UN provides Hezbollah with Intel

During the recent war in Lebanon, UNFIL regularly released timely and accurate information on IDF movements, while ignoring Hezbollah's actions altogether.

Source

DURING THE RECENT month-long war between Hezbollah and Israel, U.N. "peacekeeping" forces made a startling contribution: They openly published daily real-time intelligence, of obvious usefulness to Hezbollah, on the location, equipment, and force structure of Israeli troops in Lebanon.

UNIFIL--the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978--is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and materiel, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old.

...
Sure enough, a review of every single UNIFIL web posting during the war shows that, while UNIFIL was daily revealing the towns where Israeli soldiers were located, the positions from which they were firing, and when and how they had entered Lebanese territory, it never described Hezbollah movements or locations with any specificity whatsoever.

furthermore, these reports gained a lot of accuracy once the war started:

f-ex. the day before, July 25th

Yesterday and during last night, the IDF moved significant reinforcements, including a number of tanks, armored personnel carriers, bulldozers and infantry, to the area of Marun Al Ras inside Lebanese territory. The IDF advanced from that area north toward Bint Jubayl, and south towards Yarun.

^^
Not so accurate, is it?

If the allegations are true, there's no way the UN can talk themselves out of the affair, they were clearly cooperating with an armed fraction involved in combat, thereby violating neutrality and waiving immunity (from attack). Wouldn't be the first time the UN screws up, sexual abuse, 'safe-havens' which are turned into mass graves and corruption at the highest level (Iraqi oil revenues before 2003) come to my mind.

In retrospect, attacks on UN outposts make a whole lot of sense now, although i wonder why Isreal didn't simply order them to leave, after they had violated neutrality.

This would be the second time the UN has screwed up.

The first time is when they had created the state of Israel, thereby violating the wants and needs of the indigeneous peoples of the area.

Perhaps the reason is because the U.N did not know where the hezbollah forces were located. The IDF is kind of hard to miss, you know?

that's an obvious excuse, but an excuse nonetheless, the UN in this case were supposed not to get involved, but they did, which resulted in one party gaining an advantage over the other = involvement -> loss of immunity.


whatever your position on Isreal or the UN or Hezbollah may be, feigning neutrality while providing an advantage to any side not just erodes credibility, that's exactly the kind of stunt which gets red cross ships sunk, which turns every aid worker or journalist into a suspect and contributes to ever more brutal warfare.

i don't care who's involved, such incidents set a precedent and no-one knows what they'll come up with next time. if the UN can't keep their hands clean they become a target, pure and simple.

Are we supposed to assume that the guerillas used the UN for intelligence?

That's pretty far-fetched...

They certainly have other resources, besides the UN's web presence. Most media outlets were carrying similar information, if I remember, about troop/armor movements. And as far as I know, the guerillas have other sources of intel, including a gaggle of guys on bikes with walkies and Iranian/Syrian intelligence, not to mention private citizens sympathetic to the cause.

Why would they need the UN to tell them that a whole host of tanks was rolling into town X when their agents in town X were perfectly capable of passing that information along? For all we know, the UN was getting their intel from the guerillas.

Long Lance, you say that the UN's actions were those of a non-neutral entity, but you're basing that statement off the assumption that the intel provided was of any use to the guerillas. Are you aware of the extent to which the guerillas relied on this information? If you have no information speaking to that issue, you have no reason to suspect that the UN helped the guerillas at all - you need to know whether the information was necessary and useful, before you make judgements about the UN's intent.

I pesonally think it's safe to say that the sort of intel put up by the UN was redundant, and unnecessary.

And then you go on to say that because of the UN's website, Red Cross ships were sunk...

Wow, I mean, if Leap of Logic was an Olympic event, you'd be a tough contender.

Even if the UN made a mistake, or intentionally aided one side, what's that got to do with the relief operations undertaken by the RC?

Personally, I loathe the RC and the UN, I can't stand them, and I think they steal more money than every bank robber in history combined - but that doesn't change the fact that what you're saying isn't making sense to me. Please clarify how you arrived at your conclusion.

no matter how it's used or by whom (or not at all), you can't just go ahead and tell everyone what warring parties are doing, because you don't know what's useful and what isn't.

if you only told them when they already knew, well, the question is how much resources you're going to commit, isn't it? covering the entire front with surveillance tech and/or spotters is possible, but it can be countered as these units wouldn't be immune (like the UN alledgedly is) plus you can't use them elsewhere.

this is a principal issue: if non-combatants do things that make one side's job easier, they're abusing their status, undermining it in the process.


PS: perhaps i should have said, got ships sunk (red cross badge or not)... you know that Lousitania carried contraband weapons, don't you? well, those who don't learn from history...

no matter how it's used or by whom (or not at all), you can't just go ahead and tell everyone what warring parties are doing, because you don't know what's useful and what isn't.

I disagree. Look at it this way...

You're a humanitarian aid worker, operating in a warzone. You need to know where the action is, in order to effectively deploy your resources. It's not sensible to send a bunch of ambulances and helicopters for evacuation of non-combatants to an area where there's no fighting.

The information provided by the UN was vital (I think) to the organization of rescue, evacuation, and humanitarian aid relief efforts. The IDF is like a hurricane in this case, where they go, destruction and misery follow, so the UN needs to acquire intel on IDF movements to pass on to its relief workers, for the same reason disaster relief groups keep a close eye on the movements of storms.

I would suggest that they operate on a more closed system, regulated by permissions, so that only certain people could access the information, but that might not work, for one important reason - the information provided by the UN was perhaps most useful to one group of people - refugees fleeing the fighting. They need to know if the IDF is bearing down on their area, so they can get their kids, their belongings, and get the Hell out.

This doesn't do a lot of good to people without internet access, and presumably there are other ways for vulnerable people to get alerts, so maybe this is a possibility in the future..I don't know.

this is a principal issue: if non-combatants do things that make one side's job easier, they're abusing their status, undermining it in the process.

You're right, if non-combatants do things that make one side's job easier, they've abused their position of neutrality, and crapped all over the principle of neutrality itself. But that drags us back to my initial question - what proof do we have that the UN's information helped the guerillas in any way, shape, or form?

It's an assumption on your part, to say that news about IDF movements coming from the UN was used for tactical purposes by the guerillas. It's my opinion that Hezbollah's powerful international allies and deep roots in the communities affected provided more intelligence than was required, and thus the actions of the UN were of no help at all.

[edit on 27-8-2006 by WyrdeOne]

It's weird that the UN did that. They usually are controlled by US-BRITISH-ISRAELIAN forces. Wonder what's up with that.. Is the UN making a claim for legitimacy? Has there been an uprising within their hierarchy? Don't be surprised if those mentionned nations start critisizing the UN as useless. Let's see if they propose a self-funded alternative.. League of Nations anyone?

Originally posted by Long Lance
this is a principal issue: if non-combatants do things that make one side's job easier, they're abusing their status, undermining it in the process.

You act as if the U.N was disclosing secured locations. I watched embedded KCAL channel 9 news reporters next to Israeli equipment on the border. Like weird one said, the information given was redundant, it was nothing that was not available on any western nightly news channel.

Originally posted by The Crow
This would be the second time the UN has screwed up.

Actually it would be yet another in a LONG LIST of UN screw ups. You are being generous saying 'the second time'. Rwanda ... Oil for Food scandal ... Saddam buying UN security council votes ... etc. etc. etc.

Hey .. now Annan is saying that the UN going into Lebanon will in no way try to enforce 1559. That the UN resolution wasn't really intended to disarm Hezbollah at all.

english.people.com.cn...

The UN is worse than useless ... it needs to be dismantled and something new put in it's place that actually works. What THAT is ... I have no idea. But the UN is a waste of time, money, space, and effort. It is worse than useless.

[edit on 8/27/2006 by FlyersFan]

i'll give you an example of military intelligence and what happens if you're careless and overconfident.

Scenario: Vietnam air offensive.

bombing schedule was of course a well kept secret (to assure surprise of course), but somebody in the lower echelons apparently did not need to know why he was spposed to request weather forecasts for specific areas and simply forwarded them - unencrypted, since it was just a benign weather forecast you can get off commercial sources anyway, right? wrong.

these forecasts were given to bomber crews, several hours in advance. in other words, the VC started withdrawing before the bombers had even taken off, just because of a little seemingly irrelevant data. you don't know what's useful to whom and why, that's the whole point, IF they were just braindead, they would have continued with their normal schedule of posting a few vague comments, but no, they significantly changed it. why?


PS: if you think military operations should be treated like a natural catastrophy (give warning to everyone so people can prepare), do you suggest the same for police activities? warn people before f-ex a SWAT team arrives? i don't think so.

addendum: www.abovetopsecret.com...

note that this bunker system which included concrete fortifications (massive building effort) was found adjacent to an UN outpost. i can see a pattern emerging, can you?

discalimer: i don't love or loathe any party involved, so don't ask, and i'm just as much against the kosher tax as the next guy, but i don't see a reason to treat the UN with silk gloves no matter who deserves what. do you?

[edit on 28-8-2006 by Long Lance]