Vi minns hur hela världen inklusive Kofi Annan anklagade Israel när en missil från dem oavsiktligen landade nära en UNIFIL-position. Varför har nedanstående varit ointressant att rapportera?
Aug. 3: “En raket från Hezbollasidan träffade direkt en UNIFIL-post … En halvtimme senare träffade ytterligare en raket från Hezbollahsidan samma UNIFIL-post… Hezbollah sköt också med mindre vapen från närheten av två FN-poster …”
Aug. 2: “… Hezbollah avlossade raketer från närheten av tre UNIFIL-poster …”
Aug. 1: “… Hezbollah sköt med granatkastare från närheten av tre UNIFIL-poster …”
Juli 31: “. . . Hezbollah avlossade raketer från närheten av denna UNIFIL-post . . . Hezbollah sköt också med mindre vapen från närheten av två UNIFIL-poster …”
Juli 30: “Det rapporterades att Hezbollah sände raketer från närheten av tre FN-poster… De avlossade även mindre vapen från närheten av två FN-poster …”
Juli 29: “… det rapporterades att Hezbollah fired sköt från närheten av sex FN-poster …”
Juli 28: “… Hezbollah sköt från närheten av fem FN-poster …”
Och så vidare. Visst har massmedia flitigt rapporterat om detta intima samarbete mellan FN och Hezbollah huh? Ett UNIFIL som precis har fått hundra miljoner fräscha dollars för det kommande året, att göra – vad då? Dricka kaffe med Hezbollah? Eller finns rapporterna om 15000 importerade missiler i Kofi Annans papperskorgar? Vad är säkerhetsavståndet mellan UNIFIL-post och terroristläger?
Från http://lazerbrody.typepad.com/lazer_beams/2006/07/emuna_news_spec_7.html hämtar jag följande:
I nästan 30 år, sedan UNIFIL startade sina operationer i södra Libanon, har FN-soldater judiskt blod på sina händer. Nej, de har inte avlossat skotten men de har förvisso gjort vad de har kunnat för att hjälpa Israels fiender. Som:
- UNIFIL-observatörer har ofta avslöjat IDF:s (Israels Försvarsmakt) positioner för terroristerna;
- UNIFIL-observatörer, glada över att öka sina begränsade löner med tjocka buntar med dollars från iranska källor, har ofta hjälpt Hizbollaterristerna som artilleriobservatörer att rikta terroristeld mot Israel;
- UNIFIL-observatörer har de senastre 6 åren blundat för den massiva konstruktionen av bunkers i södra Libanon liksom för den massiva upplagringen av dödliga vapen att använda mot Israel;
- UNIFIL-observatörer lämnar fri passage åt terroristerna för att attackera eller infiltrera Israel och bygger även upp broar åt dem sprängda av Israel för att försvåra transport av ytterligare vapen från Syrien;
- UNIFIL-observatörer håller terroristerna uppdaterade angående IDFs trupprörelser och aktiviteter.
The Rules of War
By Moshe Yaalon
Thursday, August 3, 2006; A27
The conflict in the Middle East is about much more than Israel and Hezbollah, or even Hezbollah's Syrian and Iranian sponsors. What is at stake are the very rules of war that underpin the entire international order.
Sadly, judging from how most of the world has responded to Israel's military action against Hezbollah, these rules have been completely abandoned.
The rules of war boil down to one central principle: the need to distinguish combatants from noncombatants. Those who condemned Israel for what happened at Qana, rather than placing the blame for this unfortunate tragedy squarely on Hezbollah and its state sponsors, have rewarded those for whom this moral principle is meaningless and have condemned a state in which this principle has always guided military and political decision making.
Faced with enemies who openly call for its destruction and victimized by unremitting wars and terrorism since well before it was born, Israel has risked the lives of its citizens and its soldiers to abide by this principle in a way that is unprecedented in the history of nations.
Here is but one of countless examples: In 2003, at the height of the Palestinian terror war against Israel, our intelligence services discovered the location of a meeting of the senior leadership of Hamas, an organization pledged to the annihilation of the Jewish state and responsible for some of the deadliest terrorist attacks ever carried out against Israel.
We knew that a one-ton bomb would destroy the three-story building and kill the Hamas leadership. But we also knew that such a bomb would endanger about 40 families who lived in the vicinity. We decided to use a smaller bomb that would destroy only the top floor of the building. As it turned out, the Hamas leaders were meeting on the ground floor. They lived to terrorize another day.
Imagine for a moment that the United States had advance knowledge of the meeting place of al-Qaeda's senior leadership. Does anyone believe that there would be a debate about what size bomb to use, much less that any leader would authorize insufficient force to do the job?
So while it is legitimate to question whether Israel should go to such extreme lengths to avoid civilian casualties, it is preposterous to argue that Israel uses excessive force. Even more absurd was the shameful statement last week that Israel appeared to have deliberately targeted U.N. officials -- a statement fit for a knave or a fool, not for the secretary general of the United Nations. Rather than lead the fight against those who target civilians and use them as human shields, Secretary General Kofi Annan has strengthened them.
It is clear to any objective observer that Hezbollah is using Lebanese civilians as human shields. It builds its headquarters in densely populated areas, embeds its fighters in towns and villages, and deliberately places missiles in private homes, even constructing additions to existing structures specifically to house missile launchers.
The reason terrorist groups such as Hezbollah use human shields is elementary. They try to exploit the respect for innocent human life that is the hallmark of any civilized society to place that society in a no-win situation. If it fails to respond to terror attacks, it endangers its own citizens. If it responds, it runs the risk of killing innocents, earning world opprobrium and inviting diplomatic pressure to stand down.
Hoping to retain its high moral standards in the face of such a cynical enemy, Israel has made every effort to avoid harming civilians. We have dropped fliers, sent telephone messages and broadcast radio announcements so that innocents can get out of harm's way. In doing so, we imperil our own citizens since, by losing the element of surprise, we invariably allow some of the enemy to escape with their missiles.
But at Qana, Hezbollah responded to Israel's compassion with more cynical brutality. After launching missiles at Israel, the terrorists rushed inside a building. When Israel fired a precision-guided missile to strike at the terrorists, scores of civilians, including children, were killed.
The difference between us and the terrorists is clear: We endanger ourselves to protect their civilians. They endanger their own civilians to protect themselves.
If tragedies such as Qana are not to be repeated, then, rather than condemning Israel, the world should be directing its anger at Hezbollah and at the Syrian and Iranian regimes that support it.
Terrorists are fanatics, but they are not idiots. If the terrorist tactic of using human shields helps them achieve their goals, they will utilize it. If it undermines their goals, they will abandon it.
If we want to live in a world where civilians are never used as human shields, then we must create a world in which employing such measures results in the unequivocal condemnation of terrorists and in forceful action against them by the civilized world.
If the world were now blaming Hezbollah, Syria and Iran for the innocent Lebanese killed, hurt or displaced in this conflict, then it would be sending a powerful message to every terrorist group on the planet: We will not tolerate the use of human shields. Period.
Instead, those who condemn Israel have sent precisely the opposite message. They have told every terrorist group around the world that the use of human shields will pay huge dividends, thereby providing them with a powerful weapon that endangers innocents everywhere.
The writer, a retired lieutenant general, was chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces from 2002 to 2005. He is now a distinguished military fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Ya'alon har alltid haft sunda åsikter, och det var därför Sharon/Mofaz slängde ut honom. Här ett stycke från honom före massdeporteringen av judar i fjol:
Tuesday, April 19, 2005 / 10 Nisan 5765
Speaking in Herzliya last night, outgoing Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Moshe Yaalon said, "Immediately after the disengagement, we can expect a burst of terrorism - especially in Judea and Samaria."
"The Israeli public must not think that the Mashiach (Messiah) is arriving with the withdrawal," Yaalon said, at the Army and Society Seminar.
Yaalon was one of the first to warn of the dangers of the disengagement, having said over a year ago that the withdrawal would provide a "tail wind" for terrorism. It is widely felt that this statement is one of the reasons why Prime Minister Sharon and Defense Minister Mofaz did not allow him to remain in his post for a fourth year, as is customary. Yaalon's term as head of the IDF will end in June.
"All the signs point to [a renewal of terrorism]," Yaalon said last night, referring to intelligence reports reaching the security forces. The reports speak not only of the terrorists' massive preparations for the "day after," but also of the sharp increase in terrorism in recent days and weeks.
Yesterday, for instance, two Israelis were wounded in a sniper attack in southern Gaza, while last night, there were two infiltration attempts in Gaza and another shooting attack at Gush Katif.
Yaalon demanded that Israel insist that Abu Mazen fight concretely against the terrorist organizations. Abu Mazen's attempts to peacefully accommodate the terrorists without forcefully disarming them are not sufficient, Yaalon apparently feels.
Thousands of weapons have been smuggled to various locations in Judea and Samaria over the past several weeks and months. Among the weapons are anti-tank missiles and even five anti-aircraft missiles that could be used to threaten air traffic to and from Ben Gurion International Airport. Materials and instructions for the construction of roadside bombs and other explosives have also been smuggled in.
Other signs of likely terrorism in the future are attempted Kassam rockets from the Jenin area to Afula, distribution of Jordanian weapons in Jericho, attempts to smuggle terror experts from Gaza to Judea/Samaria, and more.
Olmert Says War Will Advance Realignment, Refusals Result
11:23 Aug 03, '06 / 9 Av 5766
by Yechiel Spira and Ezra HaLevi
 | As a result of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's declaration that victory in the Lebanese war would advance his withdrawal plan, ten reserve soldiers have announced their refusal to fight. |
| For the past several months, Olmert has championed his "convergence" plan, which is in essence another unilateral withdrawal and the planned destruction of most of the remaining Jewish communities located throughout Judea and Samaria. Olmert has said he will "converge" them together into settlement blocs, but the international community has not agreed to this. Speaking with The Associated Press on Wednesday, Prime Minister Olmert said, "I'll surprise you. I genuinely believe that the outcome of the present [conflict] and the emergence of a new order that will provide more stability and will defeat the forces of terror will help create the necessary environment that will allow me... to create a new momentum between us and the Palestinians." "We want to separate from the Palestinians," he added. "I'm ready to do it. I'm ready to cope with these demands. It's not easy, it's very difficult, but we are elected to our positions to do things and not to sit idle." Word of Olmert's statements quickly spread through the ranks of the IDF units fighting in Lebanon. Army Radio featured a father from Ofrah, one of the communities slated for destruction due to its proximity on the "other" side of the Partition Wall. "I text-messaged my two sons serving in Lebanon to tell them to come home," he said. "It is outrageous that the man sending them to war states that the victory they are risking their lives for will result in their family being expelled from their home, allowing it to become exactly what Gaza and southern Lebanon have become." Shortly after, it was reported that at least ten reservists had refused to continue their emergency reserve duty if further withdrawals are truly the goal of the operation. Olmert's public relations team later insisted that the war with Hizbullah has nothing to do with his plan, stating his planned ‘realignment’ must move forward as he promised it would prior to being elected. Among the critics of Olmert’s plan is MK Dr. Yossi Beilin, who heads the left-wing Meretz-Yahad opposition party. Beilin stated there can be no additional unilateral Israeli policies, only withdrawals resulting from negotiations and agreements. His remarks were echoed by Arab MK Mohammad Barakeh. Likud MK Gidon Sa’ar stated that the so-called realignment plan would bring the rockets to fall upon the entire country, and not the just the north and south as is the case today. MK Dr. Ephraim Sneh (Labor), a former deputy defense minister, stated that it is obvious from the prime minister’s remarks that he has learned nothing from the unilateral withdrawals from Gaza and southern Lebanon. The prime minister currently enjoys widespread support for his ongoing effort to destroy Hizbullah. Some critics are accusing the prime minister of taking advantage of his popularity to advance his political agenda, explaining he has made an error since he is splitting the nation at this critical time. MK Effie Eitam (National Union-NRP), a retired IDF brigadier-general and former commander of forces in southern Lebanon, has been advising the prime minister and Defense Minister Amir Peretz frequently since the war broke out over three weeks ago. Eitam was quick to comment on Olmert’s AP interview, stating he made a tactical error, splitting the nation at this critical time. Eitam told the media that following the prime minister’s interview, he was contacted by many rabbis and deans of IDF preparatory yeshiva programs, all expressing concerns regarding the timing of the prime minister’s remarks as the nation is in a state of war. Realizing Eitam was the unofficial liaison to the Orthodox community that supports Olmert during the ongoing Hizbullah war, the Prime Minister’s Office was quick to contact him, seeking to implement damage control. Aides to the prime minister quickly issued a clarification, stating the realignment was not intended to have been the main focus of the AP interview. Asking Eitam to convey a message to the Torah-observant public, the prime minister announced that at present, he is only dealing with efforts to halt rocket attacks, nothing else. The prime minister’s interview broke the current momentum, with rabbis and other right-wing community leaders calling to reevaluate the war in the north, explaining it is unconscionable that soldiers living in Judea and Samaria fight for the country and then be evicted from their homes by the same army. Eitam was called upon by Olmert to act as a go-between, seeking to allay fears and repair the damage resulting from his interview. Eitam told the media that following a conversation with the prime minister, it is clear to him that the realignment/expulsion would not be dealt with at present. Eitam admits that the plan will be problematic at some time in the future, after the war, but for now, the nation must remain united behind the government while efforts continue to eliminate the Hizbullah threat. Wednesday night, at a gathering of some 15,000 Jews who marched around Jerusalem's Old City at the fast of Tisha B'Av began, Women in Green co-founder Nadia Matar called upon all those present to bring their children home from the war front in order to defend their homes in Judea and Samaria, unless Olmert announces the cancellation of his plan. Manhigut Yehudit, the Jewish Leadership faction within the Likud, was calling for refusal even prior to PM Olmert's explicit statements, saying it was obvious that the war's goal is to prove to the Israeli public that past withdrawals had been beneficial. Already last week, Manhigut director Michael Fuah issued such a call. “We must remember what the IDF was busy with exactly a year ago,” he wrote in an essay published on Arutz-7's Hebrew site Tuesday. “The IDF, in its present state, is not capable of beating Hizbullah. When one adds the supposed ethical code the IDF is charged with – where the Defense Minister praises a soldier for refraining from shooting at a terrorist holding a child on one hand and his gun in the other – there is no chance for victory.” Fuah adds that he realizes the stance is not a popular one, but while the Prime Minister continues to say he will continue with the destruction of Jewish communities and the expulsion of their residents, only such a refusal movement can demand: 1. Replacement of the IDF top brass who took part in the expulsion. 2. Rewriting of the IDF's ethical code to rule out endangering soldiers to protect the lives of terrorists and those around them. 3. A decision by the Knesset and the cabinet allowing all those expelled from Gaza, Samaria and the Sinai to return to their homes. More than 10% of soldiers killed in combat in Lebanon hail from towns in Judea and Samaria - three times their proportion in the general population. |
| |
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar