U.N. Rome-Conference on Lebanon

[ekrem]

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called an international conference for Wednesday that is expected to formulate plans for a cease-fire in the Middle East crisis as well as a possible deployment of foreign troops, a top U.N. official said.

Terje Roed-Larsen, in charge of monitoring Syria-Lebanon issues, said in an interview on Friday that the conference, to be held in Rome, was intended to work out concepts that could stem the violence in Lebanon and Israel.

"The broad consensus now in the international community is that in order to produce a cease-fire you need the political unpinnings," Roed-Larsen told Reuters Television.

The so-called core group of advisors on Lebanon were organized last year for economic reconstruction. They include Russia, Italy, Britain, France, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the World Bank, the United Nations as well as the United States. More nations are expected to be added.

No one knows yet what a stabilization force should do, whether it should disarm Lebanon's Hizbollah militia or go in only after Israel has ended its assault and beef up a U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon.

"On the drawing board in Rome there will be discussions on how such a force should be organized," Roed-Larsen said. "Should one recognize the existing (U.N.) force on the ground, or should it be replaced by a new international presence?"

But Rice, in her Friday news conference in Washington, said that any military intervention needs "a force robust enough to do the job" and make sure Hizbollah would not attack Israel.

U.N. sources said France and Turkey were high on the list for leading such a force while Italy, Greece and Brazil had expressed willingness to join it.

Roed-Larsen, a Norwegian diplomat, who just returned from the Middle East as part of a three-nation U.N. mission, saw Rice in New York on Friday morning and will accompany U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to Rome.

CEASE-FIRE CONSENSUS

Despite calls for an end to warfare, Roed-Larsen said the international community, and not just the United States, was reaching a consensus that any cease-fire had to be embedded in a political solution.

As Israeli troops were amassing on the Lebanese border, he said, "I don't think any of the sides have any intention whatsoever to go into a cease-fire. The only way to reach a cease-fire is if it is embedded in a political deal."

Yet Annan, in a major speech to the U.N. Security Council on Thursday advocated an end to violence or at minimum a humanitarian truce, fearing that the more Israel bombed Lebanon, the more Lebanese would turn to Hizbollah.

Roed-Larsen noted that Annan himself told the council that a cease-fire did not seem to be realistic for the moment, although the secretary-general has continued to advocate an end to hostilities to save lives while a long-term solution was under negotiation.

The United States has declined any talks with Hizbollah as well as its backers in Syria and Iran. But Roed-Larsen said the U.N. team had made contact with Hizbollah and U.N. officials had spoken to Iranian and Syrian leaders and ambassadors.

The crisis began on July 12 when Hizbollah abducted two Israeli soldiers, triggering an intense military response by Israel, followed by Hizbollah missiles on northern Israel.

Hizbollah leaders have said the captive Israeli soldiers would be freed only as part of a prisoner exchange.

Still, Roed-Larsen said it was clear from his visit to Lebanon, where more than 300 people have been killed, that "there is a breaking point" where criticism of Hizbollah turns into "support for Hizbollah."

http://in.today.reuters.com/news/ne...R_RTRJONC_0_India-260613-1.xml&archived=False

 

[ekrem]

Cooperation between Turkey, France and Italy is good as you can see on Afghanistan:

The General Staff announced yesterday that a Regional Commandership in Kabul, Afghganistan will be formed between Turkey, France and Italy. In this framework, Turkey will send additional troops to the region.

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=134440

 

[Annie]

I don't know why a 'top UN official' would say, "U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called an international conference for Wednesday that is expected to formulate plans for a cease-fire in the Middle East crisis..." as she has made clear that the solution lies with Hezbollah, not the outbreak of fighting: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/n...=464531b5-8f7e-40fd-a1bd-71bc4bab566b&k=58847

Now, let's just consider what the UN brings to the table, historically as an 'honest broker', links at site:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_07_16-2006_07_22.shtml#1153523571

[David Kopel, July 21, 2006 at 7:12pm] 3 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
United Nations an Accomplice in Hezbollah Kidnapping:

After Hezbollah's kidnapping of a pair of Israeli soldiers spurred an Israeli counter-attack, many critics of Israel actions have suggested that the United Nations can serve as a buffer between Israel and Hezbollah. To the contrary, the United Nations has a well-established record of collaboration with Hezbollah in the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers.

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) has been deployed since 1978, not long after Israel first entered Lebanon in pursuit of PLO terrorists. UNIFIL was created pursuant to Security Council Resolution 425, for the purpose of "confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area." Quite obviously UNFIL has utterly failed to achieve the Security Council's objectives, either before or after Israel's 2000 complete withdrawal from Lebanon. One reason is that UNIFIL does not interdict Hezbollah attacks on Israel. Instead, UNIFIL allows Hezbollah to set up positions next to UNFIL units, in effect using UNIFIL as human shields against Israeli counterstrikes. (Aluf Benn, Israel accuses UN of collaborating with Hezbollah," Haaretz, Sept. 11, 2005.)

UNIFIL's most notorious collaboration with terrorists involved the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli soldiers, and the subsequent cover-up.

On October 7, 2000, Hezbollah terrorists entered Israel, attacked three Israeli soldiers on Mount Dov, and abducted them Lebanon. The kidnapping was witnessed by several dozen UNIFIL soldiers who stood idle. One of the soldier witnesses described the kidnapping: the terrorists set of an explosive which stunned the Israeli soldiers. Clad in UN uniforms, the terrorists called out, "Come, come, we’ll help you."

The Israeli soldiers approached the men in UN uniforms. Then, a Hezbollah bomb detonated—-apparently prematurely. It wounded the disguised Hezbollah commander, and three Israeli soldiers.

Two other terrorists in U.N. uniforms dragged their Hezbollah commander and the three wounded soldiers into a getaway car.

According an Indian solider in UNIFIL who witnessed the kidnapping, "By this stage, there was a big commotion and dozens of UN soldiers from the Indian brigade came around." The witness stated that the brigade knew that the kidnappers in UN uniform were Hezbollah. One soldiers said that the brigade should arrest the Hezbollah, but the brigade did nothing.

According to the Indian soldier, the UNFIL brigade in the area "could have prevented the kidnapping."

"I’m very sorry about what happened, because we saw what happened," he said. Hezbollah "were wearing our uniforms and it was too bad we didn’t stop them."

It appears that at least four of the UNIFIL "peacekeepers," all from India, has received bribes from Hezbollah in order to assist the kidnapping by helping them get to the kidnapping spot and find the Israeli soldiers. Some of the bribery involved alcohol and Lebanese women.

The Indian brigade later had a bitter internal argument, as some members complained that the brigade had betrayed its peacekeeping mandate. An Indian government investigation sternly criticized the brigade's conduct.

There is evidence of far greater payments by Hezbollah to the UNIFIL Indian brigade, including hundreds of thousands of dollars for assistance in the kidnapping and cover-up.

The UN cover-up began almost immediately.

Lebanon's The Daily Star reported the story told by a former officer of the Observer Group Lebanon (OGL), which is part of the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO). ("UN 'destroyed' evidence after abduction of 3 Israeli troops," The Daily Star, July 20, 2001.)

A few hours after the kidnapping, UNTSO learned that two abandoned cars had been discovered. One was a white Nissan Pathfinder with fake UN insignia; it had hit an embankment because it was being driven so fast that the driver missed a turn. The other was a Range Rover; it was missing a tire rim, and was still running when it was discovered.

Rather than using the very-recently-abandoned vehicles as clues to rescue the kidnap victims, the UN initiated a cover-up. The next morning, eighteen hours after the kidnapping, a team of OGL and the Indian UNIFIL began removing the contents of the cars.

The Range Rover was soaked with blood. Among the contents of the vehicles may have been a cell phone belonging to the terrorists. The UNTSO officer confirmed that the cars contained "extremely sensitive" items which included "current and relevant information that could have been easily linked to the incident."

A UNIFIL peacekeeper videotaped the removal of the contents, and attempted to tow one of the cars. According to a much-later U.N. report, there were fifty items taken from the car, seven of them blood-stained. (Report of the fact-finding investigation relating to the abduction of three Israeli soldiers on 7 October 2000 and subsequent relevant events, Aug. 2, 2001.)

The end of the UNIFIL videotape featured armed Lebanese men confronting the UN forces, and taking the cars away from the UN. The UN personnel did not resist, because, they later claimed, the cars did not belong to the UN anyway.

The UNTSO officer told The Daily Star that the UN ordered its personnel to destroy all photographs and written reports about the incident.

The U.N. did not provide the Israelis with the automobile contents, or the videotape, both of which might have helped the Israelis rescue the kidnap victims. Instead, the seized contents of the cars were taken to a town in Lebanon, stored in a safe, and some were eventually returned to Hezbollah.

Israel found out about the videotape, and demanded that the UN let Israeli investigators see it. Kofi Annan and his Special Envoy denied that any videotape existed. It is not clear whether Annan was lying, or whether he was misled.

Nine months after the kidnapping, July 6, 2001, the UN admitted that is had the videotape. Annan ordered an internal UN Report, which was led by UN undersecretary-General Joseph Connor. (Connor was later implicated in the Oil-for-Food scam.) The report revealed that the UN had two additional videotapes—one of which contained still photographs from the kidnapping itself. The UN investigation declared that there was no evidence that the UNIFIL forces had been bribed, or that the UN had deliberately misled anyone.

Even after admitting the existence of the first videotape, Annan refused to allow Israel to view it. He claimed that letting Israel see evidence about the kidnapping would undermine the UN’s neutrality. Thus, Annan insisted on neutrality between innocent victims and terrorists who had used fake UN insignia and who had taken vehicles from UN staff a gunpoint.

The United States House of Representatives, on July 30, 2001, passed by a vote of 411-4 a resolution urging the UN to allow Israel to see the videotape. Annan relented, but only under the condition that the tape be edited so as to hide the faces of the Hezbollah perpetrators. He also agreed to give the Israelis some, but not all, of the items which the UN had seized from the getaway cars.

On January 29, 2004, the bodies of the murdered Israelis were returned to Israel by Hezbollah, as part of a prisoner exchange.
UPDATE: In response to one of the commenters, I've added the following analysis on two questions: 1. By what standard can the UN be considered an "accomplice" in the Hezbollah kidnapping? 2. Is anti-semitism the best explanation of UN behavior?

1. Regarding UN complicity in kidnapping, one can analogize from the rules that are used to decide whether a corporation is criminally culpable for the acts of its employees, or whether a government agency is liable under section 1983 for the acts of its employees. At the lowest level--the four bribed Indians--the trier of facts looks at the entity's efforts to prevent or punish the employee conduct in question, and whether the entity creates a culture in which the conduct is encouraged or tacitly tolerated.

For misconduct by higher-ranking employees, prosecutors and fact-finders tend to be more likely to conclude that misconduct is attributable to the entity. If you believe the UNTSO official who spoke to The Daily Star (not exactly a reflexively pro-Israel newspaper), or if you believe that reports of a vast bribery scheme are true, then you might well find culpability on the part of the UN.

But I think that my calling the UN an "accomplice" is supportable purely on the undisputed public facts about the UN's concealment and suppression of evidence -- with some of the suppression being conducted at the direct order of the UN's chief executive. I believe the undisputed facts are sufficient to show, at the least, that the UN was an accessory-after-the-fact to the kidnappings.

Moreover, the activities of the UN's top staff in New York City, and of high-ranking UN officials in Lebanon, are also relevant evidence for whether there is UN corporate culture of tolerance for terrorism/kidnapping, which is relevant evidence for whether the misconduct of the Indian brigade can be attributed to the UN.

As some commenters have pointed out, there is a very long record of the UN being extremely lax towards crimes committed by its peacekeepers in many other places--for example, the rapes of women and girls in former Yugoslavia, Cambodia, West Africa, and the Congo. The global record suggests, again, a corporate culture of indifference (despite official statements to the contrary) towards employee on-the-job involvement in violent crime; the evidence of a global culture of indifference is more evidence which a fact-finder could use in concluding that crimes of the Indian brigade were attributable to the UN.

2. Anti-semitism. I don't think that anti-semitism is the root of the UN's problem with Israel. It's true, as some commentators have pointed out, that the UN is functionally anti-semitic; that is, the UN constantly condemns Israel far more often and more vehemently than it condemns other countries which (even if you believe the worst about Israel) violate human rights much more severely than Israel does. The Eye on the UN website provides copious documentation of the UN's functional anti-semitism.

Nevertheless, I think the UN's pervasive anti-Israelism, although anti-Semitic in practice, is not primarily motivated by hatred of Jews.

Hitler was genuinely committed to anti-Semitism. He harmed his own military interests by giving rail line priority to trains which were headed for the death camps, putting those trains ahead of military transport trains. Similarly, Hitler would have produced resources with which to fight the war if he had used Jews as slave labor (as many were used before extermination), rather than killing them en masse. Who else would harm their own self-interest in order to kill Jews. The answers include "the government of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the PLO." But only one of these has a UN delegation, and the UN had turned vehemently against Israel long before Iran's government was taken over by Islamonazis.

Way back in the 1950s, the Arab bloc at the UN had succeeded in perverting UNRWA so that UNRWA would perpetuate rather than solve the Palestinian refugee problem. The Arab dictators of the day may have personally despised Jews, but I think that the dictators were acting out of self-interest, not prejudice. They recognized that keeping the Arab-Israeli conflict festering was a good way to distract and divert the anger of their own nations' populations. In retrospect, we know that the strategy was only partially successful, since the fomentation of anti-Israel Jew hatred sometimes aroused local forces which the dictatorships were unable to control.

Arab government-incited anti-semitism had the advantage of building on historical prejudices against Jews. (It's true that, in the past, Arab Moslem regimes sometimes treated Jews better than did European Christians, but there was also a long record of atrocious abuse of Jews in the Arab world on which the post-WWII Arab dictatorships could build.)

But suppose that modern Israel had never been created, and that, after WWII, some other state for a stateless people had been born. Maybe sympathy for the Gypsies, who were also the victims of Nazi genocide, might have led to the creation of Gypsistan (or Romastan, according to the modern usage) in a part of Egypt. (The word "gypsy" comes from the "Egypt", based on the belief that the group originated there.) Or some other persecuted group might have established a homeland in the wastelands of Libya. In any case, I think that the establishment of a non-Arab state would likely have led to military confrontation, and if the attempt to exterminate that state by force had failed, then the Arab dictators would have found political advantage in fomenting hatred of that non-Arab state.

Although UNRWA was captured very shortly after it was born, the broader UN assault on Israel didn't get going until the 1960s; the assault peaked in the 1970s, and later receded slightly from its 1970s apex. The anti-Israel assault of the 1970s was merely one element in a successful Soviet strategy of aligning the new UN members, most of them former colonies of Europe, and most of them dictatorships, into an anti-Western bloc. Israel, having the misfortune of being located in the middle of a sea of dictatorships, was a natural target of this UN super-majority; but the same would have been true if Romastan were a pro-western democracy.

Today, the Islamic bloc at the UN continues to find local political advantage in anti-Israelism (as it would with anti-Romastanism), while the rest of the Third World finds it advantageous to go along. I don't think that the dictatorship of China, for example, cares one way or the other about Jews or Israel; but the Chinese dictatorship correctly discerns that voting with the Islamic bloc against Israel is a cost-free way to curry favor with Islamic states, and win their support on issues relevant to China.

Regarding Kofi Annan, and most of the rest of the UN's leading executives, I would say that, functionally, they are vicious anti-Semites, but that, in their hearts, they are not particularly prejudiced against Jews per se. Rather, their actions are explainable under the principles of organizational behavior. Annan is a career UN employee (the first one to become Secretary-General), and he has risen through the organization by shrewdly placating whoever needs to be placated. His anti-Israel actions are simply the result of his astute calculation of the balance of forces at the UN. If he could gain more power at the United Nations by denouncing Fiji or by defending Israel, he would do so.

So there is no anti-semitic conspiracy at the UN, in the sense of a conspiracy directed by people who are deeply motivated by hatred of Jews. Rather, the UN's criminal complicity in the kidnapping of Israelis, like the rest of the UN's anti-Israelism, is explainable as the logical result of a wide variety of UN actors behaving according to their self-interest.

 

[ekrem]

Turkey to Consider Role in Peacekeeping

By LOUIS MEIXLER
The Associated Press
Tuesday, July 25, 2006; 7:29 AM

ANKARA, Turkey -- Turkey, NATO's only Muslim member, would consider playing a major role in a peacekeeping force in Lebanon, a Foreign Ministry official said Tuesday.

The official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said Turkey would first want to see a strong U.N. mandate for the force that would define its role, where it served and its rules of engagement.



Top NATO and Middle Eastern officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, meet Wednesday in Rome to discuss possible solutions to conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, including a peacekeeping force that could be deployed on the Israeli-Lebanese border.

Turkey has close ties with both Israel and Arab countries and wide-ranging experience in international peacekeeping. It has led peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan and participated in missions in Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia.

Lebanese Ambassador George Siam was quoted as saying that "we believe Ankara would be successful in such a mission." His remarks were printed in Tuesday's The New Anatolian newspaper.

The Foreign Ministry official said Muslim Turkey was a logical choice for a key role in such a force but cautioned that Turkey was also likely to demand a cessation of hostilities and broad international participation.

The official also said that discussions over the role of such a force were likely to be very difficult.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/25/AR2006072500397.html


We have to see, whether this mission is Peace making or Peace keeping.
When it is peace keeping, Turkey would send thousands of soldiers there. I mean, we have about 30.000 Soldiers in Cyprus who are doing actually nothing.
But by peacemaking there is according to the former UN-Forces in Libanon Spokesman (a turk, forgot his name, but saw him today on CNN-TURK in an interview), that when Sunni-Shia conflict in the region is escalating and Turkey would have to disarm Hizbullah, that it could be directed into this conflict.

Hizbullah is Shiite and Shiite states will in such a Sunni-Schia conflict think, that Turkey is takeing side against Shiites.
So Turkey has to carefully negotiate conditions of such a mission.
Best would be to send soldiers in Gaza, too.
We will see what the outcome of Rome-meeting is and in which direction it gets on the ground between Lebanon and Israel.

 

[dilloduck]

Turkey to Consider Role in Peacekeeping

By LOUIS MEIXLER
The Associated Press
Tuesday, July 25, 2006; 7:29 AM

ANKARA, Turkey -- Turkey, NATO's only Muslim member, would consider playing a major role in a peacekeeping force in Lebanon, a Foreign Ministry official said Tuesday.

The official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said Turkey would first want to see a strong U.N. mandate for the force that would define its role, where it served and its rules of engagement.



Top NATO and Middle Eastern officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, meet Wednesday in Rome to discuss possible solutions to conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, including a peacekeeping force that could be deployed on the Israeli-Lebanese border.

Turkey has close ties with both Israel and Arab countries and wide-ranging experience in international peacekeeping. It has led peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan and participated in missions in Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia.

Lebanese Ambassador George Siam was quoted as saying that "we believe Ankara would be successful in such a mission." His remarks were printed in Tuesday's The New Anatolian newspaper.

The Foreign Ministry official said Muslim Turkey was a logical choice for a key role in such a force but cautioned that Turkey was also likely to demand a cessation of hostilities and broad international participation.

The official also said that discussions over the role of such a force were likely to be very difficult.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/25/AR2006072500397.html


We have to see, whether this mission is Peace making or Peace keeping.
When it is peace keeping, Turkey would send thousands of soldiers there. I mean, we have about 30.000 Soldiers in Cyprus who are doing actually nothing.
But by peacemaking there is according to the former UN-Forces in Libanon Spokesman (a turk, forgot his name, but saw him today on CNN-TURK in an interview), that when Sunni-Shia conflict in the region is escalating and Turkey would have to disarm Hizbullah, that it could be directed into this conflict.

Hizbullah is Shiite and Shiite states will in such a Sunni-Schia conflict think, that Turkey is takeing side against Shiites.
So Turkey has to carefully negotiate conditions of such a mission.
Best would be to send soldiers in Gaza, too.
We will see what the outcome of Rome-meeting is and in which direction it gets on the ground between Lebanon and Israel.

Good luck. Hopefully it will be a peace keeping mission after Israel is finished and led by NATO

 

[ekrem]

Good luck. Hopefully it will be a peace keeping mission after Israel is finished and led by NATO

One thing is sure: American soldiers will not participate. And soldiers deployed there under an UN or whatever mission will avoid the view of being instrument of USA.
Otherwise it makes no sense.

 

[dilloduck]

One thing is sure: American soldiers will not participate. And soldiers deployed there under an UN or whatever mission will avoid the view of being instrument of USA.
Otherwise it makes no sense.

Agreed--we have put enough American lives on the line to stop Islamic terrorism already.

 

[Gunny]

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called an international conference for Wednesday that is expected to formulate plans for a cease-fire in the Middle East crisis as well as a possible deployment of foreign troops, a top U.N. official said.

Terje Roed-Larsen, in charge of monitoring Syria-Lebanon issues, said in an interview on Friday that the conference, to be held in Rome, was intended to work out concepts that could stem the violence in Lebanon and Israel.

"The broad consensus now in the international community is that in order to produce a cease-fire you need the political unpinnings," Roed-Larsen told Reuters Television.

The so-called core group of advisors on Lebanon were organized last year for economic reconstruction. They include Russia, Italy, Britain, France, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the World Bank, the United Nations as well as the United States. More nations are expected to be added.

No one knows yet what a stabilization force should do, whether it should disarm Lebanon's Hizbollah militia or go in only after Israel has ended its assault and beef up a U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon.

"On the drawing board in Rome there will be discussions on how such a force should be organized," Roed-Larsen said. "Should one recognize the existing (U.N.) force on the ground, or should it be replaced by a new international presence?"

But Rice, in her Friday news conference in Washington, said that any military intervention needs "a force robust enough to do the job" and make sure Hizbollah would not attack Israel.

U.N. sources said France and Turkey were high on the list for leading such a force while Italy, Greece and Brazil had expressed willingness to join it.

Roed-Larsen, a Norwegian diplomat, who just returned from the Middle East as part of a three-nation U.N. mission, saw Rice in New York on Friday morning and will accompany U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to Rome.

CEASE-FIRE CONSENSUS

Despite calls for an end to warfare, Roed-Larsen said the international community, and not just the United States, was reaching a consensus that any cease-fire had to be embedded in a political solution.

As Israeli troops were amassing on the Lebanese border, he said, "I don't think any of the sides have any intention whatsoever to go into a cease-fire. The only way to reach a cease-fire is if it is embedded in a political deal."

Yet Annan, in a major speech to the U.N. Security Council on Thursday advocated an end to violence or at minimum a humanitarian truce, fearing that the more Israel bombed Lebanon, the more Lebanese would turn to Hizbollah.

Roed-Larsen noted that Annan himself told the council that a cease-fire did not seem to be realistic for the moment, although the secretary-general has continued to advocate an end to hostilities to save lives while a long-term solution was under negotiation.

The United States has declined any talks with Hizbollah as well as its backers in Syria and Iran. But Roed-Larsen said the U.N. team had made contact with Hizbollah and U.N. officials had spoken to Iranian and Syrian leaders and ambassadors.

The crisis began on July 12 when Hizbollah abducted two Israeli soldiers, triggering an intense military response by Israel, followed by Hizbollah missiles on northern Israel.

Hizbollah leaders have said the captive Israeli soldiers would be freed only as part of a prisoner exchange.

Still, Roed-Larsen said it was clear from his visit to Lebanon, where more than 300 people have been killed, that "there is a breaking point" where criticism of Hizbollah turns into "support for Hizbollah."

http://in.today.reuters.com/news/ne...R_RTRJONC_0_India-260613-1.xml&archived=False

Great. So what's the UN going to do now? And where have they been for the past 50 years while this sore consistently festers and boils over occasionally?

Here's a novel idea: Perhaps the UN should come out and take a united stand against terrorist organization worldwide, and terrorism in general? Seems to me if there are no terrorists running amock, there is no invasion. Maybe that's too simple math for those that wish to villify Israel because it's inhabited by a people of a religion they don't like.

 

[dilloduck]

Great. So what's the UN going to do now? And where have they been for the past 50 years while this sore consistently festers and boils over occasionally?

Here's a novel idea: Perhaps the UN should come out and take a united stand against terrorist organization worldwide, and terrorism in general? Seems to me if there are no terrorists running amock, there is no invasion. Maybe that's too simple math for those that wish to villify Israel because it's inhabited by a people of a religion they don't like.

The UN IS a terrorist organization. They scare the shit out of me everytime they "do" something.

 

[Gunny]

The UN IS a terrorist organization. They scare the shit out of me everytime they "do" something.

Not me. There isn't one chance in a million that whatever they "do" is going to work.

 

[dilloduck]

Not me. There isn't one chance in a million that whatever they "do" is going to work.

Exactly---that's why it scares the shit out of me when they say they will "help" someone.

Please UN--don't "help" anymore in the middle east !!!

 

[Gunny]

Exactly---that's why it scares the shit out of me when they say they will "help" someone.

Please UN--don't "help" anymore in the middle east !!!

Well, let's just look at the last thing they actually took action on ......

 

[dilloduck]

Well, let's just look at the last thing they actually took action on ......

Kofi is claiming that Israel blasted the UN position on purpose. Pretty bold statement to be making prior to any investigation. Talk about some one who has lost his credibilty as a "neutral". This guy has got to go---NOW.