The Ghost of Snapped Shot

Or, welcome to my low-maintenance heck.


(Again, the title is a stretch, but bear with me here...)

The United Nations is saying that both Israel and Hezbullah committed "human rights" violations in the recent conflict. (h/t FreeRepublic)

From the article:

Israel did not distinguish between military and civilian targets, failed to apply the principle of proportionality and did not take all precautions to limit injury and damage to civilians...

Hizbollah guerrillas, whose seizing of two Israeli soldiers triggered the fighting, violated human rights law by firing Katyusha rockets loaded with lethal anti-personnel ball bearings at civilian areas in northern Israel, the investigators said.

It seems to me that Israel had a rather targeted policy towards Hezbullah guerillas—namely, they struck any building from which a rocket was launched. Hezbullah openly admitted to targeting civilian areas with their lethal unguided weaponry.

The distinction seems to be lost on the UN. While I applaud them for trying to speak out evenhandedly on the former conflict, I think they're still missing the overall picture by overlooking Hezbullah's blatant policy of hiding behind Lebanese civilians, and targeting Israeli civilians.

  #Israel/Lebanon War 2006


#1 captainfish 03-Oct-2006
Wasn't the UN created as a means to confront the spread of communism and fascism? And now, the UN can't tell the difference between Isreal and a terrorist gang?!!?!?

So, the UN states that Israel "...did not take all precautions to limit injury and damage to civilians...". But then states that the Hezbos only erred by firing BBs into civilian areas.

Still sounds like the UN is anti-Israel to me. Talk about not seeing the forest for all the terror. Blind leading the blind, only they refuse to see.
#2 Jeha 04-Oct-2006
This is dangerous;

By equating a party (Hezb) with a state (Israel) the UN incidentally confirms that Lebanon, as a state, is now irrelevant.

A party can be labelled as criminal or terrorist, but it cannot break international agreements or violate conventions. Only states do that.

It may be irrelevant in fact, but it does not have to be done so formally. This will not help Lebanon in reestablishing itself as a nation.
#3 captainfish 04-Oct-2006
What's Lebanon?

OHhhhhh.. you mean Hezboland. Silly person.

Lebanon ceased to exist a long time ago. Its death occurred at almost the same time the UN became involved in its salvation. It is a common theme with the UN. Wherever the UN goes to try and save a nation or people, that nation or people typically become ... ignorable, worthless, not worth the world's time, irrelevant and dead to the world.
Powered by Snarf · Contact Us