebanese government is completely powerless. The Hezbolah is running roughshod over the entire country. Who is stopping them? Who is capable of stopping them? Certainly not the government of Lebanon. Any way you look at it this is a war between Israel and Lebanon.

JR

Let me put it this way. I dont feel half as uncomfortable as my American travelling companions, and for the most part no one has any gripes with Canada.

"America is a target for anyone with a gripe"

Perhaps its because Canada has a lot less to be ashamed of than America. I dont think you d disagree unless you re blinded by the Star Spangled banner. We dont have Vietnam, we havent used nukes, we dont support Arab monarchies to keep the oil supply going, we didnt put money in the coffers of Osama bin Laden during his little Jihad on the Soviets, we didnt support contras, we didnt assasinate a democratically elected leader and replace him with a military dictator who is now facing trial for HR abuses (Pinochet)...the list goes on.

Its really up to you as to whether or not you want to admit that America has blood on its hands, and while we have plenty to be ashamed about - interning the Japanese during the Second World War, or sending back Sikh immigrants, we have not attacked another nation. Americans may have forgotten that Rumsfeld had his picture taken shaking hands with Saddam. The world, including Canada, has a stronger memory.

We do not have a history to be ashamed of.

Middletom I think you have been looking at the liberano version of history instead of the real thing. Try taking your head out of your ass and study some real truths.

Additional to my last point-form meanderings and link to Satan's brood :

What is happening!!!?? A'm I not a child of the universe or have I lost my mind?? Why does all this make me want to jerk off into the Sears catalog? Is this really happening to me??!! I want my CBC!!! Peter save me!!!!!111

Middleton, why whould the Americans need to be ashamed of their history? When the French decided that they didn't have the stomach to fight a war against a communist faction in Vietnam, they turned and fled, abandoning the majority of Vietnamese who didn't want communism. The US stepped in and tried to help. Pressure on the home front from the "no war/not our war" crowd resulted in a weakening of resolve, a decrease in effort, and eventually a complete withdrawal. Do you know how many MILLIONS were murdered in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos once the US withdrew? The US was one of the few countries to battle communism throughout the world! Who else stood up and defended freedom 24/7? Nobody!

Ashamed they dropped the atomic bomb on Japan? They shouldn't be. Japan was tactically defeated, yet refused to give up the fight. Months of massive bombing raids did nothing to change that. It took TWO atomic bombs being dropped on Japan before they finally surrendered. Did you know that there were more civilians killed in the last month of bombing Germany than in the two atom bombs being dropped on Japan?

The fact is, the United States are the primary defenders of freedom in the world. It's been that way since the end of WW2. Unfortunately, the world has no shortage of tyrants and evildoers for them to deal with, and it's always the US that has to do the dirty work. Sometimes it doesn't work out nicely, and sometimes they screw up. But they are trying to do GOOD. All the critics who think they could do so much better should shut up and actually try and do it. But of course, they'd find out it's not so easy, fail miserably, and go back to bitching about "those American bastards".

pete, THANK YOU!

250 Hizbollah killed in Bint Jbail in door-to-door, face-to-face fighting. An entire block of fundamenatist zombies in Tyre rased with precision accuracy. The UN exposed for what it is. The Prime Minister personally challenging Kofi Annan to defend Canada's smackdown indictment of malfeasance.
Besides the Canada-Russia '72 win, so far, knock on wood, this has got to be the greatest day in my life as a Canadian.
Oh... btw... Go Israel. Rollin down the King's Highway.

Sadly, it does now appear that the Canadian officer killed in the IDF attack at Khiam was Maj Paeta Hess-von Kruederer.

Fatefully, he had sent an email to CTV News which was published on their website (it's still there). I provide for your consideration (without further comment), his own words about IDF targeting:

"What I can tell you is this: we have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both artillery and aerial bombing. The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity."

Thanks from me, too, pete, for your defence of the U.S.A. after Middleton gratuituously repeats ad nauseum left/lib Canadians' views of our neighbour to the South.

I'm a Canadian who deeply appreciates the role the U.S. has played and continues to play in defending democratic freedoms on the world stage. Sure they make mistakes and aren't all-knowing and all-wise. They're human, after all. But as defenders of humanity--just look who's the first into areas devastated by natural disasters (Canada shows up weeks later, limping in on outdated and/or borrowed equipment)--they're courageous, risk-takers and they're THERE.

Where are we Canadians, until recently? Snoozing in the House of Commons and when we finally rouse ourselves from our slumbers, dissing Americans and their President:
"moron," "bastard," yada, yada.

I wonder if Middleton is one of the Canadian travellers I encountered in Europe back in the early '70s, smugly flaunting the Canadian flag they'd sewn onto their backpacks?

I finally took the flag off my backpack to face the world as an individual not "a Canadian." And my chief motivation was the smugness of too many of my compatriots, many of whom were boring ("Trudeau's cool") and crass, as compared to the many Americans I hitch hiked with who were, almost universally, better informed and a heck of a lot more fun.

I've always maintained that it's hard to have an elephant as a neighbour when you're a mouse. But the truth of the matter is, I'd far rather have the U.S. of A. as my neighbour than any other nation on earth.

Quit your complaining and moaning and groaning, Middleton. And quit your gloating about Canada and all of our accomplishments. We used to more than pull our weight globally, but have been reduced under the Libranos to creating a fantasy land known as Canada, where the humans are kinder, the grass is greener, and God and morality are gleefully trampled underfoot every day. Did you know, BTW, that the suicide rate of Canadian teenagers is the highest of any developed country? Now THAT'S an accomplishment, eh?

New Kid:

Many thanks for accepting my apology. It's not my usual practice to toss labels like that around so carelessly: I suspect the uncritical pro-Israel commentary here put me on edge. In any case, I am profoundly embarrassed. And Kate will never let me forget it. :)

Dave M.:

Thanks for the link.

"When the French decided that they didn't have the stomach to fight a war against a communist faction in Vietnam, they turned and fled, abandoning the majority of Vietnamese who didn't want communism. The US stepped in and tried to help." - Pete at July 27, 2006 02:34 AM

It is easy to be the greatest nation on earth if you can get people to believe and propogate such a perversion of history. Do you have to give up your membership in homo sapiens to become a neo-con, or only your critical faculties?

I think we're all missing the point.

Iran has successfully pulled the old, "Hey! Look over there!" gag using Hezbollah to distract the world from their nuclear weapons program.

Well, successfully in regards to our short media-attention spans but I'm sure the Israelis, Yanks, Brits, Saudis and many others are still observing rather closely.

From an editorial in today's National Post:

"Mr. Annan's comment ["that the Israeli attack on the UN was 'apparently deliberate.'"] is appalling: Unlike Israel's military strike, it was not made amid the confusion and stress of war, but in an air-conditioned office on Manhattan's east side. Moreover, it now seems that the Secretary-General made his remarks in complete ignorance of circumstances on the ground. According to a blog maintained by the deceased Canadian peacekeeper, reported on in today's Post, Hezbollah maintained an active presence in the immediate vicinity of the UN base. Israeli troops tracking incoming Hezbollah fire may well have identified the building itself as the source of mortars or rockets."

The NP editorial suggests that Annan owes Israel an apology "for this baseless smear." I'd like to second that.

But what are the chances Kofi Annan will apologize? As the Secretary-General of the U.N., he probably sees himself as "above politics," which would be a convenient side-step for his silence on this issue