UN official accuses Hezbollah of 'cowardly blending' among civilians

[eyl]

The UN humanitarian chief accused Hezbollah late Monday of "cowardly blending" among Lebanese civilians and causing the deaths of hundreds during two weeks of cross-border violence with Israel.

The militant group has built bunkers and tunnels near the Israeli border to shelter weapons and fighters, and its members easily blend in among civilians.

On Monday he had strong words for Hezbollah, which crossed into Israel and captured two Israel Defense Forces soldiers on July 12, triggering fierce fighting from both sides.

"Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending ... among women and children," he said. "I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don't think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men.

Ha'aretz

EDIT: also in GD.

[papau]

1. explains the high number of civilian deaths that Hez wants and are getting

n/t

[bemildred]

2. So is the IDF going to stop killing civilians to thwart Hiz'bullahs

dastardly plan? What a load of horseshit.

[sabbat hunter]

3. how do you suggest

to fight an enemy which doesnt wear uniforms and hides among civilians?

personally i think you still need to go after them but be as careful as possible. israel is not being as careful as possible.

[bemildred]

4. It's not that which annoys me.

It's the presumption of moral superiority. The whining and insults about the enemies tactics. There is really no other way to pursue such a war, bombing won't do the job. It appears the IDF is preparing to go into Tyre, which is sort of a recognition of that fact, the rockets will continue otherwise, and they know it. I'm sure they would prefer not to, there have been repeated statements about not getting bogged down in a ground war, but that is where they are going nevertheless, it seems.

[pelsar]

6. gosh lets pretend israel wasnt being so careful...

the "normal" way to take a village that is under enemy control is to first flatten it from the air...then use arillary ON the remain rubble while the troops moved in back by tanks....which blow up anything that shoots or moves.

by that time, the whole city is rubble and the town is taken.......

israel for whatever the reason is (surly not one involving morality) is not doing that..i guess they're probably probably trying to save bombs.

[bemildred]

7. Works on villages. Didn't work on Stalingrad. Looks really tacky.

And has nothing to do with my comment about pretensions of moral superiority. Israel is indeed doing less that it "could" in Lebanon, if that makes you feel better. The fact that one is not as bad as one might be does not mean one is good. Do you really think we are supposed to pat you on the back for NOT committing mass murder?

[pelsar]

8. villages are not stalingrad....

the lebanese villages could be taken in a few hours....if that was the choice. The IDF is doing a balancing act that is good for israel, based on its own moral standards...the rest of the world and their opinion is not the issue. (we've seen what the US does, what Russia does, what Syrian does, etc....i dont think any of them have anything to say)

the fact that Hizballa is doing its damdest to have civilians killed and to kill civilians just makes it more difficult

(more so, israel tried the "nice guy" routine in Jenin....and lost a lot of soldiers that way and the propaganda was just as bad... it wont happen again)

[bemildred]

9. villages are not stalingrad....

:think:

[barb162]

13. War is basically mass murder

with one side winning for a variety of reasons. I am not sure there is much morality about it and if morality is brought up, then both sides should be pracicing the same set of moralities?

[bemildred]

22. Not always mass murder, but certainly murder in generous supply.

I don't find arguments from morality or the "laws of war" useful or convincing. I see it as a practical question. Does extreme violence work? Does mass murder get you where you want to go? If you look back at historical periods prior to about 1800, the answer is yes. War was a risky business, but the rewards were great if you succeeded. Since then, it has been less and less the case. The peasants are no longer primitive and they are armed with something better than a hoe. We are now at a point where the USA cannot defeat VietNam, the USSR cannot pacify Afghanistan, Israel cannot disarm Hizbullah. The last real run at total war, WWII, resulted in almost everybody involved getting pounded flat with bombs and then chewed up with armored combat. Only the USA, with an ocean to protect us, came out smelling like a rose. Nukes and other WMD make the prospect even more futile. It is no accident that the experiment has not been repeated. What we get now are "demonstration wars" against opponents which the military planners, rightly or wrongly, think a good semblance of "victory" in the old style can be staged. Even this sort of thing is more and more difficult to arrange, e.g. Iraq.

This leads me to conclude that war does not "work" any more, especially aggressive war, the advantage is all with the defense. It doesn't pay, so one is better off to assemble a formidable deterrent and leave the other guy alone as much as possible, avoid escalation, put the rest of the money into something that will give you a return. This argument has actually been out there for some decades now, but is unpopular in military establishments for obvious reasons, and with other fans of coercive rule.

[barb162]

32. "a formidable deterrent "

sounds good, but what would that be?

[bemildred]

34. Nukes and a territorial defense force is about as good as you can do.

Israel already has those. Teddy Roosevelt said "talk softly and carry a big stick". It's not a bad strategy.

[barb162]

38. I agree

Israel is using some of the big stick now I think.

[bemildred]

39. What they are doing now is foolish.

The bombing is foolish, any large invasion will be foolish. The "pinpoint" retaliation idea, in the proper circumstances, is OK. Massive use of conventional ground forces is a bad idea unless you have a similar enemy to go up against. Then you can kick their ass and go home. Collective punishment is completely boneheaded. It will never do what it is supposed to do, whether you think it's supposed to pacify the Arabs, or to get them to leave, it has not worked, and it won't.

There is no such thing as absolute security, all you get is relative security. When you demand absolute security, you just make yourself less secure. It will take generations, if ever, to get to the point where there are no enraged loons that want to take a swipe at you.

You could have had your secure Jewish state with peaceful neighbors long ago with better management. You need another Rabin, you need cooler heads and less dick-waving.

You should always be willing to talk. Talk costs you nothing and keeps everybody busy.

Those are my opinions. Let's not argue.

[barb162]

14. But it worked in WW2

though it may not have worked on individual cities, because of the tactic the Russians used. The Russians just decided to lay low for that long attack.

[bemildred]

23. Sort of, it's arguable.

Depends somewhat on how you define "work". There is no question you can pound things flat and kill lots of people. Please see my other post.

[barb162]

33. The Russians have used their winters to remarkable advantage

with their foes. Just sit there and watch the other side freeze to death.

[bemildred]

35. People are territorial.

They will fight with much more determination to defend their own land and their own people, however they conceive that. When you think to conduct an aggressive war, it good to consider that point.

The USA has held an even greater advantage, in the two oceans that surround it. It is not since 1812 that we have had foreign forces running amok on our soil.

[bemildred]

36. Russia has also used it's size.

They can retreat into the vastness of the steppes, stretching the enemies supply lines until they break. They got to watch the French starve and run out of ammo, too.

[Scurrilous]

10. "...an enemy which doesnt wear uniforms .."

Google Hezbollah and click on images.

[bemildred]

11. And this one:

"One soldier said the guerrillas wore olive green army uniforms "to confuse us" because Israelis wear the same."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=397438&in_page_id=1770

[pelsar]

15. sometimes they do...and sometimes they dont...

i've seen people walking around S.Lebanon with automatic weapons....without uniforms....given that hizballa is the residing power and militia its reasonsable to assume that they are part of that force.

and the Hizballa also has uniforms as well.

[bemildred]

21. You can see that in Mexico too, lots of places, Israel even I believe.

I was just pointing out that the "they don't wear uniforms" idea is drivel. What they are is sneaky bastards that are trying to kill you. That's what war is all about, as you like to point out yourself from time to time.

[pelsar]

26. i have no problem with the war aspect

nor do i really have a problem when they wear uniforms or not...i do have a problem when civilians get killed because of it....and we are then accused of targeting civilians....

they dont always wear uniforms and civilians are in the area....."civilians" even when they arent civilians will be killed in a combat zone....

[bemildred]

28. And that too is war. Its not fair, as you like to point out.

Why should you get fair treatment when nobody else does?

[pelsar]

29. the media....

likes to protray itself as "fair"....as such they should be called out when they arent....nothing more than that. So too over here....many posters believe that they are "fair".....they should be called out on that when they are contradicting themselves, or blaming israel for what is hizballas "setup...

however, i just dont like hypocrasy....i really dont expect much fair treatment from the world....history hasnt been very nice to the jews, nor to the israelis...

[sabbat hunter]

24. in public parades

when they are in public parades they wear uniforms, but generally hizbollah, like most terrorists wear civilian clothing while committing their vile acts.

[bemildred]

25. Yes, dastardly fellows, not reliable at all.

Everyone should wear uniforms while committing vile acts.

[MrPrax]

12. With the Rule of Law n/t

[bemildred]

5. Hezbollah blamed for civilian deaths

Al Jazeera's take.

Jan Egeland, the UN humanitarian chief, has accused Hezbollah of "cowardly blending" among Lebanese civilians and causing the deaths of hundreds during two weeks of cross-border violence with Israel.

---

During that visit he condemned the killing and wounding of civilians by both sides, and called Israel's offensive "disproportionate" and "a violation of international humanitarian law."

---

"Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending ... among women and children," he said.

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

[Encore]

16. an opinion

k you all may or may not have read this, im not justifying the endangering of civilians but here is one opinion on the subject by jonathan cook from dissidentvoice.com

The fourth myth is a continuation of the third: Hizbullah has been endangering the lives of ordinary Lebanese by hiding among non-combatants.

We have seen this kind of dissembling by Israel and Horowitz before, though not repeated so enthusiastically by Western officials. The UN head of humanitarian affairs, Jan Egeland, who is in the region, accused Hizbullah of “cowardly blending” among the civilian population, and a similar accusation was leveled by the British foreign minister Kim Howells when he arrived in Israel.

In 2002 Israel made the same charge: that Palestinians resisting its army’s rampage through the refugee camps of the West Bank were hiding among civilians. The claim grew louder as more Palestinian civilians showed the irritating habit of getting in the way of Israeli strikes against population centers. The complaints reached a crescendo when at least two-dozen civilians were killed in Jenin as Israel razed the camp with Apache helicopters and Caterpillar bulldozers.

The implication of Egeland’s cowardly statement seems to be that any Lebanese fighter, or Palestinian one, resisting Israel and its powerful military should stand in an open field, his rifle raised to the sky, waiting to see who fares worse in a shoot-out with an Apache helicopter or F-16 fighter jet. Hizbullah’s reluctance to conduct the war in this manner, we are supposed to infer, is proof that they are terrorists.

Egeland and Howells need reminding that Hizbullah’s fighters are not aliens recently arrived from training camps in Iran, whatever Horowitz claims. They belong to and are strongly supported by the Shiite community, nearly half the country’s population, and many other Lebanese. They have families, friends and neighbors living alongside them in the country’s south and the neighborhoods of Beirut who believe Hizbullah is the best hope of defending their country from Israel’s regular onslaughts.

Given the indigenous nature of Hizbullah’s resistance, we should not be surprised at the lengths the Shiite militia is going to ensure their loved ones, and the Lebanese people more generally, are not put directly in danger by their combat.

If only the same could be said of the Israeli army and air force. One need only look at the images of the victims of its strikes against residential neighborhoods, car, ambulances and factories to see why most of the dead being extracted from the rubble are civilians.

www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Cook25.htm

[pelsar]

17. very confusing "opinion"

we should not be surprised at the lengths the Shiite militia is going to ensure their loved ones, and the Lebanese people more generally, are not put directly in danger by their combat. this is his explanation for the "militia" to be shooting from neighborhood homes, etc.


so maybe the "shite miltia" (is that Hizballa?) should actually do their fighting away from their loved ones?....either that or dont "complain" that when a house is blown up and the inhabitants killed, since that is where the "militia" is fighting from.

[eyl]

18. Uh....

maybe it's just me, but it seems the author, in his haste to accuse Israel, forgot to give any facts or even opinions to make his point. I mean, he says it's a "myth" that Hizbullah is endangering civilians by hiding among them - but gives absolutely nothing to support that (besides saying the same dissembling occured in Jenin, which, besides arguing his conclusing, is also untrue even according to Palestinian testimony).

EDIT - oh, skimming over the rest, I see it's Cook. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. This bit seems particularly contradictory:

But Hizbullah’s rockets are accurate enough to show that many are intended for the army’s sites in the Galilee, even if they are rarely precise enough to hit them.

??

[cali]

19. Is being an apologist for H'zbollah really

any better than being an apologist for Israel? If so, please explain why.

[pelsar]

20. actually i never understood that ....

what does being "an apologist" mean?......

i always thought an apology is related to "being sorry" it wont happen again kind of thing.....

[oberliner]

27. apologist defined

Apologist:

A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.


source: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/apologist

[pelsar]

30. but why the "apology"

i can argue the justification for blasting away at a house for instance that holds an innocent family within.....if that same house is being used in an attempt to kill me or my buddies".

I wouldnt be "apologizing " for the justification, i would be stating a policy and backing it up with a set of arguments based on a set of morals and values...but not "apologizing."

[pizzed]

31. cowardly neo-con/PNAC's blend in w/ Republicans here...

Hezbollah aren't some kind of 'different race' who are hiding behind Lebanese civilians... they are friends, neighbors, relatives of the general population. And you shouldn't believe what you hear on MSM that Hezbollah are killing their OWN... that's preposterous.
That UN guy needs to get a grip. Hezbollah is 'proud' that they've lost few men, but NOT that Israeli bombs are killing their people! Hezbollah is defending their country.... maybe someone should ask where the Lebanese 'regular' Army is ??

Furthermore, when Hezbollah captured those 2 Israeli's (if they even did that) they were attempting to force a trade w/ the Zionists for their own women & children that Israel has captured.

Also the kidnapping Hamas did was because the zionists had kidnapped a Palestinian Doctor and his son a couple of days before that.

Funny how those things get lost in the media propaganda.

(what do I mean by: "if they even did that"? Don't you know about Rumsfeld's secret mercenary army?)

[barb162]

37. hez supporters blend in here with propaganda and just plain

old bullshit

"... when Hezbollah captured those 2 Israeli's (if they even did that)..."

Are you actually trying to deny this event happened?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5171616.stm
Hezbollah seizes Israel soldiers

Israel says it is planning to retaliate against Lebanon
Lebanese guerrillas have captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid, triggering the first Israeli land incursion into the country since 2000
snip

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3274571,00.html
Annan calls for immediate release of kidnapped Israeli soldiers; condemns Israeli retaliation

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called Wednesday for the immediate release of kidnapped Israeli soldiers and condemned Israel's immediate retaliation

"I condemn without reservations the attack in southern Lebanon, and demand that Israeli troops to be released immediately," Anna said after a meeting in Rome with
Premier Romano Prodi.
snip

You need to read some Lebanese blogs; not everyone is enamored with hez as you would so like to portray

[still_one]

40. whose propagada YOURS

what is your agenda?