Israel targets a UN outpost

[Rue]

I fully concur with Fort's and Army's comments.

[jdobbin]

I know it is difficult to understand unless you have experianced combat, and all the confusion it creates but incidents like these are common in a war zone, an accidents like these are bound to happen. a good example is the targeting of Canadian soldiers by an US F-16 in afgan.

An investigation should be conducted. The fog of war argument didn't work for the American pilots. Their career was over following the deaths of the Canadian soldiers. And last month, nearly a dozen Canadian soldiers were once again the target of a U.S. aircraft. Canadian soldiers were under the impression that the whole incident was covered up.

The U.N. is pulling out its soldiers from U.N. outposts.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...oval-posts.html

The wife of the Canadian soldier killed is still convinced that her husband's posiiton was targeted. Some in Harper's government reportedly have said they weren't aware that a Canadian soldier was doing his job in the area. This despite the fact that CTV carried reports of what was happening in the area from that very solder.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

I have not heard what sort of investigation is taking place but it should report what the latest Hezbollah position was and how it came to be that three bunker busting precision bombs took out a big white building with U.N. on it that is clearly visible to the naked eye from the Israeli positions on the Golan Heights.

[Army Guy]

jdobbin:

An investigation should be conducted. The fog of war argument didn't work for the American pilots. Their career was over following the deaths of the Canadian soldiers. And last month, nearly a dozen Canadian soldiers were once again the target of a U.S. aircraft. Canadian soldiers were under the impression that the whole incident was covered up.

There will be an investiagation, conducted by everyone and his dog, what will it prove. Yes the building was targeted, yes, it was destroyed by Israelis airforces. Will it answer the question Was it delibertly targetted with the intention of killing Un observers...NO...will it clearly define who is at fault, be it the UN for not pulling out its troops or Israelis for not firing on that grid square, or the hezbullah for building defensive postions around the UN complex...NO...NO...and NO...

What the investagation will reveil is the events that lead up to the tragic death of one of our Soldiers, and perhaps why this tragic accident happened.

The U.N. is pulling out its soldiers from U.N. outposts.

It's a little late to be covering up thier asses now is it not, why now, why did Soldiers have to die before they took action...

The wife of the Canadian soldier killed is still convinced that her husband's posiiton was targeted.

OK, that is her opinion, just like yours, and others on this board, But let me ask you this WHY is it that the MAJ himself did not believe this, he was on the ground, had over 9 months experiance doing that very job, has other combat experiance, has done plenty of other UN and NATO Missions WHY is it he does not believe that the UN OP was deliberatly targeted to kill UN observers.

Some in Harper's government reportedly have said they weren't aware that a Canadian soldier was doing his jon in the area. This despite the fact that CTV carried reports of what was happening in the area from that vcery solder

UN does not report back to our goverment on a regular basis on exactly where each one of it's troops are, and what they are doing. In fact our soldiers that are part of a UN mission are responseable to an entire different chain of command of which our goverment is not part of.

So why would our goverment know his exact postion or his exact mission ?.

Now your saying that because the government does not read the papers there at fault ?

I have not heard what sort of investigation is taking place but it should report what the latest Hezbollah posiiton was and how it came to be that three bunker busting precision bombs took out a big white building with U.N. on it that is clearly visible to the naked eye from the Israeli positions on the Golan Heights.

Now your making assumptions again, picture your self in a modern fighter a/c traveling over 600 MPH in a dive your only concern is lining up the target on the black and white monitor, while checking for other threats such AA,AAA, ground fire, once that is done you release your bombs at a minimum alt of 5000 ft and then pull out, meaning that the alt you pick out the target is 3 times that....You still think there is no room for human error...what can you see from 15,000 feet can you make out colors, can you see a 3 foot high markings with UN printed on it.

But your saying he should have been able to ID the color of the building and the UN markings. Your full of it...this is not a vidio game but the real thing...

[jdobbin]

There will be an investiagation, conducted by everyone and his dog, what will it prove. Yes the building was targeted, yes, it was destroyed by Israelis airforces. Will it answer the question Was it delibertly targetted with the intention of killing Un observers...NO...will it clearly define who is at fault, be it the UN for not pulling out its troops or Israelis for not firing on that grid square, or the hezbullah for building defensive postions around the UN complex...NO...NO...and NO...

What the investagation will reveil is the events that lead up to the tragic death of one of our Soldiers, and perhaps why this tragic accident happened.

It's a little late to be covering up thier asses now is it not, why now, why did Soldiers have to die before they took action...

OK, that is her opinion, just like yours, and others on this board, But let me ask you this WHY is it that the MAJ himself did not believe this, he was on the ground, had over 9 months experiance doing that very job, has other combat experiance, has done plenty of other UN and NATO Missions WHY is it he does not believe that the UN OP was deliberatly targeted to kill UN observers.

UN does not report back to our goverment on a regular basis on exactly where each one of it's troops are, and what they are doing. In fact our soldiers that are part of a UN mission are responseable to an entire different chain of command of which our goverment is not part of.

So why would our goverment know his exact postion or his exact mission ?.

Now your saying that because the government does not read the papers there at fault ?

Now your making assumptions again, picture your self in a modern fighter a/c traveling over 600 MPH in a dive your only concern is lining up the target on the black and white monitor, while checking for other threats such AA,AAA, ground fire, once that is done you release your bombs at a minimum alt of 5000 ft and then pull out, meaning that the alt you pick out the target is 3 times that....You still think there is no room for human error...what can you see from 15,000 feet can you make out colors, can you see a 3 foot high markings with UN printed on it.

But your saying he should have been able to ID the color of the building and the UN markings. Your full of it...this is not a vidio game but the real thing...

The U.N. continued to get assurances right up till the last hours that the outpost would not be targeted.

The chain of command in Israel approved the target coordinates for the bombs. The U.N. provided those coordinates as "do not target" list to the Israeli Defence Forces and were in communication all day long with the Israelis about the proximity of the strikes. This is a failure if the Israelis, not the U.N. soldiers. According to Israeli military rules, it could be a prosecutable offence.

The prime minister receives a Defence and CSIS briefing every day. It states where Canadian soldiers are based in all military engagements including U.N. ones. Hot spots around the world are highlighted. Lebanon would have been at the top of the list. Harper was disengenous when he expressed suprise that the U.N. Forces including a 7 Canadian soldiers were in the middle of things. That's where they have been for years.

UNIFIL's mandate is directed by the Security Council. This is why the Chinese are majorly pissed. They would have moved their soldier were it not for the assurances from Israel. Canada also had the right to ask that the observers be pulled but were also assured that U.N. soldiers would be safe from Isreali bombing.

And the argument you state is the fog of war argument. Sometimes it applies, sometime it does not. It is the target coordinates that are the issue, not the person who dropped the weapon on the U.N. outpost. It is those numbers that could have someone facing a military trial in Israel.

They were deliberately targeted as it turns out so the Major was incorrect. His wife was correct that it was deliberate. The question that remains is whether it was incompetence or something else that allowed the coordinates to be approved for a precision bomb. In any event, those that provided those numbers and approved them should be suspended pending the outcome of the investigation. Do you disagree with that assessment?

In the last several weeks some Canadian soldiers have been questioning whether near misses in Afganistan have been played down even though a dozen soldiers were almost killed. All of that is the Globe and Mail and National Post last week. This incident should not be played down and Canada was the only country out of the four that wasn't outraged that the post was hit despite Israeli assurances.

[Technocrat]

But whom in the Israelis chain of command did they speak with, obviously not the Israelis forward observers, ( the guys calling in airsrikes, arty strikes making corrections "the guys on the ground"etc) but instead some higher formation which would have taken some time to relay this info down to the Israelis units on the ground. Which could have taken some time, as they were in the middle of conducting a massive amount of troops.

Really... i seriously doubt that it would take most of the day to relay that message. If intel moves that slowly in the IDF i have serious doubts in their ability to do any lasting damage to Hez.

[Wilber]

Sure are a lot of experts on the "fog of war" here.

[jdobbin]

Sure are a lot of experts on the "fog of war" here.

Here is one expert who used to be the Canadian commander of the U.N. forces in Lebanon. He ain't exactly happy with Harper.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ed...19-0149b23a9344

''I am gobsmacked at the response of Stephen Harper, who is reported to have said that the bombing was not deliberate and that he wanted to know "why it remained manned during what is, more or less, a war."

I submit that Mr. Harper's responsibility is to demand that the individuals involved in this deliberate and blatant act be brought to justice. I also hope that Mr. Harper does not attend the funeral of this officer and shed false tears to support a political position rapidly becoming perilous. I will be there to honour a fellow officer who clearly demonstrated that he shared ideals that were above partisan and convenient politics. Louise Arbour, the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights, has stated that Israel might be in a position where its actions constituted crimes of war. I would be disappointed if she, in the absence of government action, did not find this incident worthy of her close attention.

G.W. Kent Davis, Lieutenant-Colonel (ret'd)"

[Wilber]

It seems that Lt Col Davis wants to know why they were left there as well as Harper. That is a question for the UN to answer. I believe that the UN's ranting about possible war crimes is mostly a smoke screen to cover their own asses for leaving these people exposed when they could accomplish nothing. As for how and why the place was bombed is concerned, that I believe is still under investigation. In our society we investigate first, try second and sentence last. We may or may not be satisfied with the results but at least let's try and do it in the proper order.

The most chaotic and unjust endeavor that mankind indulges itself in is warfare. Trying to impose normal standards of justice and order on it is almost always an exercise in futility but I guess we should still make an effort.

[jdobbin]

It seems that Lt Col Davis wants to know why they were left there as well as Harper. That is a question for the UN to answer. I believe that the UN's ranting about possible war crimes is mostly a smoke screen to cover their own asses for leaving these people exposed when they could accomplish nothing. As for how and why the place was bombed is concerned, that I believe is still under investigation. In our society we investigate first, try second and sentence last. We may or may not be satisfied with the results but at least let's try and do it in the proper order.

The most chaotic and unjust endeavor that mankind indulges itself in is warfare. Trying to impose normal standards of justice and order on it is almost always an exercise in futility but I guess we should still make an effort.

This is what the Colonel said "...how presumptuous of our prime minister to question why the UN would continue to staff the post. What does he think they would do? UN members were there to report violations of the Security Council Resolution 425. To abandon the post was not an option, at least for a soldier who has any sense of honour."

And since the Israelis kept giving assurances, the U.N. command kept their forces out there to do the job that the Security Council authorized it to do. It was a political decision to be made if the soldiers were to stay or be moved out. The fault lies with the ambassadors and ultimately the leaders of the world for letting U.N. Forces hang out there in the wind. This is why Harper is disengenuous when he asks why were they out there. He should be asking why himself whey didn't he make a motion to have the U.N. pulled back for their own safety.

[Wilber]

Who's talking about them abandoning their post? There is no dishonour in being ordered to leave. It was the UN's responsibility for keeping them there and no one else's. I disagree that it is an ambassadors responsibility to make military decisions. Most of them have no credentials to do so and a lot more people would end up getting killed if they were allowed to. There were four different nationalities at that post. Do you think their ambassadors should have formed a committee to decide whether they should have stayed or left? What if it was a split decision? The decision of whether to keep them there has to come down to one person, the person in charge of the mission.

Perhaps Harper is asking himself that question but then he has no military background and relies on the judgment of those who do when it comes to military matters, as he should. Asking why they were left there is a perfectly reasonable question. How they came to be targeted is also a perfectly reasonable question, but different.

[jdobbin]

Who's talking about them abandoning their post? There is no dishonour in being ordered to leave. It was the UN's responsibility for keeping them there and no one else's. I disagree that it is an ambassadors responsibility to make military decisions. Most of them have no credentials to do so and a lot more people would end up getting killed if they were allowed to. There were four different nationalities at that post. Do you think their ambassadors should have formed a committee to decide whether they should have stayed or left? What if it was a split decision? The decision of whether to keep them there has to come down to one person, the person in charge of the mission.

Perhaps Harper is asking himself that question but then he has no military background and relies on the judgment of those who do when it comes to military matters, as he should. Asking why they were left there is a perfectly reasonable question. How they came to be targeted is also a perfectly reasonable question, but different.

The parameters of U.N. responsibility versus each countries responsibility is outlined here:

https://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Paramet.../1994/baker.htm

The problems of getting a political decision to add or remove troops as well as change rules of engagement are outlined in Romeo Dallaire's book.

There is already a committee in the U.N. It is called the Security Council. The Secrerary General and the military commanders advise the council about what is happening and they make the decision. Israeli assurances, according to the Chinese, prevented them from removing their people.

[Wilber]

Who's talking about them abandoning their post? There is no dishonour in being ordered to leave. It was the UN's responsibility for keeping them there and no one else's. I disagree that it is an ambassadors responsibility to make military decisions. Most of them have no credentials to do so and a lot more people would end up getting killed if they were allowed to. There were four different nationalities at that post. Do you think their ambassadors should have formed a committee to decide whether they should have stayed or left? What if it was a split decision? The decision of whether to keep them there has to come down to one person, the person in charge of the mission.

Perhaps Harper is asking himself that question but then he has no military background and relies on the judgment of those who do when it comes to military matters, as he should. Asking why they were left there is a perfectly reasonable question. How they came to be targeted is also a perfectly reasonable question, but different.

The parameters of U.N. responsibility versus each countries responsibility is outlined here:

https://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Paramet.../1994/baker.htm

The problems of getting a political decision to add or remove troops as well as change rules of engagement are outlined in Romeo Dallaire's book.

There is already a committee in the U.N. It is called the Security Council. The Secrerary General and the military commanders advise the council about what is happening and they make the decision. Israeli assurances, according to the Chinese, prevented them from removing their people.

There lies the problem. These are on the spot military decisions which should be made by person in charge of the mission. We are talking about the deployment of 4 soldiers in the middle of a war zone here, not D Day. Leaving this kind of thing to politicians is bound to end badly. I've read Dallaire's book and since then I've been surprised they can find any officers willing to take the job under those conditions.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Forget blaming the UN, they only do what they can with the resources they are given. Assignment of blame will not bring these people back and will not prevent the same type of incident from happening again. In war people die. You don't have to be a soldier to die, you just have to be there.

The main issue here folks is that there is a war going on and people are losing their lives. Now you may wish to stop this war, but I caution individuals to think very carefully. A cease fire is a lot different than peace. To end this war you need peace. In order to get peace the combatants need to agree to stop killing each other. Now think very carefully, does that seem even remotely likely?

This is a war alright, but it is not our war. Should other nations become involved the outcome will be larger numbers of dead people. There is not thing one that can be done to stop this present condition in those two countries. Let them settle this on their own. When they have had enough or can't take it anymore they will stop for a time. It will not be a long time you understand because it will start again.

The nations of the world have already concluded that the preconditions for a cease fire must include a plan for a lasting peace. Wake up people, those in the know just decided to let her go man. Those nations are now at war until somebody wins. Those two soldiers are not going to be handed over and the rockets are going to keep flying. Even the Lebanese have said they have no interest in disarming the terrorists that started this in the firstg place. There is nobody to turn it off.

I would recommend that if you have friends in either country that you call them and wish them all the luck. Maybe go to a church and light a candle for them or something, perhaps just pray if you are into that because it may be the only hope those poor folks over there have.

[Argus]

The U.N. continued to get assurances right up till the last hours that the outpost would not be targeted.

"Duhhh, Mary, I have assurances from the opposing armies that our house isn't going to be targeted. No need to keep the kids in the basement. They can go outside and play. No, no, no. No need to get out. I know there are bombs and rockets racing back and forth, but accidents don't happen in war, and we aren't going to be targeted. So we're safe!"

The chain of command in Israel approved the target coordinates for the bombs. The U.N. provided those coordinates as "do not target" list to the Israeli Defence Forces and were in communication all day

I know you might find this hard to believe, but the IDF is busy coordinating a war, and they have no time to spare to worry about idiot sightseeers who haven't got the brains to get out. I'm sure that there was some harried junior officer somewhere in the IDF responsible for chatting with the UN. I'm equally sure he had more important things on his mind than running around and reminding field commanders where every UN outpost was located.

UNIFIL's mandate is directed by the Security Council. This is why the Chinese are majorly pissed. They would have moved their soldier were it not for the assurances from Israel.

First, the idea anyone could be naive enough to believe the Chinese government cares a fart what happens to one of their people is laughable. Second, what kind of assurances do you think Israel provided? There is no way Israel would have guaranteed their safety. How could they? Could the Isrealis even provide a guarantee to their own forces that there is no chance they will come under friendly fire? Not a chance.

They were deliberately targeted as it turns out so the Major was incorrect. His wife was correct that it was deliberate.

Gee, thanks General. Good to see you were on the scene, watching, reading people's minds and all, while the idiot major didn't know what he was talking about.

[Argus]

I submit that Mr. Harper's responsibility is to demand that the individuals involved in this deliberate and blatant act be brought to justice. I also hope that Mr. Harper does not attend the funeral of this officer and shed false tears to support a political position rapidly becoming perilous. I will be there to honour a fellow officer who clearly demonstrated that he shared ideals that were above partisan and convenient politics. Louise Arbour, the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights, has stated that Israel might be in a position where its actions constituted crimes of war. I would be disappointed if she, in the absence of government action, did not find this incident worthy of her close attention.

G.W. Kent Davis, Lieutenant-Colonel (ret'd)"

Are you under the illusion that being a senior officer in the CAF precludes one being a moronic, self-righteous imbecile? Because having known quite a few I can tell you it's almost a prerequisite of the job. Speaking French is first, of course, and being a total suck-up is a close second. Leadership, honesty, intelligence and integrity play zero part in the selection process.

[Black Dog]

Israel vowed yesterday to keep up its military offensive against Hezbollah, as one of the country's senior generals said the air strike that killed four unarmed peacekeepers, including Canadian Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener, at a United Nations post on Tuesday was deliberate but accidental.

Brigadier-General Shuki Shahar, deputy chief of the Israeli military's Northern Command, said soldiers in the field had accidentally called in the co-ordinates of the UN base and that the air strike had been approved up the chain of command.

"Sometimes mistakes are made and innocent people are hit," Brig.-Gen. Shahar said. "We do the best we can. We didn't recognize it as their base."

link.

[Argus]

This is what the Colonel said "...how presumptuous of our prime minister to question why the UN would continue to staff the post. What does he think they would do? UN members were there to report violations of the Security Council Resolution 425. To abandon the post was not an option, at least for a soldier who has any sense of honour."

Yup. Sounds like a brainless, paper-pushing asshole to me. Never mind the logic or intelligence of putting men in terrible danger to do a pointless, useless mission. This is the mindset of most senior Canadian officers. There is an order given. Therefore, all you have to do is carry it out and you can't be blamed. If you argue, or try to suggest the situation has changed, if you take a position of some kind - particularly before your superior has made his position known - then you endanger your career prospects. And that is far, far, far more important then the welfare of the men you're responsible for.

And since the Israelis kept giving assurances, the U.N. command kept their forces out there

What assurances did Israel give?

to do the job that the Security Council authorized it to do.

What job was that? What possible useful purpose did they serve? I'm sorry for these guys who died. But they died for absolutely nothing. Their lives were completely wasted because of dumbass superiors who couldn't be bothered to suggest to anyone above them that maybe, given there is no peace to watch, maybe, what with them being in a war zone, maybe they ought to be moved to safety.

[jdobbin]

Forget blaming the UN, they only do what they can with the resources they are given. Assignment of blame will not bring these people back and will not prevent the same type of incident from happening again. In war people die. You don't have to be a soldier to die, you just have to be there.

I don't blame the U.N. soldiers. I think if Israel intended on taking out Hezbollah positions in and around U.N. bases, they should have advised the Forces to leave. Instead, they offered assurances that the Forces would not be targeted. It is Israel that will have to answer for the bomb and it will be the Security Council that will have to discuss rules of engagement and when to stay or withdraw.

[jdobbin]

Are you under the illusion that being a senior officer in the CAF precludes one being a moronic, self-righteous imbecile? Because having known quite a few I can tell you it's almost a prerequisite of the job. Speaking French is first, of course, and being a total suck-up is a close second. Leadership, honesty, intelligence and integrity play zero part in the selection process.

I'd be interested to see more of the Forces response to this than just one opinion. However, the Forces themselves can't comment on policy.

I think that if and when Bush asks for Canadian assistance for a multilateral force to the area, we politely say no.

[jbg]

How so ? You're saying if 49 % of the resolutions passed are adhered to, then the UN is irrelevant ? The bar is too high there. If the number were that high ( I have no idea what it is ) then that would at least suggest something is working. Too often I hear rash calls to 'abolish' the UN, but what this is based on, I'm not sure.

My problem with the UN is that the countries that contribute to the UN are largely democracies, and the countries that the UN sides with are largely despotic dictatorships. I resent being subject to the whim of a majority vote of despots representing no one but themselves.

[jdobbin]

My problem with the UN is that the countries that contribute to the UN are largely democracies, and the countries that the UN sides with are largely despotic dictatorships. I resent being subject to the whim of a majority vote of despots representing no one but themselves.

Sadly, that has been the reputation of the United States as well. Too many despots have gotten their support over the years. Saddam Hussein was one of them.

[jbg]

My problem with the UN is that the countries that contribute to the UN are largely democracies, and the countries that the UN sides with are largely despotic dictatorships. I resent being subject to the whim of a majority vote of despots representing no one but themselves.

Sadly, that has been the reputation of the United States as well. Too many despots have gotten their support over the years. Saddam Hussein was one of them.

The problem isn't that the UN sometimes supports despots. The problem is that the despots purport to tell other countries what they must do. Supporting Saddam was a necessity because of the Iran situation.

[jdobbin]

The problem isn't that the UN sometimes supports despots. The problem is that the despots purport to tell other countries what they must do. Supporting Saddam was a necessity because of the Iran situation.

I'll agree that it leaves a sour taste in the mouth when a country like Iran joins a human rights group. Canada has blasted Iran every chance it can get on this.

[jdobbin]

Another Globe and Mail article on the targetting of U.N. people.

It brings into question whether Israelis forces actually cared whether they hit a U.N. base or not.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...=Mark+MacKinnon

[jbg]

Another Globe and Mail article on the targetting of U.N. people.

It brings into question whether Israelis forces actually cared whether they hit a U.N. base or not.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...=Mark+MacKinnon

This article in the New York Sun, excerpted below, casts douts on the varlous claims that Israel intended to target the UN or was indifferent. It seems that the UN post allowed Hezbollah to take liberties with the post's protected status.

Hezbollah knows well how to hide behind women, children and innocent outsiders to immunize itself from attack. Maybe those outsiders need to cease their cooperation.

=====================================================================

Publication:The New York Sun; Date:Jul 27, 2006; Section:Front Page; Page:1

Annan’s Claims On Casualties May Unravel

By BENNY AVNI Staff Reporter of the Sun

UNITED NATIONS — An apparent discrepancy in the portrayal of events surrounding the deaths of four unarmed U.N. observers in Lebanon threatens to unravel Secretary-General Annan’s initial accusation that Israel “deliberately” targeted the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon.

A Canadian U.N. observer, one of four killed at a UNIFIL position near the southern Lebanese town of Khiyam on Tuesday, sent an e-mail to his former commander, a Canadian retired majorgeneral, Lewis MacKenzie, in which he wrote that Hezbollah fighters were “all over” the U.N. position, Mr. MacKenzie said. Hezbollah troops, not the United Nations, were Israel’s target, the deceased observer wrote.

*snip*

Mr. MacKenzie, who after retiring from the Canadian military became a politician, had a very different interpretation. “I happen to know” the nowdeceased Canadian U.N. observer, Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener, Mr. MacKenzie told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in a radio interview yesterday.

“We’ve received e-mails from him a few days ago and he was describing the fact that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position ‘for tactical necessity — not being targeted,’” Mr. MacKenzie said he wrote.

In one such e-mail, obtained by The New York Sun, Hess-von Kruedener wrote about heavy IDF artillery and aerial bombardment “within 2 meters of our position.” The Israeli shooting, he added, “has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity.”

The correspondence between the trooper and former commander amounted to “veiled speech in the military,” Mr. MacKenzie, who once commanded the U.N. troops in Bosnia, told the CBC. “What he was telling us was Hezbollah fighters were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them, and that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the U.N. They use the U.N. as shields knowing that they cannot be punished for it.”

*snip*