Italy ready to take command of UN peace force in Lebanon...

[imported_Tango]

http://www.corriere.it/english/articoli/2006/08_Agosto/22/podi.shtml

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_Engli...?cat=Security&loid=8.0.332343464&par=0

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/...EAST23/TPStory/TPInternational/Africa/

http://euobserver.com/9/22256

Seems like Italy is eventually stepping in to handle this hot potato. Now the point is to understand which other countris would provide troops. Many asian countries (with a muslim majority) have pledged considerable forces, but Israel is refusing to accept them in the UNIFIL as they have no diplomatic relation with Tel-Aviv.

It would be time to aknowledge that the UN charter stated from the beginning that the UN should have a standing army. Interesting thing is that those countries usually complaining about the UN's "lack of fangs and teeth" are the same ones who always voted against a permanent UN military force.

New links:
France is pledging 1600 additional troops now:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5283660.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5275938.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5273188.stm

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3295251,00.html

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/RAT002363.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2328092,00.html

 

[Lemon law]

Lots of hypocracy here----Islamic countries are unacceptable to Israel yet Italy is a major Israelie trading partner---and it looks like they will fall short of the 15,000 or so needed so they need to get them somewhere.

Since so many issues remain unresolved---and hotheads on both sides would like nothing better than renewed fighting, I have to wonder how long this present cease fire can last. With issues in Iraq and Iran also driving what could amount to be a perfect storm.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Haven't you seen the news? Israel is not objecting to Islamic countries, but to those countries that don't recognize Israel (which is common sense, after all). Coincidentally ( :roll: ), those two things sometimes go hand-in-hand...

 

[dahunan]

It would be kind of strange to have a country defending a border that they don't recognize as legitimate.. Time for those grudge holding terrorist loving nations to step-up and recognize Israel as a nation.

 

[Jaskalas]

Having a hostile Islamic military protecting Hizbollah in the war zone would be a recipie for a far wider war in the Middle East. Makes sense that Israel wouldn?t want that.

As for Italy, god bless em. I hope they have anti terrorism measures at home.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: dahunan
It would be kind of strange to have a country defending a border that they don't recognize as legitimate.. Time for those grudge holding terrorist loving nations to step-up and recognize Israel as a nation.

They do recognize Israel as a nation, they just have no diplomatic relation. If you wasnt an embassy in another country, you need to allow their ambassy on your soil. It's always a bilateral agreement. So if you consider Indonesia to be a country which does not recognize Israel, then you must also think Israel doesn't recognize Indonesia. Besides: those terrorist loving nations, as you call them, were actually victims of terror attacks... Bali? Timor? rings a bell?

But even most important is the fact Israel has no power to choose who's sending troops in the UNIFIL, first because it's decision only the UN security council and segretariat can take, second because the UNIFIL will be deployed in Lebanon, not on Israeli soil.

Malaysia and Indonesia pledged considerable amounts of troops, as did Bangladesh. Bangladesh has an impressive record in peace keeping missions, and it's actually the country with the largest number of soldiers deployed in UN missions at the moment.

The UN would like to see a mixed force composed 50% of European soldiers and 50% of Asian and African armies. Problem is, up till now European countries have been very shy and pretend very clear rules of engagement before sending their troops. Italy is taking the lead just because they are offering some 3500 men while Germany and Great Britain are willing to move ships in the area but no men on the ground, and France cut back from their initial offer of 2000 soldiers to 400.

 

[chcarnage]

Actually a mix of international reactions and Italy's proposition led France to go back to its initial offer of 2000 troops.

 

[imported_Tango]

Update: France now pledges 2000 troops and agreed to lead the U.N. peacekeeping mission through February with Italy then rotating into the leadership.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/RAT002372.htm

http://ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2006-08-25_1257808.html

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060825-030932-7589r

 

[Lemon law]

My pessemistic reaction is both Israel and Hezbollah need this truce to regroup and resupply. But each is still convinced
that one must finish off the other.---but much internal planning and internal debating needs to occur meanwhile. When one or the other side is ready, they will simply do an end run around the UN peacekeepers much like Hitler did an end run around the Maginol line.

The only thing that will upset the calculus of this planning are external events in Iraq or Iran.

 

[sandorski]

France: renowned for Surrendering

Italy: renowned for getting their asses handed to them by the French

hmmmm

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: sandorski
France: renowned for Surrendering

Italy: renowned for getting their asses handed to them by the French

hmmmm

Well, France is an obvious choice for a mission in Lebanon, and Italy has a very good history of peacekeeping operations in that area. As you can read in the links they (the Italians) left a very good trace in Lebanon and are very respected by Lebanese people.

The real challenge will be command integration of a force composed by so many little groups from countries ranging from Danemark to Morocco.

By the way... apart from funny internet fora jokes, France won both World Wars, De Gaulle never surrendered and if you go back to Napoleon... well he's just the single most succesful general in modern history. I wouldn't be worried about their military skills, but instead quite concerned about their track record in developing nations military crysis. They tend to react quite harshly if under attack.

But then, consider both the Italian and the French troops will be 100% special forces.

 

[CanOWorms]

I just hope that this time they aren't planning a genocide, but possibly preventing one.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: sandorski
France: renowned for Surrendering

Italy: renowned for getting their asses handed to them by the French

hmmmm

Well, France is an obvious choice for a mission in Lebanon, and Italy has a very good history of peacekeeping operations in that area. As you can read in the links they (the Italians) left a very good trace in Lebanon and are very respected by Lebanese people.

The real challenge will be command integration of a force composed by so many little groups from countries ranging from Danemark to Morocco.

By the way... apart from funny internet fora jokes, France won both World Wars, De Gaulle never surrendered and if you go back to Napoleon... well he's just the single most succesful general in modern history. I wouldn't be worried about their military skills, but instead quite concerned about their track record in developing nations military crysis. They tend to react quite harshly if under attack.

But then, consider both the Italian and the French troops will be 100% special forces.

Ya, I know. Was just throwing the usual France bash in with a little Italian history regarding the French for some giglles.