Annan: Israel raid may be part of pattern

Kofi Annan is also, it would appear, unconcerned by "a Hizballah rocket attack [that] wounded three United Nations peacekeepers at the UNIFIL base in southern Lebanon yesterday."

Michelle Malkin comments:

No condemnation from the U.N. yet. ... Don't you know Kofi Annan considers terrorist mortar rounds and rocket strikes on its peacekeeping bases friendly fire?

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005677.htm

Indeed, one has to wonder about Annan's attitude.

Let's hope the Chinese, whose soldiers were hit, have noted it.

There is evidence accumulating that the Qana "massacre" was a staged event not just to attrack sympathy for the victims positioned by Hezbollah killers, but more importantly so that Israel would stop bombing Qana. It appears that the new larger rockets that were used to injure 100 Israelis on the weekend originated from Qana. The Israelis were hoodwinked not to attack Qana while it has been a secret staging area for some of Hezbollah's bigger rockets. Allah aqba? Allah n'aqba! Allah is great? Allah is the source of our holocaust!

The UN has a lot to answer. Although desirable, there is not yet such thing as "humanitarian law", what humanity has managed to codify thus far is the "international law" proper. And if I remember correctly, that same international law required the hezbollah to disarm, a long time ago.

But instead hezbollah managed to smuggle no less than 15,000 missiles and build a mini-state in souther Lebanon, complete with a network of tunnels and thoroughtly trained fighters. What for, if not for a war with Israel? And were the UNIFIL "peacekeepers" looking at all?

The UN never raised its voice against this obvious violation of international law, but now it has found the resolve to blame Israel. Disgusting.

Speeches written by, thoughts encouraged by, possibly, one Edward Mortimer, illegitimate Edward, the man who reporting from Teheran when Khomeini returned from France to ascend the mystical-mahdi if not quite-Peacock Throne, wrote that "to quote Charles James Fox, this is quite the most wonderful moment in the history of mankind."

Edward Mortimer has for years been the Chief Speechwriter for Kofi Annan, and director of the "Communications" office. And he swans about the world, describing himself as a z"Senior Adviser" as well. I don't doubt that he is. I don't doubt that Edward Mortimer and his ilk -- the other day we had the miching mallecho of Malloch Brown -- are all over the Secretary of the U.N., swarming in and around his brain, and coloring or rather directing his words, and therefore, what pass for his thoughts.

Google "Edward Mortimer"and "Posted by Hugh" if in a mood to be tormented.

"In Qana, Israeli forces deliberately attacked the civilian population sheltering in an unadulterated residential area. This, without any doubt, represents a war crime committed against (the) civilian population not taking direct part in the hostilities."

War crimes. What does that make Hezbollah who directly target civilian populations with every rocket they shoot over into Israel. Israel does not target civilians just the militants.

Moral inversion is a muslim deceit tactic. They will pin on you the evil they do.

And Annan is a pathetic dhimmi stooge. Enough said.

"the UN's Chief Dhimmi"

Is Annan a dhimmi, or is he a Muslim?

Seems I can't find any mention of his religion anywhere, but I'm sure I've been told at some point that he is a Muslim (which would certainly explain a lot). Can anyone point to a "reputable" source that mentions where, and with whom, he stands on religion.

Kofi is a dimwitted dhimmi, but when will Bolton finally get round to telling Annan that it is time for him to do the first honourable thing in his life and resign?

Kofi is a dhimmi, but when will Bolton finally get round to telling Annan that it is time for him to resign?

Kofi is a dhimmi, but when will Bolton finally get round to telling Annan that it is time for him to resign?

Kofi Annan is simply disgusting and a disgrace to the UN. All of the mud that people have hurled at Bush and Co. could have been better used to repaint the exterior of the UN.

My God, the whole world appears to be doing moral headstands.

"And in the last days, all the world will believe a great lie"

WOW.

Let's hope the Chinese, whose soldiers were hit, have noted it. Posted by: Yojimbo

• Take North Korea to task for supplying Iran with missiles that were used to supply Hizbullah, that were then used on the Chinese soldiers (the UN has shown it won't do squat);
• Send a few full battalions of the PLA to South Lebanon, have them occupy that entire area, and shell anyone who shells them. Let them take revenge on Hizbullah by massacreing their fighters in South Lebanon, and if Hizbullah tries bombing Israel from further north, let the Chinese have a free hand in invading and occupying. Any UN resolution that attempts to censure Beijing for such acts would be non starters, since the latter would be veto-ready all the way.
• Invite Kofi Annan to Beijing, take him hostage, and make him disappear

Kofi had best be careful lest he stir up reminders of the massacre of a number of Israeli soldiers by terrorists in borrowed UNIFIL uniforms back in 2000. Some Indian Army members of the contingent later gave evidence to that effect, but, basically, the story was hushed up by... ...the UN.

Item originally produced by volokh.com, courtesy of frontpagemag.com's warblog of July 19/06:

UNITED NATIONS AN ACCOMPLICE IN HEZBOLLAH KIDNAPPING

After Hezbollah's kidnapping of a pair of Israeli soldiers spurred an Israeli counter-attack, many critics of Israel actions have suggested that the United Nations can serve as a buffer between Israel and Hezbollah. To the contrary, the United Nations has a well-established record of collaboration with Hezbollah in the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers.

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) has been deployed since 1978, not long after Israel first entered Lebanon in pursuit of PLO terrorists. UNIFIL was created pursuant to Security Council Resolution 425, for the purpose of "confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area." Quite obviously UNFIL has utterly failed to achieve the Security Council's objectives, either before or after Israel's 2000 complete withdrawal from Lebanon. One reason is that UNIFIL does not interdict Hezbollah attacks on Israel. Instead, UNIFIL allows Hezbollah to set up positions next to UNFIL units, in effect using UNIFIL as human shields against Israeli counterstrikes. (Aluf Benn, Israel accuses UN of collaborating with Hezbollah," Haaretz, Sept. 11, 2005.)

UNIFIL's most notorious collaboration with terrorists involved the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli soldiers, and the subsequent cover-up.

On October 7, 2000, Hezbollah terrorists entered Israel, attacked three Israeli soldiers on Mount Dov, and abducted them Lebanon. The kidnapping was witnessed by several dozen UNIFIL soldiers who stood idle. One of the soldier witnesses described the kidnapping: the terrorists set of an explosive which stunned the Israeli soldiers. Clad in UN uniforms, the terrorists called out, "Come, come, we’ll help you."

The Israeli soldiers approached the men in UN uniforms. Then, a Hezbollah bomb detonated—-apparently prematurely. It wounded the disguised Hezbollah commander, and three Israeli soldiers.

Two other terrorists in U.N. uniforms dragged their Hezbollah commander and the three wounded soldiers into a getaway car.

According an Indian solider in UNIFIL who witnessed the kidnapping, "By this stage, there was a big commotion and dozens of UN soldiers from the Indian brigade came around." The witness stated that the brigade knew that the kidnappers in UN uniform were Hezbollah. One soldiers said that the brigade should arrest the Hezbollah, but the brigade did nothing.

According to the Indian soldier, the UNFIL brigade in the area "could have prevented the kidnapping."

"I’m very sorry about what happened, because we saw what happened," he said. Hezbollah "were wearing our uniforms and it was too bad we didn’t stop them."

It appears that at least four of the UNIFIL "peacekeepers," all from India, has received bribes from Hezbollah in order to assist the kidnapping by helping them get to the kidnapping spot and find the Israeli soldiers. Some of the bribery involved alcohol and Lebanese women.

The Indian brigade later had a bitter internal argument, as some members complained that the brigade had betrayed its peacekeeping mandate. An Indian government investigation sternly criticized the brigade's conduct.

There is evidence of far greater payments by Hezbollah to the UNIFIL Indian brigade, including hundreds of thousands of dollars for assistance in the kidnapping and cover-up.

The UN cover-up began almost immediately.

Lebanon's The Daily Star reported the story told by a former officer of the Observer Group Lebanon (OGL), which is part of the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO). ("UN 'destroyed' evidence after abduction of 3 Israeli troops," The Daily Star, July 20, 2001.)

A few hours after the kidnapping, UNTSO learned that two abandoned cars had been discovered. One was a white Nissan Pathfinder with fake UN insignia; it had hit an embankment because it was being driven so fast that the driver missed a turn. The other was a Range Rover; it was missing a tire rim, and was still running when it was discovered.

Rather than using the very-recently-abandoned vehicles as clues to rescue the kidnap victims, the UN initiated a cover-up. The next morning, eighteen hours after the kidnapping, a team of OGL and the Indian UNIFIL began removing the contents of the cars.

The Range Rover was soaked with blood. Among the contents of the vehicles may have been a cell phone belonging to the terrorists. The UNTSO officer confirmed that the cars contained "extremely sensitive" items which included "current and relevant information that could have been easily linked to the incident."

A UNIFIL peacekeeper videotaped the removal of the contents, and attempted to tow one of the cars. According to a much-later U.N. report, there were fifty items taken from the car, seven of them blood-stained. (Report of the fact-finding investigation relating to the abduction of three Israeli soldiers on 7 October 2000 and subsequent relevant events, Aug. 2, 2001.)

The end of the UNIFIL videotape featured armed Lebanese men confronting the UN forces, and taking the cars away from the UN. The UN personnel did not resist, because, they later claimed, the cars did not belong to the UN anyway.

The UNTSO officer told The Daily Star that the UN ordered its personnel to destroy all photographs and written reports about the incident.

The U.N. did not provide the Israelis with the automobile contents, or the videotape, both of which might have helped the Israelis rescue the kidnap victims. Instead, the seized contents of the cars were taken to a town in Lebanon, stored in a safe, and some were eventually returned to Hezbollah.

Israel found out about the videotape, and demanded that the UN let Israeli investigators see it. Kofi Annan and his Special Envoy denied that any videotape existed. It is not clear whether Annan was lying, or whether he was misled.

Nine months after the kidnapping, July 6, 2001, the UN admitted that is had the videotape. Annan ordered an internal UN Report, which was led by UN undersecretary-General Joseph Connor. (Connor was later implicated in the Oil-for-Food scam.) The report revealed that the UN had two additional videotapes—one of which contained still photographs from the kidnapping itself. The UN investigation declared that there was no evidence that the UNIFIL forces had been bribed, or that the UN had deliberately misled anyone.

Even after admitting the existence of the first videotape, Annan refused to allow Israel to view it. He claimed that letting Israel see evidence about the kidnapping would undermine the UN’s neutrality. Thus, Annan insisted on neutrality between innocent victims and terrorists who had used fake UN insignia and who had taken vehicles from UN staff a gunpoint.

The United States House of Representatives, on July 30, 2001, passed by a vote of 411-4 a resolution urging the UN to allow Israel to see the videotape. Annan relented, but only under the condition that the tape be edited so as to hide the faces of the Hezbollah perpetrators. He also agreed to give the Israelis some, but not all, of the items which the UN had seized from the getaway cars.

On January 29, 2004, the bodies of the murdered Israelis were returned to Israel by Hezbollah, as part of a prisoner exchange.

UPDATE: In response to one of the commenters, I've added the following analysis on two questions: 1. By what standard can the UN be considered an "accomplice" in the Hezbollah kidnapping? 2. Is anti-semitism the best explanation of UN behavior?

1. Regarding UN complicity in kidnapping, one can analogize from the rules that are used to decide whether a corporation is criminally culpable for the acts of its employees, or whether a government agency is liable under section 1983 for the acts of its employees. At the lowest level--the four bribed Indians--the trier of facts looks at the entity's efforts to prevent or punish the employee conduct in question, and whether the entity creates a culture in which the conduct is encouraged or tacitly tolerated.

For misconduct by higher-ranking employees, prosecutors and fact-finders tend to be more likely to conclude that misconduct is attributable to the entity. If you believe the UNTSO official who spoke to The Daily Star (not exactly a reflexively pro-Israel newspaper), or if you believe that reports of a vast bribery scheme are true, then you might well find culpability on the part of the UN.

But I think that my calling the UN an "accomplice" is supportable purely on the undisputed public facts about the UN's concealment and suppression of evidence — with some of the suppression being conducted at the direct order of the UN's chief executive. I believe the undisputed facts are sufficient to show, at the least, that the UN was an accessory-after-the-fact to the kidnappings.

Moreover, the activities of the UN's top staff in New York City, and of high-ranking UN officials in Lebanon, are also relevant evidence for whether there is UN corporate culture of tolerance for terrorism/kidnapping, which is relevant evidence for whether the misconduct of the Indian brigade can be attributed to the UN.

As some commenters have pointed out, there is a very long record of the UN being extremely lax towards crimes committed by its peacekeepers in many other places--for example, the rapes of women and girls in former Yugoslavia, Cambodia, West Africa, and the Congo. The global record suggests, again, a corporate culture of indifference (despite official statements to the contrary) towards employee on-the-job involvement in violent crime; the evidence of a global culture of indifference is more evidence which a fact-finder could use in concluding that crimes of the Indian brigade were attributable to the UN.

2. Anti-semitism. I don't think that anti-semitism is the root of the UN's problem with Israel. It's true, as some commentators have pointed out, that the UN is functionally anti-semitic; that is, the UN constantly condemns Israel far more often and more vehemently than it condemns other countries which (even if you believe the worst about Israel) violate human rights much more severely than Israel does. The Eye on the UN website provides copious documentation of the UN's functional anti-semitism.

Nevertheless, I think the UN's pervasive anti-Israelism, although anti-Semitic in practice, is not primarily motivated by hatred of Jews.

Hitler was genuinely committed to anti-Semitism. He harmed his own military interests by giving rail line priority to trains which were headed for the death camps, putting those trains ahead of military transport trains. Similarly, Hitler would have produced resources with which to fight the war if he had used Jews as slave labor (as many were used before extermination), rather than killing them en masse. Who else would harm their own self-interest in order to kill Jews. The answers include "the government of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the PLO." But only one of these has a UN delegation, and the UN had turned vehemently against Israel long before Iran's government was taken over by Islamonazis.

Way back in the 1950s, the Arab bloc at the UN had succeeded in perverting UNRWA so that UNRWA would perpetuate rather than solve the Palestinian refugee problem. The Arab dictators of the day may have personally despised Jews, but I think that the dictators were acting out of self-interest, not prejudice. They recognized that keeping the Arab-Israeli conflict festering was a good way to distract and divert the anger of their own nations' populations. In retrospect, we know that the strategy was only partially successful, since the fomentation of anti-Israel Jew hatred sometimes aroused local forces which the dictatorships were unable to control.

Arab government-incited anti-semitism had the advantage of building on historical prejudices against Jews. (It's true that, in the past, Arab Moslem regimes sometimes treated Jews better than did European Christians, but there was also a long record of atrocious abuse of Jews in the Arab world on which the post-WWII Arab dictatorships could build.)

But suppose that modern Israel had never been created, and that, after WWII, some other state for a stateless people had been born. Maybe sympathy for the Gypsies, who were also the victims of Nazi genocide, might have led to the creation of Gypsistan (or Romastan, according to the modern usage) in a part of Egypt. (The word "gypsy" comes from the "Egypt", based on the belief that the group originated there.) Or some other persecuted group might have established a homeland in the wastelands of Libya. In any case, I think that the establishment of a non-Arab state would likely have led to military confrontation, and if the attempt to exterminate that state by force had failed, then the Arab dictators would have found political advantage in fomenting hatred of that non-Arab state.

Although UNRWA was captured very shortly after it was born, the broader UN assault on Israel didn't get going until the 1960s; the assault peaked in the 1970s, and later receded slightly from its 1970s apex. The anti-Israel assault of the 1970s was merely one element in a successful Soviet strategy of aligning the new UN members, most of them former colonies of Europe, and most of them dictatorships, into an anti-Western bloc. Israel, having the misfortune of being located in the middle of a sea of dictatorships, was a natural target of this UN super-majority; but the same would have been true if Romastan were a pro-western democracy.

Today, the Islamic bloc at the UN continues to find local political advantage in anti-Israelism (as it would with anti-Romastanism), while the rest of the Third World finds it advantageous to go along. I don't think that the dictatorship of China, for example, cares one way or the other about Jews or Israel; but the Chinese dictatorship correctly discerns that voting with the Islamic bloc against Israel is a cost-free way to curry favor with Islamic states, and win their support on issues relevant to China.

Regarding Kofi Annan, and most of the rest of the UN's leading executives, I would say that, functionally, they are vicious anti-Semites, but that, in their hearts, they are not particularly prejudiced against Jews per se. Rather, their actions are explainable under the principles of organizational behavior. Annan is a career UN employee (the first one to become Secretary-General), and he has risen through the organization by shrewdly placating whoever needs to be placated. His anti-Israel actions are simply the result of his astute calculation of the balance of forces at the UN. If he could gain more power at the United Nations by denouncing Fiji or by defending Israel, he would do so.

So there is no anti-semitic conspiracy at the UN, in the sense of a conspiracy directed by people who are deeply motivated by hatred of Jews. Rather, the UN's criminal complicity in the kidnapping of Israelis, like the rest of the UN's anti-Israelism, is explainable as the logical result of a wide variety of UN actors behaving according to their self-interest. Friday, July 21, 2006

The only pattern we see here is Israel has a pattern of protecting it's citizens, and Kofi has a pattern letting the Israeli citizens die.

And if there is a International violation of law, it should be on Kofi's part for not protecting a member state (Israel) and for not fulfilling his responsibility of applying laws and sanctions that are in place.

Kofi is anti-Israel. He would never be talking like this about any other country in the world.

Swiss intellectuals could not agree more with Kofi Annan.

Last week Israel was dropped from the Film Festival in Locarno and rejected as a co-sponsor.

Now a communiqué purportedly authored by over 100 “Swiss intellectuals” was issued this week at the festival in Locarno. Calling Israel a criminal state, and rejecting the idea of “an assault of Islam “ or a "clash of civilizations", the tone of the communiqué is reminiscent of Soviet era boilerplate manifestos. The “appeal” was not issued in English, (see link below), the translation below is thus mine.

http://www.artfilm.ch/dvd.php?lang=f

Translation:

“Appeal of Swiss Filmmakers”

Since Juli 12th, with the abduction of two Israeli soldiers, Israel is attacking Lebanon. On the day of this writing, (2. August 2006) already 1,000 people have fallen victim to this conflict and thousands have been injured.

One million people are without homes and have become refugees. In contradiction to all the international conventions the Lebanese people are being held hostage on their own soil and ground. Israel moreover, destroys the entire infrastructure (ways of transport, bridges, utilities, airports, civil harbours) as well as the public facilities of the Republic of Lebanon (army, civil defence, red cross etc.). Infantry-tanks (sic) of the Israeli army are presently invading Lebanon.

Since the end of June, Israel is bombing Gaza and the West bank, kidnapping ministers and elected palestinian parliamentarians and following the systematic destruction of all the infrastructure (paid for by Europe) it is deliberately starving out the population of the Gaza strip.

For how much longer must one act as an accessory to a country, which - with full impunity - is perpetrating one atrocity after the other? After how many murdered civilians, untreated wounded, ruined cities, blown up houses, looted resources, and polluted coastlines will we finally muster the courage to say unequivocally, that Israel today is acting as a criminal state, with which one can identify ever less, whether one is a Jew or not?

How much longer must one put up with this inequality, whether regarding to Israelis, Palestinians or Lebanese? "Generals" on the one hand, "Terrorists" on the other, "detentions" or "abductions", "targeted manoeuvres" or "blind assassinations", "prisoners" or "hostages", "innocent victims" or "collateral damage"? Such semantic racism we find outrageous.

We Swiss filmmakers, artists, intellectuals and citizens, we refuse to remain silent witnesses of this blind strategy of destruction founded on intimidation and domination. We reject the idea of a "civilization conflict" in which Israel is designated the role of a "last bulwark" against an "Islamic assault". We declare our solidarity with our palestinian and Lebanese colleagues and with the Lebanese - as well as with the Israeli civilian population, which must bear the consequences of the Israeli military offensive.

We also welcome the initiative of Israeli movie artists which in spite of the public pressure in their own land have had the courage to stand up against the brutal military operations in Lebanon and Palestine to protest. Our colleagues in Israel are saying clearly: nothing justifies the bombing of civilians and demolishing the infrastructure of Lebanon and Gaza!

Of course we fully accord the State of Israel the right to exist securely within the internationally recognized borders, but we demand the cessation of all the outrages, an immediate cease fire, as well as the implementation of all the resolutions of the United Nations and the articles of the Geneva Convention.
Alain Tanner, Fredi M. Murer, Jacob Berger, Samir, Nicolas Wadimoff, Stina Werenfels, Alain Bottarelli, Fernand Melgar, Werner Schweizer, Thierry Spicher, Elena Tatti, Romed Wyder, Bruno Moll... (Filmmakers, which would like to sign the invocation should send an Email to locarnolibanpalestine@bluewin.ch.)
2006-08-06

I sort of fancy the Email address locarnolibanpalestine@bluewin.ch

A spontaneous grassroots manifestation of Eurabia in the making

The real, more important pattern visible here is Islam's homicidal ideology of jihad warfare against the infidels that violates every conceivable human rights rules while the United Nations has been putting up every conceivable bogus argument to defend islam and ensure that jihad warfare is instituted as a venerated global institution while the Jews get murdered by jihadists under the UN's same aegis.

Kofi Annan should ask some Darfur refugees what THEY think of Islam's human rights stance...

50 million Christians were murdered by Islam during the twentieth century. Did the UN ever see a pattern in that? Did it care?? (No).