UNIFIL's New Mandate Gives Them Permission To Use Their Weapons. Takes No Stand On Who They're Supposed To Point Them At.
Remember how we joked that UNIFIL finally got authorization to use force against Israel? VP's discussion of UNIFIL's rules of engagement make us not so sure:
In implementing their mandate, all UNIFIL personnel may exercise the inherent right of self-defense. In addition, the use of force beyond self-defense may be applied to ensure that UNIFIL's area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities; to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent UNIFIL from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council; to protect UN personnel, facilities, installations and equipment; to ensure the security and freedom of movement of UN personnel and humanitarian workers; and to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence in its area of deployment, within its capabilities.
So if Israel sends a bomber to eliminate a Hezbollah rocket launcher that has been placed in the backyard of a UN building, can UNIFIL now take potshots at the IAF? Let's assume that Hezbollah is going to keep trying to destroy Israel (because Hezbollah has said that they're going to keep trying to destroy Israel). Unless they've suddenly found religion - as the expression goes - we doubt that they're going to start letting things like the Geneva Convention of the laws of war bother them. And now let's assume that the vast majority of UNIFIL forces are in sympathy with Hezbollah against Israel (because they are people from countries where overwhelming majorities are in sympathy with Hezbollah against Israel, ergo...) Push comes to shove, which way are those people going to point their guns?
So we were wrong to label UNIFIL's newly found robustness as "thousands of new human shields for Hezbollah". They have the potential to be so much more: de facto armed battlefield allies, responding to 'Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty'.
In implementing their mandate, all UNIFIL personnel may exercise the inherent right of self-defense. In addition, the use of force beyond self-defense may be applied to ensure that UNIFIL's area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities; to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent UNIFIL from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council; to protect UN personnel, facilities, installations and equipment; to ensure the security and freedom of movement of UN personnel and humanitarian workers; and to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence in its area of deployment, within its capabilities.
So if Israel sends a bomber to eliminate a Hezbollah rocket launcher that has been placed in the backyard of a UN building, can UNIFIL now take potshots at the IAF? Let's assume that Hezbollah is going to keep trying to destroy Israel (because Hezbollah has said that they're going to keep trying to destroy Israel). Unless they've suddenly found religion - as the expression goes - we doubt that they're going to start letting things like the Geneva Convention of the laws of war bother them. And now let's assume that the vast majority of UNIFIL forces are in sympathy with Hezbollah against Israel (because they are people from countries where overwhelming majorities are in sympathy with Hezbollah against Israel, ergo...) Push comes to shove, which way are those people going to point their guns?
So we were wrong to label UNIFIL's newly found robustness as "thousands of new human shields for Hezbollah". They have the potential to be so much more: de facto armed battlefield allies, responding to 'Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty'.
