Calling all apologists. Spin this:
An Israeli bomb destroyed a UN observer post on the border in southern Lebanon on Tuesday, killing four peacekeepers, including a Canadian, a UN official said.
UN chief Kofi Annan said Israel appeared to have struck the site deliberately. The dead included observers from Canada, Austria, China and Finland, a senior Lebanese military official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information to the media.
Oops:
Rescue workers were trying to clear the rubble but Israeli firing "continued even during the rescue operation," Struger said.
As an aside, the National had a good piece interviewing ordinary Lebanese on the streets of Beirut. They refer to Hezbollah as the "resistance", effectively standing up against the past Israeli injustices. With every bomb, Israel brokers its future- don't kid yourself. Hezbollah gains, in the eyes of a people so desperate for dignity, much the same in Palestine.
11 comments:
we must fight the UN over there before we have to fight them here silly.
"spin this"
There is no spin. F*ck up, pure & simple, regardless of which nationals died or were injured.
As a (usual) supporter of Israel, I was extremely disheartened by this news for a number of reasons: (a) it sure won't up support for Israel (b) it makes it harder for supporters (nations or individuals) to continue to support Israel and (c) IT IS JUST PLAIN WRONG!
Unless Israel can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was a missile-gone-wrong (somehow, I'm no weapons guru), they have dealt themselves a potentially-fatal PR blow.
Which pisses me off, because in my heart-of-hearts, I believe their cause to be the right one.
"Which pisses me off, because in my heart-of-hearts, I believe their cause to be the right one."
With each day, we hear new stories that completely undercut any moral high ground the Israeli's enjoyed.
At mention of this story, the family veteran of Canada's peace keeping days buffering between Israel and everyone else during the 70s was completely unsurprised. He said they'd been subjected to the same 'intimidation fire' from the Israelis. He couldn't say why the Israelis did it, only that no one died from it.
Maybe someone else can explain why this is a good tactic on Israel's part. It certainly doesn't seem to be anything NEW. There have been other incidents of firing on neutral/friendly parties between those days and these. Hasn't been of any particular concern to Israel's PR so far.
The same veteran also regretfully sighs about the former splendor of Lebanon, having seen the country in its pre-bombed urbanity back before it was bombed flat the /first/ time.
And people wonder what gives the fundamentalists a toehold in such places.
All Israel seems to be truly accomplishing is shocking an entire generation of young Lebanese into realizing their parents' 'no shit, there we were' stories about how horrifying and awful things really were are TRUE. With the US blathering about Iraq and Israel being the only democracies in the Middle East being the cherry on top.
So much for the Cedar revolution indeed.
The news report I heard was that this UN post has been in the same location for 30 years and that it was hit 14 times! To top it all off, the observers were in regular contact with Israeli authorities, prior to the attack.
I also heard the post made at least 10 calls to the Israeli's telling them that they were being targeted. This revelation explains Annan's reaction.
Sadly, the killing of peacekeepers is not new, whether the arena be the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe etc. So, why sensationalize this horrific event over those in other areas and with other combatants?
This question inevitably leads to the next - was it deliberate. Thus far, Annan's accusation remains relatively unsubstantiated. However, even if he's right yet another question comes to mind. Why would Israel deliberately attack peackeepers?
I first thought like candace. I wondered if this was simply an incredibly stupid screwup. But I've since come to question my initial reaction due to the nature of asymmetrical warfare. Guerillas or non-traditional forces tend to use their perceived weakness as strengths, and then I read this post at Harry's Place (a liberal hawk). Guerilla warfare is a _____ !
Perhaps other readers have more recently released information, but right now I remain skeptical of a lot of "facts".
Tarheel
"This question inevitably leads to the next - was it deliberate."
Not deliberate, but surely reckless and this incident serves as a microcosm for the entire operation. Despite the claims of "great care", we have daily evidence to the contrary.
Hi Steve V,
Reckless? Perhaps.
But, there are still several issues, which aren't being addressed.
(1) Hezbollah's tactics. The group gets as close as it can to UN posts. They hold meetings in crowded apartment buildings. They hide weapons amongst the innocent and even launch weapons from crowded areas. It's like begging Israel to take out one Hezbollah fighter at the expense of 10 innocents.
(2) Ground war. In order to avert such horrific casualties amongst the Lebanonese people, Israel would need to engage in a ground war. This creates to ironies. First, the irony of limiting "oppressive" airbombing by invading the country to engage in search-n-destroy missions. Second, the irony of trying to spare non-citizen lives at the expense of citizen troops.
(3) Israel's Strategy of Isolation. The irony that Israel's military strikes at "dual-use" targets to isolate Hezbollah has in fact helped to isolate Israel in public perception and international support.
(4)The PR war. I still haven't been able to wrap my brain around why the reaction against Israel shooting at UN peacekeepers receives more hostility than when other countries do. Or perhaps this is my own bias seeping through.
Your are Nice. And so is your site! Maybe you need some more pictures. Will return in the near future.
»
Great site loved it alot, will come back and visit again.
»
Post a Comment