Israel launched a dozen attacks on UN troops in Lebanon, says leaked report

https://www.ft.com/content/151eb482-6415-48a8-bf3f-baed00018c4e

by zhengiszen • 2 years ago

208 226 2 years ago

vaidhy• 2 years ago

What are the repercussions? If there is no reaction from the international community, did this action really happen?

tstrimple• 2 years ago

Every reaction from the international community is vetoed by the United States of America. A veto power it has used on behalf of Israel to protect it from international scrutiny more than it has for literally any other country on earth. Over half of all US vetoes in the Security Council have been on behalf of Israel.

https://globalaffairs.org/bluemarble/how-us-has-used-its-pow...

The U.S. has vetoed resolutions critical of Israel more than any other council member – 45 times as of December 18, 2023, according to an analysis by Blue Marble. The U.S. has vetoed 89 Security Council resolutions in total since 1945, meaning slightly over half of its vetoes have been used on resolutions critical of Israel. Of the vetoed resolutions, 33 pertained to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories or the country’s treatment of the Palestinian people.
The first time the U.S. used its veto to support Israel was in September of 1972, when it vetoed a resolution that called on Israel to cease its aggression in Lebanon.

dragonwriter5• 2 years ago

There's a mechanism for bypassing the Security Council by the GA during deadlocks caused by vetoes (Emergency Special Sessions convened under Uniting for Peace—5 of the 11 convened so far have concerned the Arab/Israeli conflict, including one of the two that is currently open, which is now on its 27th year), but no combination of countries otherwise willing to act to constrain the conflict has the capacity to effectively act against both Iran and its proxies and the Israel (directly) backed by the US.

NomDePlum2• 2 years ago

Did what action actually happen? Those reported in the article? If so, clearly yes. They've been widely reported and confirmed repeatedly. The initial international outrage appears to have subsided. I'd guess partly mainly due to the obvious support of the US, who gave up on being outraged when it became obvious there was no one listening on the Israeli side.

g-b-r2• 2 years ago

Well, they might have listened if the weapon sales stopped

neonate• 2 years ago

https://archive.ph/o7atF

Sabinus2• 2 years ago

"Israel has also said that UN forces are being used as a human shield by Hizbollah fighters, which it is fighting near several Unifil posts along the border. It has demanded the UN evacuate its peacekeepers from southern Lebanon for their own safety. Unifil, and the 50 countries that contribute troops to its ranks, have unanimously refused."

Why aren't the UN troops keeping the peace? Did they let Hezbollah fire rockets into Israel unimpeded? What is the point of the troops being there?

nielsbot4• 2 years ago

It's all on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Interim_Force_i...

pimpampum• 2 years ago

Israel has lied repeatedly countless times, like the tunnels under hospitals that never show up, or when they say the didn't kill the journalists they did end up admitting to. Or the claims of rape and beheaded babies that were all fake. You can not take anything they say as serious.

mlazos2• 2 years ago

I love how their rationale for blowing up a hospital is that there were tunnels underneath it. As if that’s justification for blowing up a hospital.

Sam7134• 2 years ago

Not disputing general truthfulness of Israeli government, but specifically as to the latter two examples you listed: A) There is no direct evidence that Israeli government publicly stated that babies were beheaded. That claim came from a single journalist, spread like wildfire on social media (as did tons of videos and footage of the attacks), and was exacerbated by a statement Biden made.

B) there is very credible evidence that rape did occur as part of the atrocities Hamas committed on Oct. 7th attack. https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-sexual-violence-...

Just wanted to point that out, because regardless of the moral standing of either side, I think the facts do matter if there is ever going to be a resolution. Obviously the actions committed by Hamas do not absolve Israel from following ethical rules of war, and there are plenty of issues with how Israel is waging war in the current conflict as well; for example using machine learning algorithms to track targets with what appears to be a reckless disregard for non-combatants: https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/

tdeck2• 2 years ago

Don't forget that it's been extensively documented that Israel uses human shields:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/24/middleeast/palestinians-human...

https://www.btselem.org/topic/human_shields

Even the NYT took time away from repeating Israel's lies to report on it! https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/14/world/middleeast/israel-g...

sterlind3• 2 years ago

Unifil has been there since the '70s, apparently. Their role was to monitor Israel's withdrawal and to assist the Lebanese government, to patrol the Blue Line and various humanitarian tasks. They're not a counterinsurgency force or an occupying army - as I understand it, they're a tripwire for treaty enforcement.

Also, you don't get to shoot through human shields. It's still immoral to kill noncombatants, just as it's immoral to hide behind noncombatants. You don't gain moral high ground, you're just sinking to the level of the enemy.

tyleo• 2 years ago

“You don’t get to shoot through human shields.” I don’t have a POV w.r.t. this conflict, but I’d like to understand what you mean by this statement generally. In the extreme it seems to imply, “if you have a human shield you are invincible.”

It’s a messed-up calculus to have to make but I feel like there must be some middle ground.

dlubarov3• 2 years ago

What seems more relevant today is that UNIFIL was supposed to support the implementation of UNSC 1701, which was a complete failure, with Hezbollah ignoring it outright and the Lebanese army not doing much to stop them.

MF-DOOM• 2 years ago

In war, you care more about losing/winning than a moral high ground - an imaginary prize for the “superior” nation who chooses to appear weak.

echoangle• 2 years ago

Also, you don't get to shoot through human shields.

I am not saying it’s morally correct but from a war crime standpoint, I think you actually do. As longs as it’s proportional, you can attack combatants hiding under civilians, even if you kill civilians by doing that. At least that’s my understanding.

wtcactus3• 2 years ago

“Also, you don't get to shoot through human shields.”

When the human shields are serving willingly as human shields, I will say that yes, you get to shoot through them and keep your moral high ground.

Not only those UN troops have no reason to be there, but there are numerous reports that several of their members are working together and aiding Hezbolah.

NomDePlum2• 2 years ago

There's absolutely no evidence of UN forces being used as human shields. There's clear evidence, including that cited in the article, of the situation being very different from the claims/report of the IDF.

The most credible reason for Israel wanting Unfil to vacate is less impartial observers.

dragonwriter5• 2 years ago

The most credible reason for Israel to want UNIFIL to vacate is that UNIFIL’s mission is to help keep unauthorized military forces out of South Lebanon, and Israel’s invasion force is decidedly unauthorized.

justin662• 2 years ago

Why aren't the UN troops keeping the peace?

They're basically observers when there are any other armed troops present. They have small arms, everybody else has rockets, missiles, or tanks.

sangnoir4• 2 years ago

UN peacekeeper should be treated as civilians - even when armed.

wtcactus3• 2 years ago

Why are they there then? Seems they are willingly serving as human shields to prevent Israel from retaliating against Hezbollah attacks.

sangnoir4• 2 years ago

What is the point of the troops being there?

Let's assume they are completely useless at peacekeeping - does this justify them being attacked?

mr_toad2• 2 years ago

Why aren't the UN troops keeping the peace?

They’re outnumbered by 10:1.

Sabinus2• 2 years ago

By Hezbollah?

o999• 2 years ago

"Israel has also said.."

Come on..!?

Qem3• 2 years ago

At this point the country should be suspended from UN, like Apartheid SA was before, in 1974. See https://www.nytimes.com/1974/11/13/archives/south-africa-is-...

libertine4• 2 years ago

The UN is in need of serious reform.

For example, it's hard to comprehend how a country like Russia is not suspended?

A country which signed the Charter, and is member of the security council, is trying to annex a country of 40 million people, claiming they and their culture don't exist.

They don't even hide the genocide intent, and yet Guterres is visiting the BRICS conference in Russia legitimizing the regime. Despicable.

throw3108222• 2 years ago

Whatever Russia is doing pales in comparison with what Israel has done for the past 70 years.

jcgrillo• 2 years ago

https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1849582050191266182

nimbius• 2 years ago

In 1986, then-U.S. Sen. Joe Biden said, “Supporting Israel is the best $3 billion investment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect her interests in the region.”

Israel is a satellite state of the US in all but name. You'd have a better shot at dissolving the UN entirely than suspending Israel.

What ive always wondered is why the US hasn't put Israel on the security council, considering it is a nuclear armed state.

boomboomsubban• 2 years ago

What ive always wondered is why the US hasn't put Israel on the security council, considering it is a nuclear armed state.

That isn't the criteria for being a council member, if it were they'd need to allow India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Plus, pretty sure the US does not officially recognize Israel as a nuclear power, it's one of those open secret things

Besides that, how would the US benefit from another country being able to veto anything they want to do in the UN? Sure, they'd probably agree with far more things than Russia or China, but the US wouldn't gain anything from them being there.

ioblomov2• 2 years ago

Excellent point. But assuming you're not being facetious, the Security Council is largely a historical artifact: all five permanent members were the victors of WWII. (Why occupied France was included is something I never understood.)

dragonwriter5• 2 years ago

Israel is a satellite state of the US in all but name.

The US is more reflexively pro-Israel than Israel is pro-US in international policy, the opposite of what you’d expect if Israel was a US vassal.

What ive always wondered is why the US hasn't put Israel on the security council

There are lots of reasons, but one that renders all the others secondary is that the US can’t add permanent Security Council members.

considering it is a nuclear armed state.

India, Pakistan, North Korea, and, when it was a nuclear-armed state, South Africa also are (and were) not permanent UNSC members, a set whuch hasn't expanded, though two seats have switched hands, since the UN was founded.

7thpower3• 2 years ago

Israel has far more influence in the US than the US does in Israel.

It is very clear that the current administration is backed into a corner and trying to make the best of the situation.

FWIW: This is not a knock against the current administration.

throwaway99172• 2 years ago

The thing is, Israel doesn’t protect U.S. interests in the middle east. All the U.S. has really ever wanted there is oil, and because of U.S. support for Israel, we’ve been the subject of two oil embargoes.

Israel provides us zero military bases, even when Arab countries provide us dozens. Despite all of the support we give them and have given them, they have repeatedly escalated conflicts when the U.S. asked them to stop. Today, we are unable to ship goods through the Red Sea because the Houthis are upset over Israel’s actions in Gaza.

EasyMark• 2 years ago

I’m fine with that as long as numerous other countries get kicked for similar acts, it has to be a package deal tho

catlikesshrimp4• 2 years ago

As I see it, UN at least is documenting everything as it happens to its members. Hopefully it can be kept unbiased for a long time. If you start kicking left and right, there will be no UN to overlook events.

Maybe without a UN, we would already be having a WWIII. It is impossible to weight its influence, but I very much doubt it is having any nefarious effect.

No need to sledgehammer the world until it gets better

leoh2• 2 years ago

Part of the story here, really, is that the UN has been co-opted by Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Another part of the story is: where was the UN when Hezbollah launched rockets from Lebanon this week?

Unless the UN starts doing serious counter-terrorism, Israel is not going to particularly care about their presence in Lebanon.

erentz5• 2 years ago

Hezbollah has launched over 10,000 rockets at Israel since Oct 7 last year. While under the watch of the UN. But apparently Israel is supposed to just do nothing about it and accept it going on for as long as Hezbollah likes. Absolutely no other country on this planet would. So many people seem to have a special set of double standards they apply to Israel for some reason.

swaits• 2 years ago

This times 10^6. Nicely said.

There is a staggering amount of ignorance present in the other comments here.

I was ignorant too. But I spent a good amount of time educating myself this year. I hope others do the same so they can make completely informed assessments. I worry about tribalism and politics driving too much of the thinking.

krunck• 2 years ago

Which attack came first? Who is responding to who? It just doesn't matter any more. Hezbollah and Israel need to calm the fuck down.

And one more thing. I get to criticize the living fuck out of Israel because as an American I am paying for most of it's weapons.

jacooper2• 2 years ago

Israel launched way more attacks agaibst Lebanon than hezbollah ever did.

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/976/cpsprodpb/bfa9/liv...

Stop lying. You are comparing a paramilitary with an literally commiting a holocaust, with shaban Al-dalou as a clear example.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/15/shaban-al-dalou-th...

rendall11• 2 years ago

Israel has a pretty compelling argument. I wish the article had mentioned it. That they did not leads me to believe the article is biased.

The argument goes like this: UNIFIL had one mission, which was to disarm and disband any military force in Lebanon south of the Litani River that was not Lebanon's army. UNIFIL has not done this. This is known and well-documented. Hezbollah regularly fires rockets and missiles into Israel. Hezbollah has built bunkers within sight of UNIFILs own posts. If true, this is not only a clear, systemic failure of their mission, but such an egregious failure that their presence is actually dangerous to civilians.

sangnoir4• 2 years ago

UNIFIL has not done this.

...and therefore they deserve to be shot at, maimed or killed?

rendall11• 2 years ago

> UNIFIL has not done this.
...and therefore they deserve to be shot at, maimed or killed?

You quoted the wrong part. Here, let me fix that for you.

> If true, this is not only a clear, systemic failure of their mission, but such an egregious failure that their presence is actually dangerous to civilians.
...and therefore they deserve to be shot at, maimed or killed?

There. That's better. Now I can properly answer.

In my opinion, no, of course not. However, in light of their failure to accomplish their mission, and actually hindering peace, Israel asked them to leave. They did not. They have chosen to remain in an active war zone. So, "deserve" doesn't really come into play.

id00• 2 years ago

Is that the same UN that has its secretary-general António Guterres shaking hands with Putin and Lukashenko this week?

Let's be honest, UN is one of the most useless organization in the world (and been for a while, look at history of their Africa operations). By now their presense on ground with inability to actually do anything or help anybody is a liability (eg can't stop Hezbollah from launching rockets and using them as a shield)

catlikesshrimp4• 2 years ago

They being there has been informative. We know of israel attacking UN bases. We are yet to see Hezbolla militants holding white hats at gunpoint. Or at least hiding in a tunnel under a UN base

rendall11• 2 years ago

There have been thousands rockets fired from southern Lebanon into Israel. So, Israel doesn't need permission from the UN or the international community or the US to invade and take out Hezbollah. Certainly not UNIFIL, who have been entirely useless as peace keepers.

rendall11• 2 years ago

Or at least hiding in a tunnel under a UN base

You should balance your news consumption, because here is a terror tunnel within view of a UNIFIL observation center: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KPLphHpQfA

This nonsense has been going on for years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rpCIMs0Xpo

pjmlp2• 2 years ago

The biggest issue we are facing now, it is that the same has happened ot the previous organization, League of Nations Union, which became useless to prevent WW II, UN was born after the war with the goal to be a better organisation than it predecessor.

And here we are, at the edge of WW III, with an useless UN.

timeon3• 2 years ago

How would you imagine useful UN? Or do you just want to be without it?

okokhacker• 2 years ago

HN posts about this used to be 99% Pro-Zionist. There’s been a marked shift in opinion (or less bots) and I’m very, very glad that people are recognising the extent of war crimes being committed by Israel.

cutler6• 2 years ago

Maybe it's because social media has relayed the truth and Israel can no longer use its grip on western media to conceal its atrocities.

edanm14• 2 years ago

Maybe.

Worth considering that in terms of relative size, Israel has a population of 10 million, Jews in the world number ~14 million.

Whereas the Arab world, which tends to be relatively anti-Israel, numbers ~220 million. And Muslims, which tend to be anti-Israel as well, number 1.2 billion.

So just in terms of number of voices, the natural pro-Israel voices [1] are vastly outnumbered by the natural anti-Israel voices.

Think about how this impacts what you hear, how this impacts the votes in the UN (which is not democratic but votes are by country), how this impacts economic reactions (number of consumers), etc.

[1] This is a sweeping generalization, but it is statistically true that Jews are usually pro-Israel and Arabs and Muslims are usually anti-Israel. With other religions/ethnicities it's more complicated.

bobsmooth• 2 years ago

Jews control the media

Bad, terrible, anti-semitic

Israel controls the media

Good, woke, socially conscious

jadtz• 2 years ago

I think it has a lot to do with tiktok's rise to power, for the first time there is a platform that is not controlled by the west (Pro-Zionist), which would completely censor out news like Facebook and Instagram does.

weatherlite5• 2 years ago

99% pro Zionist ...can you show me even one example of such a post? I don't think you can.

GaryNumanVevo• 2 years ago

Anything critical of Israel is usually flagged by users and removed from the front page.

meiraleal• 2 years ago

Here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=weatherlite&next=417...

dzhiurgis• 2 years ago

Is there actual evidence than hearsay?

Cameras are everywhere. It should be trivial to prove these claims.

cmilton• 2 years ago

Just as well as it could be “less bots” promoting one side, to “more bots” promoting the other. What types of war would you not consider a crime?

leoh2• 2 years ago

I have been flagged in this thread by merely re-iterating points mentioned in the Financial Times article. @dang — I doubt you’ll see this, but I would appreciate some help. This is pretty sad.

rendall11• 2 years ago

Me too, for giving context that the article elided. Flagging is supposed to mean "breaks guidelines" not "disagrees with my outlook". Strange that this is the only topic that inspires such zeal.

timeon3• 2 years ago

Not sure what ware you writing about in this thread. But this does happen in other topics as well.

aristofun3• 2 years ago

I’m curious what’s exactly UN troops doing there?

And why they keep closing blind eye on the largest terrorist army in the world violating UN’s own agreements?

Also I wonder who benefits from them intentionally not moving out of harms ways and preventing israel from doing _their_ job of eliminating terrorists?

Genuine questions, not taking any sides.

rendall11• 2 years ago

Reasonable questions. I wish I had answers.

s1artibartfast5• 2 years ago

Their remit for the last 20 years has been to support the Lebanese government in disarming Hezbollah. Israel is not Lebanon.

The sad truth is that Lebanon never went to disarm Hezbollah and the UN didn't care. However, UNIFIL also wants to keep Israel out of Lebanon and track their intrusions. This brought UNIFIL and Israel into conflict

aristofun3• 2 years ago

Why do you think unifil is so crazy about israel even if they’re doing their jod for free?

thebytefairy• 2 years ago

It's fascinating to read multiple comments openly justifying attacks on the UN, saying that if they haven't stopped hezbollah themselves that they are the same as terrorists. Even among this group of generally logical mathematical thinkers, reason is left by the wayside when identity is involved.

s1artibartfast5• 2 years ago

These "attacks" amount to whining, speculation, and exaggeration. UN soldiers were exposed to smoke in an active warzone. what exactly were they expecting? Same with driving a tank through a gate for cover during a firefight.

There is a clear slant to how the majority of these stories are conveyed. There are probably some real attacks too. that's part of war, its messy.

sershe2• 2 years ago

[flagged]

dang2• 2 years ago

You can't post flamewar comments like this to HN or use the site primarily for ideological battle—it's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

We have to ban accounts that post like this, so please don't do it again.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

sershe2• 2 years ago

I understand my comment was made in anger, but where is the ideological battle?

I am trying to ask people to discuss non-tech-related politics elsewhere, as per guidelines. How else am I supposed to do that? Flagging doesn't work, politically inclined people just unflag it.

The parent post is the definition of off-topic; if you won't delete it, maybe you need a new guideline, where in garbage posts like this garbage comments like mine are allowed then? :D I think a good approach would be if posts like this were allowed to accumulate comments and then deleted completely, destroying all the dubious "contribution" and thus disincentivising it?

I do hate both ideologies fwiw; as applied to HN however, only one tends to create and promote off-topic political posts like this, or at least I never see the other kind of garbage in the RSS feed.

Israel launched a dozen attacks on UN troops in Lebanon, says leaked report

Related Stories