We fund this organization

Why then do we allow it to go after Israel at the behest of Iran, Egypt, Bahrain, Venezuela, and other countries where human rights violations routinely happen? Why do we not insist that the people who use tanks, guns, and abductions cloaked as police actions to be held accountable?

Because apparently its much easier to go after the liberal democracy than a repressive regime.

And the UN takes another step towards irrelevancy

In case you had not heard the latest bit of lunacy from the UN, apparently a new rule was adopted recently by the UN Human Rights Council. Apparently, it has decided that it is no allowed to criticize the practices of any religion.

Incidentally, the rule was proposed by the Pakistani (a predominantly Muslim country) representative to the head of the council, a Nigerian (a country where a large portion of the country is subject to Sharia law heard by courts of Islamic mullahs), and supported by Egypt and Iran.

That's nice. So being unable to criticize, apparently in any form, practices of any religion, the Council can no longer really deal with issues such as genital mutiliation, stoning, and child marriage. Interestingly enough, all issues which are practiced (to some form or another) by reactionary Islamic nations such as Iran, unstable Islamic nations such as Pakistan, and authoritarian dictatorships like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

I guess with all those pesky issues out of the way, the UN Human Rights Council can get back to important issues, like condemning Israel for defending itself against outlaws who want to indiscriminately kill its citizens. Nice to see their priorities are in the right place.

Have to hand it to Iran

Even before the U.N. voted today to sanction Iran, the Iranians were getting ready for the outcome of the vote by grabbing bargaining chips. In this case, it was British military personnel.

In case you had not heard, the Iranian Islamic Republican Guard Corps maritime unit captured 15 members of a Royal Navy and Royal Marine detachment on duty in the Shatt al Arab. Iran claims that the men in captivity have "admitted" to violating Iranian waters. The Iranians have announced that they intend to try the captured British personnel for espionage.

The Iranians claim that the British violated their waters. However, in a similar incident last year, it was clear that the British were clearly within the Iraqi territory. Does it make any sense that they would be invading Iranian territory, in the day, in rigid inflatable boats, and unsupported? Or is it more likely that the Iranians are lashing out at the world's condemnation of their nuclear program and the recent capture of five Iranian Republican Guardsmen in Iraq earlier this year by U.S. forces?

A hundred years ago, the response would have been a swift reprisal raid freeing the prisoners. In today's world, with our lack of certain terms, moral equivalence, and tolerance, the response will definitely be less swift, less certain, and probably result in appeasement.

Hopefully, the Bush administration and Blair government will not repeat the fiasco of North Korean appeasement. Or they could just treat it like they have the rest of Iran's involvement in the Iraqi civil-war.

All Iran had to worry about was a UN sanction for its nuclear program. Those have proven so effective against Iraq, Sudan (for Darfur), Angola, the Former Yugoslavia, Somalia and all the other places the UN has sanctioned.

Now... ?

Gotta Hand It To Those UNIFIL Troops

I mean, set up, make them a "robust" force and place a French general in command you get...


The story here. It's nice to see the UN confirming the Israeli version of events. But wasn't the point of UNIFIL to prevent further attacks and threats from Lebanon?

Should I be surprised?

Well it appears that France has gone back on its committment to lead the force which would implement the UN Resolution in Lebanon. Instead of sending the troops it said it would, 3,500, it will now only dispatch a contingent of 200. Of course, France already has 200 solidiers assigned to UNIFIL, and its not clear if that means any more will be sent.

Why should I be surprised. After all, it is France that has been saying that Iran is a stabilizing force in the Middle-East. It has also been France's position that defending the sovereign territory against terrorist attacks and rocket bombardments is disproportionate.

Of course this entire cease fire resolution is dependent upon Hezbollah agreeing to abide by the terms. So far, it seems that they have not released their hostages, begun to disarm, or even signalled a willingness to disarm when the UN troops arrive.

Its so nice to see that UN and France are willing to have peace at any price.

Some Cartoons

Interesting what Kofi Anan chooses not to talk about

Apparently, the Secretary-General of the United Nations has been turning a blind eye to what may have caused the deaths of the UNIFIL troops a few days ago. In the UN's own report on the status of UNIFIL mission, it noted:

28. Control of the Blue Line and its vicinity appears to have remained for the most part with Hizbollah. During the reporting period, Hizbollah maintained and reinforced a visible presence in the area, with permanent observation posts, temporary checkpoints and patrols. It continued to carry out intensive construction works to strengthen and expand some of its fixed positions, install additional technical equipment, such as cameras, establish new positions close to the Blue Line and build new access roads. These measures resulted in a more strategically laid out and fortified structure of Hizbollah’s deployment along the Blue Line. Some Hizbollah positions remained in close proximity to United Nations positions, especially in the Hula area, posing a significant security risk to United Nations personnel and equipment, as demonstrated during the heavy exchanges of fire on 28 May. In letters to the Foreign Minister, dated 23 March, 27 June and 5 July 2006, the Force Commander, General Pellegrini, expressed grave concern about the Hizbollah construction works in close proximity to United Nations positions and requested that the Government of Lebanon take necessary actions to rectify the situation. However, the situation remained unchanged despite repeated objections addressed by UNIFIL to the Lebanese authorities. UNIFIL observed the reconstruction of Hizbollah positions that were damaged or destroyed during the 28 May exchange of fire.
29. UNIFIL encountered an increase of temporary denials of access by Hizbollah in different areas along the Blue Line. On one occasion Hizbollah searched a UNIFIL vehicle and temporarily confiscated United Nations equipment. In general, the Force was able to regain and assert its freedom of movement within a short period of time and, in some instances, with the assistance of the Lebanese authorities.

Reading the rest of the report, available on the UN site here in pdf format, is amazing. The UN forces have watched, recorded, and done very little other than talk to the Government of Lebanon about the state of things in Southern Lebanon. They have noted a build-up of Hezbollah forces in the region and the inadequate efforts of the Government of Lebanon at mainting control over its own borders.

It is also interesting to see how the author of the report is self-congratulatory about the accomplishments of the mission, i.e. confirming the withdrawal of the IDF from Lebanon (almost 6 years ago) and assisting the return of Lebanese government authority, to a a limited extent, in the area. However, the mission of UNIFIL also included "restore the international peace and security" to the region. In 28 years, they have failed in that miserably.

This brings me back to paragraphs 28 and 29 of the report. If the job of the peacekeepers is to restore the international peace and security, what are they doing by allowing Hezzbollah from establishing fighting positions so close to UNIFIL positions?

If the report is accurate, then why did the UN not take measures to ensure that either the peacekeepers were not there or that the Hezbollah terrorists were not there? At what point does the UN admit it has failed in its mission and allow a nation the right to defend itself?

(Hat tip to Captain's Quarters)

Interesting Picture

Over at Israellycool, I noticed the following photo. Apparently, this alleged to be a photograph of the UNFIL. If it is, then I have to wonder at the impartiality of any UN-authorized peacekeeping force that may be dispatched to Southern Lebanon.

On the other hand, part of me wants the UN to stay out of the mess entirely. Previous UN missions have been so successful. Witness UNDOF (which worked in the sense that Syria stopped using their own artillery and started to support terrorist groups which used rockets from Lebanon instead) and UNTSO, founded in 1948 and is the oldest peacekeeping mission in the world (despite the fact that there has been 1956 Suez Campaign, 1967 Six Day War, 1970 - 1971 War of Attrition, 1973 Yom Kippur War, 1982 Lebanon Invasion). And of course, there was UNFIL, established with the mission "confirm Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, restore the international peace and security, and help the Lebanese Government restore its effective authority in the area." This was in 1978, after the first attempt by Israel to clear terrorist bases of operation from southern Lebanon was thwarted by the UN. Apparently 28 years, continuing use of the region by terrorist groups attacking Israel, two invasions (one by Israel, one by Syria) and protracted civil war is the UN's definition of restoring internation peace and security.

Then again, what could one expect from an organization that allows gross human rights violators to head the commission on human rights? That has passed a resolution 3379 (stating that Zionism was racism and equated it to apartheid), but never passed an equivalent resolution condemning the PLO, Hamas, Hezbullah, or any other Islamic terrorist group with the avowed purpose of eliminating the Jewish state and expelling the jews (these groups all espousing a "doctrine of racial differentiation or superiority")? Or that failed to act against senior members who accepted kickbacks from a country that was working to circumvent an embargo designed to punish it for waging aggressive wars and brutally repressing ethnic minorities? Or failed to keep refugee camps places of refuge, instead of bases for operation by irregular, un-uniformed combatants (See paragraph 45 of the UN report)? Or for that matter, allowed its ambulances to be used to transport weapons for terrorist groups?

Political Cartoon

Not filling me with hope

Apparently the head of the IAEA has said that sanctions should not be imposed on Iran. According to the BBC, Mohamed ElBaradei believes that further negotiations should be allowed in order to keep the peace, which would undoubtedly be strained if the West is succesfull and imposes sanctions on Iran.

Well, that might be nice ... if Iran was willing to suspend its nuclear program.

However, the Iranian ambassador to the IAEA, Aliasghar Soltaniyeh, stated definitively that, "We will not, definitely, suspend enrichment," its ambassador to the IAEA, Aliasghar Soltaniyeh, said earlier on Thursday. "

So what is Mr. ElBaradei's plan? As he laid out yesterday, "“The five measures I have outlined – tightening controls, protecting materials, supporting verification, reinvigorating disarmament and strengthening the Security Council – are all necessary and urgent steps,” Mr. ElBaradei told a conference of German dentists in Karlsruhe over the weekend, in an address aptly called “Putting Teeth in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Regime.”

Now, I used to be a fan of the United Nations. But then there was Somalia. And then Rwanda. And the Balkans. And the pre-9/11 Iraq issue. And the Oil for Food fiasco. Let's not forget that this was the organization that thought it was a good idea to allow Libya and Burma sit on Humans Rights Commission.

So why should I not believe them this time? The UN can only move forward when there is agreement. And the only things that the nations will agree on is the absolute minimum. The U.S. and United Kingdom, and possible France, see Iran as a dangerous country once again under its current leadership. Russia and China see it as a client and a source of opposition to U.S. hegemony over the Persian Gulf region. It would be interesting to see how China views Iran after it starts giving more aid to dissident Muslim groups in China. Or if the Chechens suddenly found that they had a sponsor willing to lend them some plutonium for say a dirty bomb.

Iran has been and continues to be a sponsor of terrorist groups. And by terrorist I mean groups who as primary means of resistance/attack (depending on your view) target civilians deliberately.

Now if only the Iranians were as blinkered as the Iraqis, and put their program in convenient location... this could be dealt with.