ii. Problem and its Background By nature, UN Peacekeeping Organization (1948) has been helping in the resolution of existing conflicts among warring countries and/or international feuds. According to Sperling and Kirchner (1997), the UN has been able to alter its image from that of an inactive to an active organization, and the considered major etiology is the agreement among the fiver permanent members of the Security Council in 1987, particularly in using the organization as an intervener of international affairs, conflict and disarmament (p.
62). One of the most significant UN peacekeeping campaigns is the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) that centers on the 1980 conflicts between Israel and Lebanon. UN Peacekeeping ambassadors have been associated to the UNFIL mandating the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory to restore international peace and security in the area.
Furthermore, under the UN Security Council Resolution 425, the peacekeeping campaign and UNFIL have provided extensive tasks over Lebanese territory, such as assisting the government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in southern Lebanon, humanitarian assistance, supplies provision (e. g. medical, food, etc. ), and others (Fleitz 2002 54). Despite of the altruistic motives of the peacekeeping organization, UNFIL has encountered tremendous rejection and feud against Israelite, which eventually worsened the UN-Israel relations.
According to Pitta and McCouaig (1994), the Irish peace UN ambassadors together with other members of UNIFIL have been associated 1982 Lebanon Wars between Israeli and Palestinian terrorists (Hizballah) within Lebanon (p. 4-5). Hence, instead of becoming peace ambassadors, UNIFIL members are caught in the middle of Israeli-Palestinian feud, while their Israeli-Lebanese goal of withdrawal has become entirely complex, which eventually resulted in the damage of UN relationships among Lebanese and Israeli groups.
iii. Aims of the Study The primary task of the discussion is to obtain indications illustrating bias or non-partial indicators among Irish peacekeeping forces and UNIFIL members during the campaigns on Israel-Lebanon settlements. The study examines the sides of four parties involved, (1) UNIFIL and Peacekeeping Groups, (2) Lebanese Officials and their territory, (3) Israeli soldiers and their abusive settlement within Lebanese territory, and (4) the Palestinian terrorist group.
The study seeks (1) to discern biased actions or perceptions that resulted in peacekeepers (Irish; UNIFIL) empathizing with either the local Lebanese or with Jewish settlers, and (2) to determine the implications of these biased activities towards UNs relationships among Lebanon and Israel. II. Discussion i. Overview of Peacekeeping Traces of Biased Rule (1940s to 1980s) The primary characteristic of the U. N peacekeeping operations is its role in the resolution or management of conflicts and not entirely to provide aid to any parties concerned.
From the historical point of view, peacekeeping operations in the Middle East have started way backed 1948 Arab-Israeli Wars under the United Nations Truce Supervision (UNTSO). The primary task of UNTSO is to supervise both military condition and the Palestinian truce (Pitta and Mccouaig 1994 4). As supported by Kellerman, Siehr and Einhorn (1998), UNTSOs indefinite mandate is limited to observing, reporting and investigating cease-fire violations and other border incidents in the course of supervising the implementation of the General Armistice Agreements between Israel and Arab neighbors (p.
368). At that point, the United Nations General Assembly has proposed its initial peacekeeping resolution in an effort of negotiating the disputed Jerusalem from the two parties involved Israel and Palestinians. The offer involves the partitioning of the territory into separate Arab and Jewish states with the city of Jerusalem under the International mandate. However, the offer has been declined since the most significant sacred city, Jerusalem, cannot be placed into any others property aside from the Jewish nation (Kellerman, Siehr and Einhorn 1998 p.
368). According to Pitta and Mccouaig (1994), the United Kingdom possesses 1. 5 million Palestinian Arabs under the League of Nations mandate and 500,000 Jews (p. 4). After the negation of UN proposal on 14th of May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its mandate over Palestine, while the Israel has been proclaimed. Due to the biased support of the international nationalities among Israel, the next day (May 15) the Palestinian Arabs, together with other Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria), attacked the United Kingdom republic.
According to Hearn (1999), if the peacekeeping forces fail to uphold the requirement of impartiality, the credibility of their campaign shall be compromised, which consequently opens them to attacks (p. 10). In order to resolve the conflict, the UN Security Council has called for a cease-fire mandate under the Resolution 50 on MAY 29, 1948. According to Pitta and Mccouaig (1994), the UNTSO observers have become the primary observers of the truce of 1948 (p. 4). UNTSO has become the primary and the longest existing peacekeeping organization securing and monitoring the relationship between Israel and Palestinian groups.
UNTSO observers have been attached to UNFIL groups in an effort of securing and monitoring the implementation of the 1948 Truce and cease fire mandate. However, according to Stephan (2004), UNTSO observers and other peacekeeping groups (e. g. UNIFIL, UN Security Council, etc. ) have been accused on implementing biased treatment among both Jews and Palestinian settlers. In response to the Lebanon-Israel conflict, Fleitz (2002) has reported that Israel groups are complaining against anti-Jews activities among UNTSO, UNIFIL and UN Department of Peacekeeping (p.
54). Meanwhile, according to Hahn (2004), Palestinians are complaining against the international favor (e. g. American support towards the Israelites, UNTSOs rejection of Syrian complaints against Israels bridge and trenches fortifications that are considered violation against the armistice, etc. ). Considering these scenarios, accusations of being biased are being directed to almost every party involved in the Israel-Palestinian feud. ii. The 1982 Conflicts among UNIFIL and Disputants
According to Fleitz (2002), UNIFIL is the most notorious example of the consequences when a traditional peacekeeping force is only partially accepted by warring parties (p. 54). Similar to the history of UNTSO, UNIFIL has been accused of having biased activities with the Lebanese party. The primary task of UNIFIL is to monitor the conditions of Israel settlement in Lebanon and facilitate its withdrawal. However, the disputants refuse to fully cooperate with the UNIFIL representatives due to the vast issues of biased activities (e. g.
Israel party is accusing UNIFIL of being an anti-Israelite group, etc). According to Muller (1997), Israel has objected to the UNs bias in Lebanon and elsewhere branding the UNIFIL organization as an instrument for their anti-Israel schemes (p. 132). Due to the past issues of Israel with Syria, Iran and other Arab Nations, the provision of support system has become very sensitive and critical to the peacekeeping strategies of UNIFIL. Israel has accused UNIFIL of supporting the Lebanese to regain the Palestinian and the rest of the Arabs favor.
Although, according to Fleitz (2002) and Nachmias (1999), Israel perceives UNIFIL as a U. N instrument in helping the Lebanese-Syrian groups against their nation. According to Gat (2003), Israel has falsely interpreted the reasons of Israeli troops withdrawal from Lebanon, and considered this as an aid for the Arab groups to reconstruct their settlement in the area (p. 104) Conflict between Israel and UNIFILs mission of Israels withdrawal has threatened the U. N-Israeli relations.
Due to the incident, UNIFIL-Arab conflict has increased causing the decline of UNIFIL populations and death of most Irish peacekeepers. According to Said and Hitchens (2001), the Israeli Iron Fist operations against terrorist suspicion in the area of Lebanon have prevented them from leaving (p. 131). Nachmias (1999) states that UNIFIL failed in its three mandatory missions: (1) it did not induce peace, (2) it did not stop the daily carnage of Israeli soldiers and Lebanese civilians, and (3) it failed to achieve the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon.
Instead of fulfilling their peacekeeping tasks, UNIFIL is caught in the middle of the Israeli-Palestinian feud within the Lebanese settlement. In 1985, the Israeli settlers in Lebanon filed their request of using Southern Lebanon as their settlement in the area. According to Fleitz (2002), the settling of Israelites within the security zones of South Lebanon has caused severe casualties on the part of UNIFIL members, specifically 83 fatalities from attacks when Israel launched a major invasion of Lebanon through UNIFIL positions (p.
55). Due to these consequent events, UNIFIL has failed its very mission of settling the feud between Israel and Lebanon. The South Lebanon Army has defied the U. N resolutions not to occupy the security zone between Israeli border and UNIFIL forces. The tensions between Israel and Lebanese civilians have grown to be very sensitive. UNIFIL, being opposed to the settlement of Israelites in the area of Southern Lebanon, has been incorporated with the targets of Israeli troops.
However, during the patrol of Israelites within the streets of Lebanon, incidence of preventive gunfire against Irish peacekeeping forces has been reported, which eventually caused wide protest against Israel troops (Said and Hitchens 2001 133). Due to the aggressive military activities of Israel against Lebanese civilians (e. g. 1984 killing of 150 children in a bombed-out school at Bekaa Valley, 1985 killing of 20 people in Tripoli refugee camp, etc. ), UNIFIL has to support the local Lebanese civilians, especially the wounded.