What went wrong? Is this Srebrenica syndrome? The author probes UNIFIL Spokesman Andrea Tenenti about what happened in southern Lebanon on Jan. 26.
Craig Murray interviewing UNIFIL Spokesman Andrea Tenenti. (Craig Murray)
By Craig Murray
CraigMurray.org.uk
On Jan. 26, at least 22 unarmed civilians in southern Lebanon were shot dead by Israel and 147 wounded in a massacre observed by heavily armed U.N. Peacekeepers who did not intervene. I asked the U.N. the very hard questions which nobody else is asking them.
The civilians were simply attempting to return to their homes in accordance with both U.N. Security Resolution 1701 and the current ceasefire agreement, and indeed UNIFIL, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, has a specific mandate under 1701 to assist displaced people to return.
So what has gone wrong with UNIFIL? Is this Srebrenica syndrome? What is the purpose of the heavy weaponry deployed by the U.N.’s best equipped peacekeeping force, if it can never be fired? Why is the U.N.failing to monitor the hundreds of Israeli breaches of the ceasefire agreement? Why is the U.N. serving on a committee under a U.S. general?
These and other questions I put to UNIFIL Spokesman Andrea Tenenti. I did so in my usual, I hope courteous, manner. The result is a fascinating conversation which I believe is an extremely important piece of documentation of institutional failure to confront Israeli and U.S. aggression at a critical time for the entire world.
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.
His coverage is entirely dependent on reader support. Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received. Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, he has set up new methods of payment including a GoFundMe appeal and a Patreon account.
He has also started a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you directly every time he posts. You can, if you wish, subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.
This article is from CraigMurray.org.uk
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
THANK YOU CRAIG MURRAY !
You are a rare bird to fly into such questions. So grateful for your presence there and your messages back to the world.
Keep demanding answers, we are so desperately short of anything that makes sense right now.
I was struck by your last question regarding the meeting in which the US, provider of the bombs, purshaser of the bombs, and violator of the cease fire to be present in a meeting such as you describe, to be entirely inappropriate. What seems appropriate, based on this conversaton, would be for the UN Peacekeeping Mission to place the returning Lebanese between two columns of UN Peacekeeping armed vehicles… without the intention of firing and further escaltion, but rather as a protection and determent. It is well known how the IDF operates. We know from expreience that Israel, like the US, considers itsself a free agent not bound by agreements or laws other than those it devises.
I felt that you were begin given stock reposnses. Something more must be going on behind the curtain of secrecy.
I suspect the responses were honest, albeit stock. Placing civilians between UN armed and armoured vehicles wouldn’t have protected them, especially once they’d made it through the IDF lines and attempted to return to whatever’s left of their homes. (These homes would obviously be in different locations, so the idea simply wouldn’t be feasible at that stage.) And using the armed vehicles would only work as a deterrent if the IDF thought they might be used to counter-attack, something the UN was profoundly unwilling to do, believing that would lead to renewed conflict and even more civilian deaths and casualties than occurred. (Besides, while the UN firepower on the ground may perhaps have been a match for the IDF’s on the ground, it wouldn’t have stood a chance against the Israeli air force, let alone that of the USA if it chose to back its allies in defeating and humiliating the UN.)
I fear Tenenti was being fairly straightforward in his account of what UNIFIL can hope to accomplish under Article 6. What he could have added is that the USA has a veto in the UN Security Council, and would no doubt use it to prevent Article 7 deployment. (I don’t know if the General Assembly could override or circumvent the Security Council on this, but so far it hasn’t.) UNIFIL did remain when ordered to leave, and then attacked, by the IDF. Who knows what the Zionists would have got up to with them gone?
Nothing but weasel words. I guess mealy mouthed apologists for empire and settler colonialism are the type of people who end up in these positions at the UN. I have a sneaking suspicion that the US bullies the institution into refusing to act on behalf of poor brown victims of its and its proxies’ violence. It’s been made abundantly clear that UN peacekeeping is about maintaining the status quo, not preventing atrocities unless they are carried out by countries of the global south who are not under the control of the globe spanning empire.
It is very embarrassing to watch a slaughter while standing by with heavy weapons, whatever the confusions brought up by explainers the reality remains.
Apparently Tenant did everything except his job.
UN. What does the N stand for? I know what’s on the sign, but as an American, I am well trained that this is a lie created by a PR company. Always is. So, my mind wonders … what does the N really stand for?
There is a n-word now commonly at use in the world today, sadly revived after being reviled for decades. That comes to mind. But, I probably can’t write that. All these liberal types get mad if you use that word towards anyone not named Donald. But, that word was connected to a “nationalist” movement. So, perhaps
UN = United Nationalists.
I suppose that works as a euphemism. A UN that never really opposes the nationalists. A UN that at best expresses concern about the actions of the nationalists that shock the world the way the nationalists always do. Ah, isn’t that nice, the United Nationalists are concerned about the actions of the nationalists that they never actually oppose. The UN, if they are ever effective, its against the wrong people. In fact, its usually against the people, and that’s the basic problem.
To bad the world didn’t create a “United People” as the solution to the last global war and final solution of the earlier nationalists. United Nationalists has only seemed to create more and perhaps even worse nationalists.
UP
I’m sure the people of Haiti are shocked and surprised by the performance of the Blue Helmets in Lebanon. Of course, the surprise is that the story does not include accounts of sexual abuse by blue helmets. But, I’m sure the UN always strives for improvement.
A quick search to back up my memory found this at the top of the results.
hxxps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_by_UN_peacekeepers
“An Associated Press (AP) investigation revealed in 2017 that “at least 134 Sri Lankan peacekeepers” from the UN were involved in a child sex ring in Haiti over a 10-year period and that although 114 of them were sent home, none were charged for the crimes.[3] The AP further found that over the 12 years before 2017, there had been almost 2,000 allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation by peacekeepers and other UN personnel around the world.[4]”