Re: [Futurework] FW: Kofi Annan's hasty rush to judgment and the Green Line

[Lawrence de Bivort]

Title: Message

Many thanks for this description, Michael.  It is always refreshing to get first-hand accounts from the field.  I hope you will post more as we move ahead.   When were you doing this audit?  Are you going back?   Nit-picky correction....I think the Green Line only pertained to the cease-fire of 1967, and only covers the West Bank -Israel sector.  The ‘green’ line is called that because, literally, Dayan and his Jordanian counter-part, whose name escapes me right now, hand-drew the line on a map of Palestine with a green pencil. It was not intended as a ‘border’, and makes little sense politically, economically, logistically or demographically. It was solely meant to approximate the military placement of the warring troops at the time of the cease-fire.   But the world has seized out of intellectual laziness on this line as the possible border between the two parties. It would leave Palestine on the West Bank and Gaza, even if fully ‘given’ to them without any Israeli holdings or controls at all, without a viable state.   Cheers, Lawry   From: Gurstein, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 1:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW: Kofi Annan's hasty rush to judgment   Correction: I said we crossed the Green Line into Jordan, but of course, it was into South Lebanon...   My mission there was a relatively brief and innocuous one, I was doing an "internal management audit" of the UN Peacekeeping Management Information Systems... A fun job which took me into various of the UN's peace missions... For reasons of logistics and safety (I believe) we were housed on the Israeli side but crossed through the border each day...and each day were subject to the same officious screening...   My overall impression was that the average Israeli's (following I suspect the lead of their political leaders) were disappointed that the peace missions weren't pro-Israel and the peace missions on an inter-personal basis responded rather better to the traditional Arab/Lebanese hospitality than is to the rather more brusque (and European style) off-handedness with which they were accommodated in Israel.    If one reads Mackenzie's field diary of his time in the Balkans one gets a sense of how much of the overt political/military interactions at some level come down to inter-personal interactions (likes/dislikes, prejudices etc.) and there seems to be a bit of a background of that in the current case as well.   MG -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lawrence de Bivort Sent: July 27, 2006 6:32 PM To: futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: Kofi Annan's hasty rush to judgment Very interesting, Michael. Thanks for this posting. Can you tell us more about your UN mission work? My own first contact with UN personnel in Palestine was in 1964, in the Jerusalem area, on both sides of the Green Line. They were an impressive group, with real dedication and integrity.   I think that one reason for the anti-UN sentiment held my some Israelis and their supporters has been the reality that virtually all UN missions to Palestine have been critical of Israel, whether it had to do with the way Israel treated Palestinian refugees, to how the Israelis affected the areas they occupied, to cross-line incidents. Other international agencies have also tended to criticize Israel, including the Red Cross, the UNHCR, UNWRA, etc.   I hope you will tell us more about your own experiences.   Cheers, Lawry   From: Gurstein, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:05 AM To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW: Kofi Annan's hasty rush to judgment   FWIW, just to add... and in the context of Mackenzie's reference to "veiled speech"...   Israel is and has been deeply deeply suspicious and antagonistic to the UN's role in the region for a very long time (it was a continuing theme of any interactions I had with Israeli's while I was on UN mission in the area -- and commuting every day from the conventional UN accommodation in Nahariya (Israel) across the Green Line into the UN site which was in Jordan).    The current accusation (see Debka www.debka.com ) that the UN observers included those who might be indirectly reporting back through their national governments to Hezballoh (in this case the Chinese) has been a continuing theme in Israeli discussions on the UN's role and has in part been the basis for the deepened antagonism towards the UN by various Jewish organizations in the US and through this the overall souring of US support for the UN (along with of course, the Zionism=Racism resolution).   One of the news articles I read on this, again I'm assuming using "veiled speech", while quoting Israeli denials, used as an example of a comparable "accident" and comparable "denials", the "accidental" US bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade during the NATO actions in the region.   I have a feeling that Mackenzie is being a wee bit coy in his G & M article and that he and most of the diplomatic community know full well that it is this understanding that is the background to Annan's remarks (and I'm assuming, those of, for example, the Canadian Government who aren't taking any of this at face value either...   MG       -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cordell, Arthur: ECOM Sent: July 27, 2006 4:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: Kofi Annan's hasty rush to judgment MacKenzie is a respected military figure and political figure as well.  I think his article is clear.  Hezbollah fighers were using the UN post for cover, the UN observers tried to tell the Israelis that they were getting too close the outpost.  The bombs were getting ever closer to the outpost and the outpost was accidentally hit.   My question is: Why weren't the observers pulled out of a war zone?  Why weren't they authorized to shoot the Hezbollah who were drawing fire from the Israelis.?  There is no reason for Israel to bomb the outpost.  The obvious one is what MacKenzie has stated.  Kofi Anan has erred.    And what role do the UN obervers have in that area at all?  What are they doing there?    As to the Liberty......I know nothing about it and have no opinion.   arthur   From: Lawrence de Bivort [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:13 AM To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW: Kofi Annan's hasty rush to judgment What MacKenzie omits from his account are the several warnings from the UN post to Israel military commanders that Israeli bombs were falling close by the clearly marked UN post.   This reminds me a lot of the attack by Israel on the USS Liberty. The attack took place over four hours, against a ship flying the US flag, on a clear day.   Several sources have told me that the US gov’t concluded that the attack was designed to foil the US’s ability to monitor Israeli and Egyptian actions leading up to and through the 1967 war, when, as we now know, Israel attacked Egypt, Syria and Jordan.  Israel asserted that they had been attacked first, and didn’t want anyone to controvert them.   We can only wonder why Israel attacked the UN observation post.  The prominence of the UN markings and flag on the post and its several warnings to the Israel military suggest that it could not have been accidental. So why did Israel attack them?   As for Kofi Annan’s reaction, it would have been surprised if it had not been one of anger, and if he had not called for an investigation.  Perhaps MacKenzie feels that because it was an Israeli attack that it should be beyond questioning and beyond anger.   Arthur, I must assume that you concur with MacKenzie’s article. Can you respond to these questions?   Cheers, Lawry   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cordell, Arthur: ECOM Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:16 AM To: futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca Subject: [Futurework] FW: Kofi Annan's hasty rush to judgment       Comment Kofi Annan's hasty rush to judgment LEWIS MacKENZIE 27 July 2006 The Globe and Mail A15 English On hearing the news that a United Nations observation post manned by four unarmed peacekeepers at the nexus of the Israeli, Lebanese and Syrian borders was struck by an Israeli bomb, an uncharacteristically forceful Kofi Annan bolted out of a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to proclaim his shock at the “apparently deliberate targeting” by Israel Defence Forces of the post. The UN Secretary-General went on to say the UN would conduct a full investigation. A curious statement, considering his comment that the IDF intentionally targeted the observers. Case closed, n'est-ce pas? Not quite. The blast on Tuesday claimed the lives of Major Paeta Derek Hess-von Kruedener, a Canadian serving with the UN Truce Supervision Organization mission in southern Lebanon, and three other UN soldiers. On July 18, Major Hess-von Kruedener had sent a number of his colleagues, including regimental officers such as myself, an e-mail describing what the situation was like at his location since the Israeli attacks began against Hezbollah in Lebanon. “Based on the intensity and volatility of this current situation and the unpredictability of both sides (Hezbollah and Israel), and given the operational tempo of the Hezbollah and the IDF, we are not safe to venture out to conduct our normal patrol activities. We have now switched to Observation Post Duties and are observing any and all violations as they occur.” UNTSO was established in 1948 and is the UN's oldest mission. Canada has participated since its inception, and one of its current roles has been to monitor the ceasefire in the Golan Heights after the 1967 Six-Day War. When there had been a semblance of peace, UN monitoring made considerable sense, so minor violations could be dealt with quickly. But to leave the observers in place with a war under way stretches the credibility of the UN's operational judgment close to the breaking point. The penultimate paragraph of Major Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail is prophetic, to say the least: “The closest artillery has landed within two metres of our position and the closest 1,000-pound aerial bomb has landed 100 metres from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity.” This is what we call “veiled speech” in military jargon. It means hiding the truth in lingo that outsiders would not necessarily understand. What he is saying translates roughly as: “We have Hezbollah fighters all over our position engaging the IDF and using us as shields. They will probably stay, hoping that the IDF won't target them for fear of hitting us.” Surprising? Not really. I have served in another mission where one side constantly set up its weapon systems, including mortars, in and around hospitals, medical clinics, mosques and, yes, UN positions, knowing full well that, when it engaged its enemies and received return fire, it would make for compelling TV as the networks covered the civilian carnage. (When they took up positions around my soldiers, I advised their leaders that I would authorize my soldiers to kill them within the hour if they didn't withdraw. Fortunately, as I was not an unarmed observer, I was in a position to do that.) In many cases, the weapon systems were moved immediately after firing, and their positions around civilians were abandoned before innocents paid the price for their despicable techniques. You have to admit this technique helps to win the PR war, which often is as important as the fighting one. Certainly, the Secretary-General is familiar with this technique, having been the UN undersecretary of peacekeeping in the horrific 1990s, when the UN was floundering in the Balkans, Somalia and Rwanda. For that reason alone — and despite his soft-pedalling yesterday that the Israeli Prime Minister “definitely believes [the bombing was] a mistake” — Mr. Annan should not have been so quick to pass judgment on an event that quite likely was not as it seemed in the hours following the tragedy. Retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie was the first commander of United Nations peacekeeping forces in Sarajevo.

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework