War in the middle east, why oh why?

It is common policy for the Israeli Airforce to fly low over Lebanon, they did during U N I F I L 1, (circa 1977 - mid 2006).

All the time I was there in 1979 - 1980 thats why the U N in New York supplied us with notepads with the words "OVERFLIGHT REPORTS" in which we duly logged the time of the event, the estimated height of the aircraft, identifying marks and numbers on the said aircraft, direction in which the aircraft was flying etc.. etc...

In U N I F I L 1, before we could return fire, we had to have had a casualty (i. e. bleeding body) before we could consider returning fire, otherwise we had to contact U N H.Q. in Naqura, who had to radio U N H.Q. in New York, who had to have a meeting, and then the decision had to relayed back to UNIFIL HQ at Naqura, who then called the location where the problem was at

By which time the situation had been resolved or hopefuly the UN postion was not wiped out, over-ran, captured etc...etc...

This applied to all confrontation situations with the armed forces in the area and not just the Israelis.

And ALMOST never ever did anything Its very easy to post comments when you have never been there or in a similar situation.

Kevin in Deva, (ex 46th Irish Batt, UNIFIL)

It's not uncommon for Israel to ignore or violate UN Resolutions.

In this case:

RESOLUTION 1701, 11 August 2006:

p.s. AlexC only posted an article, not a comment.

take care

"3. Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon;"

What a joke!! mere words on paper, the Government of Lebanon cannot excercise control anywhere, it, was the main reason the South of Lebanon became a Hizbollah stronghold, the Lebenese Army had not got the inclination or power to remove the terrorist State within a State. And the Lebenese Government was infiltrated with Syrian and Iranian sympathisers.

Israel retains the right to defend itself, if the Government of Lebanon wont take steps to do so.

The big difference between the "USS Liberty" and the German Type 43's is, many years, more sophistication, different design, and they have not been deployed to spy but to intercept weapons shipments into Lebanon.

With regards "Overflights" there will be many more, its S.O.P. for the Israelis.

Kevin in Deva

A joke? Such contempt for the UN. Coming from a former member of UNIFIL! But it doesnt surprise me, in today's American hegemony the UN words on paper are to be serious only when dealing with arab or muslim states, in the case of Israel they are only jokes to be waved off in jest.

This resolution came after this summer's war. It brought back lebanese troops south of the Litani, and more UN troops. Lebanon's air space is part of its sovereignty and Israel's overflights are a violation. At the time of these flights no lebanese did the same either on the ground or in the air, so what Israel is doing is unprovoked and is not self-defense. If Israel left unfinished business with Hezbollah then they shouldnt have ended the war.

Maybe the UN forces weariness has something to do with the israeli bombing of a clearly marked UN outpost during the war. I expext the UN forces to stand for themselves this time and shoot.

take care

Ok do you think that the UN Force in Lebanon could take on the Israelis

The UNIFIL mandate is for a PEACE-KEEPING FORCE and not geared up for an all out confrontation with Hezbollah or Israel.

Previously the UN(IFIL) was forced to stand aside and watch as the Israelis moved through U N positions up to Beriut, when they had a much more substantial U N Force in the region.

You!! expect them to shoot, goes to show, just how little you know about U N policy, even you must realise how much a "paper tiger" the U N has become, "too little too late" seems to be the current mandate regulations.

And going back to the situation in the Bosnian-Croatia conflict when Dutch U N forces allowed hundreds of Muslim boys and men to be taken away from their protection and executed, the ineffectual African U N Forces in Sierra-Leonne. to name but to situations where the U N failed.

The current situation in the middle-east with regards Lebanon would not exsist if the Lebanese had the balls to take back control of the South of the country from 15 years ago, so dont go blaming Israel for defending itself, (addmitadly, their last attempt was a minor irratation, and mismanaged affair, mainly due to ineffective leadership, I would not be so sure future affairs will be so badly ran.)

And there have been enough incidents aincluding deaths of Irish UNIFIL* members as well as the many other countries (before UNIFIL II) attributed to both A. E. (Armed Elements) and the I.D.F.) over the years which didnt provoke much of a response from the U N.

* The Irish went in at battalion strength in late 1977 to 2000 when the U N I F I L ONE mandate was changed and troop strength reduced.

As a former member who served there I know the situation on the ground far better than some pencil-pusher back in U N HQ in New York, all decisions first are subject to the first rule "OK how much is it going to cost us?" sad to say, not with regards manpower or lives but in money.

The U N has got very good at making comitments on paper but has not the resources to back them up, still all of us who served there were volunteers and if I had to do it again I would.

Kevin in Deva.

NCR,
You are waisting your time trying to explein to someone who will never understand what is going on in the middle east.And most likely doen't want to understand ,but to make endless discussions since he has nothig better to do.

If they feel threatened they will take on the thing that threatens them, whether it is a Hezbollah fighter or an Israeli jet diving over their position. That doesnt mean they will enagage in an all out confrontation.

p.s. C-2, AlexC posted an article, NCR replied to it, I replied to NCR. I dont see what your problem is. Oh, and your claim that I dont/will never understand what goes own in the Middle East is baseless.

take care

This post has been edited by Imperialist on November 10, 2006 11:34 am

For starters, the U N I F I L Force has no air-power in the Middle East, it has very limited amount of combat man-power, virtualy no tanks, or anti-tank capability, so there for they stand no chance against the I D F or Hezbollah.

I think its just a wee bit to far for the French Air force to fly to back up its UN contingent, any attempt to fly in troops as reinforcements or ship them in would face a response from the IDF air force or Navy.

"LOGISTICS WIN WARS" which means those with the equipment in place stand a better chance of getting the job done.

So please explain to me how they could win??

Kevin in Deva

Are you talking about a WAR between UNIFIL and Israel? I never talked about a war, I talked about a limited clash between the french/german ground/sea-to-air missiles and an IAF jet.

p.s. C-2, thanks for reminding me to post a reply. Good job.

More than a page of off-topic posts were deleted. If you can't stick to the topic or you are unable to have a civilized discussion then take a break. Personal attacks add nothing to the level of discussion, so I'm asking you to back up your opinions with arguments, not with injuries. You all have been on this forum for a while so I expect you to know that personal attacks and trivialities have no place here, especially you, C-2.

The problem is that "post military" has no host.
Dani left and may I be the new one?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DFF...5B63F677396.htm

Well, well:

France okays firing at IAF over Lebanon

French soldiers in Lebanon who feel threatened by aggressive Israeli overflights are permitted to shoot at IAF fighter jets, a high-ranking French military officer told The Jerusalem Post.

The French told Nehushtan they would view further aggressive flyovers as a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

Milos Strugar, spokesman for UNIFIL, supported the French position, saying that according to the UN resolution, UNIFIL had the right to use force in self-defense, even against Israeli aircraft.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

Not to change the subject, but, does anyone have a take on this item?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saudis reportedly funding Iraqi Sunnis

"In one recent case, an Iraqi official said $25 million in Saudi money went to a top Iraqi Sunni cleric and was used to buy weapons, including Strela, a Russian shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile. The missiles were purchased from someone in Romania, apparently through the black market, he said."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061208/ap_on_...urgency_saudi_3

(italics, bold added)

He was the one in charge....



source:
http://www.repubblica.it/2006/05/gallerie/...ministro/1.html