The Middle East part 2

[Bernadotte 0]

Really?  And what was the Ottoman Empire going to get in return?

The Jewish state would be a neutral state and work with the Ottoman Empire.

So, Herzl's Israel would have become an ally of Germany in WWI.  

-According to the White Paper of 1939, the prohibition and regulation of transfers of land dealt with the growth of the Arab population (I wonder how) and standard of living for them.

The concern was that so many Arabs selling their land to the Jews would result in a large landless Arab population with no livelihood.

How can you establish a Jewish homeland when the Jews are heavily regulated and barred from buying land which they, the Jews, can do according to the Mandate? As well, limit them from immigrating to Palestine? Clear violations of the Mandate.

The Mandate and even the Balfour Declaration clearly required the protection of the rights of Palestine's the indigenous people.  Fifteen years later, the Peel Commission concluded that those rights were not sufficiently protected.  However, instead of pulling the Mandate back on track the Peel Commission recommended it be abandoned for the creation of 2 states.  The White Paper of 1939 took the opposite path, largely because of Arab reaction to the Peel recommendations.  The White Paper tried to pull the Mandate back on track by placing protection of indigenous rights (and redressing some of the wrongs) ahead of the Mandate's other obligations - such as Jewish immigration and land purchase.

Btw, I'm glad you found the White Paper of 1939. Very few people know of it, although it was very important in many ways:

- It called for a single state of Palestine with a democratic representative government to be independent of Mandate rule by 1949.

- It actually offers a bit of a glimpse at the final days of the British Colonial Empire trying to set things right - a bit too late - after making such a mess.

- It was probably one of the main reasons that Jewish terrorist organisations formed to fight the British.

Unfortunately, Arab leaders no longer trusted the Brits enough to regard the White Paper as a fair deal for them, and who can blame them?    When Israel was founded on 55% of Palestine's territory in 1948 the abolition of the White Paper was one ot the first acts of the new government.

It is called original intent for the Declaration and not a draft.

If it wasn't published then it was not obligatory and it certainly wasn't appended to the Mandate statement.  Sure, it reflected a lot of what was really going on in the minds of Imperial British leadership, but so did a lot of other records.

[Mr_Tea 0]

The 4 UN Observers could have survived if someone in charge of the UN had done the only logical thing. Take that useless UN troops out of the game and send a force that is able to handle the situation, onces the fighting has stopped.

Edit:

I should add that i meant: The UN troop with theire current mandate is useless. In this situation they can`t do anything else than count rockets and bombs. For that, theire live shouldn`t be take at risk.

[EiZei 0]

Edit:

I should add that i meant: The UN troop with theire current mandate is useless. In this situation they can`t do anything else than count rockets and bombs. For that, theire live shouldn`t be take at risk.

So, why do you think they are called observers?

[Mr_Tea 0]

With theire mandate they couldn`t do much more than look. Theire current job could be done by joung pathfinders. They need a "robust" mandate wich allows them to use theire guns if needed.

At first they would need much more man, and better equipment and guns.

Edit:

btw. I call them observers.

They are called UNIFIL normaly

[Bernadotte 0]

The UN troop with theire current mandate is useless. In this situation they can`t do anything else than count rockets and bombs. For that, theire live shouldn`t be take at risk.

I agree.  The UN and international community have said countless times recently that they will not send in a peacekeeping force until there is a ceasefire.  Meanwhile, they seem to have forgotten all about the peacekeeping force they sent in 26 years ago.  Nonetheless, that observer post was apparently contructed in 1948 and could hardly have been a secret to the IDF.  However, it probably only had a 58 year old bunker if any at all.

Btw, why is it that a military with such a bad record for accidents never seems to cause very many friendly fire deaths?  

[Donnervogel 0]

The 4 UN Observers could have survived if someone in charge of the UN had done the only logical thing. Take that useless UN troops out of the game and send a force that is able to handle the situation, onces the fighting has stopped.

Well there is nobody "in charge of the UN". You know how it works. talk talk talk... some weeks later you get a compromise nobody is happy with.

Anyway I don't think they are really useless. Observers are quite important although their work has no direct effect.

And you can't send a force that is capable to handle the situation. The UN is no military power. It has effectively no army. The "UN Troops" are soldiers from various national armies employed by the UN for neutral activities. The UN is not gonna become a conflict party. The observers are there as a minimal agreement between both sides. Theoretically Lebanon or Israel could demand them to leave and they would have to do so. UN observers are only there because both sides agreed with them being there and monitoring the situation. Whenever one side demands them to leave they would violate their role as neutral party if they stood.

The term "UN troops" is totally misleading anyway. UN troops are not a UN army. They are UN workers capable of self defense in a limited manner.

The other thing you somethimes see are foreign national armies/alliances taking action in some region under UN mandate (ususally not wearing blue helmets). Then however those troops are not subject to "UN command" but to their national command. Those forces can take decisive action theoretically but the consensus reached in the mandate rarely ever permits them to really do much about the situation. This is because often the conflicts parties are invovled in negotiating the terms of the mandate or because the UN is very reluctant to send a real war force into some country because it would be against international law to violate the sovereignty of a country.

To summarize. The UN never was and probably never will be a military force and it also isn't a world police kind of organisation. The UN is kind a big forum for international politics and an assembly of humanitarian and admisnistrative organisations. What the member nations make of it is in their hands. However any sorty of involvement in a conflict is what the member nations must do. The UN is only there to provide a platform for international negotiations about it. To get involved into the conflict would defeat its purpose and render the UN incapable to do what it is designed for.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

The 4 UN Observers could have survived if someone in charge of the UN had done the only logical thing. Take that useless UN troops out of the game and send a force that is able to handle the situation, onces the fighting has stopped.

Edit:

I should add that i meant: The UN troop with theire current mandate is useless. In this situation they can`t do anything else than count rockets and bombs. For that, theire live shouldn`t be take at risk.

UN Observer 1: "I count ten artillary shells..."

UN Observer 2: "Where are they heading?"

UN Observer 1: "Our way, I think..."

UN Observer 2: "INCOMING!!!"

UN Observer 1: "Too late..."

If all they can do is become casualties, then my vote is to pull them out, ASAP...

[mp_phonix 0]

Btw, why is it that a military with such a bad record for accidents never seems to cause very many friendly fire deaths?  

actually, 2-3 days ago 5 soldiers were injured by friendly fire incoming from an Ah-1 Cobra.

What happend is the the soldiers directed the fire to a house where the terrorist were shooting from but somehow it accidently opend fire on 5 soldiers from the paratrooper brigade that were standing somewhere else outside a house or smt . .

3 pilots killed, 2 when an AH-64D Apach Longbow crashed, somehow the main rotor disconnected  or smt there was an accidet, the helicopter fell from 8,000 feet, hit a power cable and crashed,

another  pilot was killed when 2 apache crashed into one another.

IAF considering to ground all the Longbows to check if there is a serial problem with it. IAF coducted about 5,000 raid over lebanonb. the choppers crashed inside Israeli terretory.

I also give a short friendly fire accidents & accidents

in the year 2000 israel sniper from CT SF unit 'Duvdevan' killed another 3 operator accidently

year 1997, 2 CH-53 crashed into another on their way to the Buefort Oupost in LEbanon, 73 soldiers killed.

on 16.3.2006 Airborne SF operator First Sargent Ido Shapira was killed from friendly fire during an arrest operation {what you people call kidnhhaping}.

His picture:

Happy ?

[deanosbeano 0]

Quote[/b] ]he United Nations has accused Israel of deliberately targeting one of its observer posts in south Lebanon, with an air strike that's killed at least two peacekeepers, including a Chinese national.

source

no matter how weak the u.n is without U.S backing, nothing gives Israel the right to do this ,if indeed it turns out to be correct.some times i wonder what lies behind this war and what the eventual goals must be.it would be so ironic that a peace would be achieved and yet those who would bask in its glory ,once took desicions that lead to the horror i have seen in this abhorrent tirade on civilians and people who are there to keep the peace.it just gets sicker and sicker with every hour that goes by, if it isnt the israelis killing children its the hezbollah killing children.

how can there be any justification from either side ? all argument are surely now null and void,whatever they were before , the fact is now that both sides have commited horrors beyond anything i have witnessed before.to me they are just backward bastards and cowards.somebody should intervene and get them to geneva like milosevic and co. anyway .i dont want to insult a whole country on either side, because of the desicions made by a few callous unethical bastards.

End of rant/disgust in fellow mans inhumanity to man.

[martinovic 0]

Quote[/b] ]Happy ?

As tragic as accidents are, they still aren't as severe as hours long bombing of a well established UN base.

That post was under fire from morning to 19:00 (or maybe 17:00? long enough anyways). In 6 hours they called 10 times.

According to the lebanese army 3 guided bombs hit the UN bunker.

BTW, one interesting development is that the new Iraqi PM doesn't condemn Hizballah, but he does condemn Israel. He'd probably get eaten alive by the Shiite majority.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

BTW, one interesting development is that the new Iraqi PM doesn't condemn Hizballah, but he does condemn Israel. He'd probably get eaten alive by the Shiite majority.

Somehow I think he'd say the same if he were a sunni... I think all the irakis don't like the israelis very much, either...

[Bernadotte 0]

Happy ?

You looked back 9 years and only found 2 incidents of soldiers being killed by friendly fire?  

In fact, you should be very happy with a record like that.

Btw, that number seems to be around half as many as the number of civilians that the IDF has typically managed to kill by accident each day of the past month.

[billybob2002 0]

So, Herzl's Israel would have become an ally of Germany in WWI.

Maybe because Herzl and others tried to persuade the Germans to assist them to obtain the land in the Ottoman Empire. However, Herzl did say it would be a neutral state.

The Mandate and even the Balfour Declaration clearly required the protection of the rights of Palestine's the indigenous people.  Fifteen years later, the Peel Commission concluded that those rights were not sufficiently protected.  However, instead of pulling the Mandate back on track the Peel Commission recommended it be abandoned for the creation of 2 states.  The White Paper of 1939 took the opposite path, largely because of Arab reaction to the Peel recommendations.  The White Paper tried to pull the Mandate back on track by placing protection of indigenous rights (and redressing some of the wrongs) ahead of the Mandate's other obligations - such as Jewish immigration and land purchase.

The Mandate didn't put a restriction on the immigration of Jews. How could the White Paper of 1939 put the Mandate back on track if it violates the Mandate?

For your information, the Permanent Mandates Commission ruled that the White Paper of 1939 was illegal because, I quote, "the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had placed upon the Palestine Mandate."

Unfortunately, Arab leaders no longer trusted the Brits enough to regard the White Paper as a fair deal for them, and who can blame them? When Israel was founded on 55% of Palestine's territory in 1948 the abolition of the White Paper was one ot the first acts of the new government.

The Arabs didn't want the Jews to govern with them because they wanted Palestine to be a Arabic state in the near future. They wanted the British to completely halt Jewish immigration and what not (i.e., like what happened in Transjordan). The Arabs didn't want to even meet the Jews during the conference.

[Bernadotte 0]

For your information, the Permanent Mandates Commission ruled that the White Paper of 1939 was illegal because, I quote, "the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had placed upon the Palestine Mandate."

Where did you get that quote from?  I could not find it in the Minutes of Permanent Mandates Commission meeting (36th session).

HOWEVER, I did find that quote presented by David Ben-Gurion as evidence to the UN in July 1947.  In fact, everywhere else on the web that the quote can be found also ascribes it to Ben-Gurion's evidence rather than the actual minutes of the Commission's 36th session.

I'll have more to say as soon as we've checked out your source.

[billybob2002 0]

For your information, the Permanent Mandates Commission ruled that the White Paper of 1939 was illegal because, I quote, "the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had placed upon the Palestine Mandate."

Where did you get that quote from?  I could not find it in the Minutes of Permanent Mandates Commission meeting (36th session).

HOWEVER, I did find that quote presented by David Ben-Gurion as evidence to the UN in July 1947.  In fact, everywhere else on the web that the quote can be found also ascribes it to Ben-Gurion's evidence rather than the actual minutes of the Commission's 36th session.

I'll have more to say as soon as we've checked out your source.

My source uses the autobiography of Chaim Weizmann for the quote. Your first link from the United Nations does not actually contain the report but only contains general discussions. This working paper by the Secretariat also mentions that majority of the Commission (four to three) thought they "did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors."

[Bernadotte 0]

The Mandate and even the Balfour Declaration clearly required the protection of the rights of Palestine's the indigenous people.  Fifteen years later, the Peel Commission concluded that those rights were not sufficiently protected.  However, instead of pulling the Mandate back on track the Peel Commission recommended it be abandoned for the creation of 2 states.  The White Paper of 1939 took the opposite path, largely because of Arab reaction to the Peel recommendations.  The White Paper tried to pull the Mandate back on track by placing protection of indigenous rights (and redressing some of the wrongs) ahead of the Mandate's other obligations - such as Jewish immigration and land purchase.

The Mandate didn't put a restriction on the immigration of Jews. How could the White Paper of 1939 put the Mandate back on track if it violates the Mandate?

Read what I wrote (3 times) about immigration and land purchase under the Mandate being required to protect indigenous rights and position.

Off track = Jewish immigration/land purchases having threatened Arab rights and postion.

On track = Undoing the damage to Arab rights and position caused by Jewish immigration/land purchases.

Undoing the damage = suspending/restricting the Jewish immigration/land purchases that caused the damage.

For your information, the Permanent Mandates Commission ruled that the White Paper of 1939 was illegal...

Illegal?  The Commission was only an advisory panel.  And besides, according to your 1948 UN link:

Quote[/b] ]It remains a matter of speculation whether the Council of the League, in the circumstances existing in the summer of 1939, would have sided with the majority of four or the minority of three of the Permanent Mandates Commission. The outbreak of war in September 1939 prevented the Council from considering the question.

The White Paper was very much a form of "affirmative action" aimed at quelling a growing Arab revolt.  It was controversial and over 20 years ahead of its time.  Of course, opponents of affirmative action always attack it for being unconstitutional.

The Arabs didn't want the Jews to govern with them because they wanted Palestine to be a Arabic state in the near future.

Not really.  Palestine was already an Arabic state.  They simply didn't want it to become split up after decades of reassurances to the contrary.

Little analogy:

The Palestinian Arabs owned a concert hall which was renovated with assistance from the British.  The British promised the Jews that they could attend shows at the Arab's concert hall out of gratitude for their assistance with that and other renovation projects.  Many more Jews showed up than the Arabs anticipated.  And, instead of buying food and drink from the Arab concession stands the Jews set up their own, which they tried not to share with the Arabs.  When the Arab concert started the Jews even begin to play their own music.  Natuarally, the Arabs complained to the British police, but all the cops did was recommend giving 55% of the hall, along with the stage and air conditioning, to the Jews even though they only represented 30% of those in attendance. Why? Mostly because the Jews used to own a concert hall in the same location a few thousand years ago.

The White Paper tried to lock the doors on the hall until the 2 sides learned to get along.

[mattxr 9]

Now that the Rome conference on Lebanon has ended without a decisive move towards settling the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, it is worth looking at what might happen next.

DIPLOMATIC SETTLEMENT

The Lebanese government and Hezbollah would agree to implement Security Council resolution 1559.

This resolution, passed in September 2004, called for the disbanding of all militias in Lebanon and the extension of Lebanese government authority to all parts of the country. Hezbollah would move out of south Lebanon and the Lebanese army would move down to the border with Israel. The idea is that this would remove the source of conflict.

Lebanese women refugees from Israeli bombing

Both Israel and Hezbollah would accept a ceasefire and the agreement formalised in a new Security Council resolution.

An international force would be deployed in the border area at least until the Lebanese army arrived.

Getting agreement on the mandate, size and deployment of such a force is not going to be easy. It would replace an existing UN force, Unifil, which has been monitoring events but not influencing them since 1978.

The Israelis might maintain a self-declared "buffer zone" for a time, but any settlement would have to see an Israeli withdrawal.

Some kind of deal would be done to resolve the original trigger for this war, the capture of two Israeli solders by Hezbollah. Israel wants their unconditional release. Hezbollah says they were taken to be exchanged.

Lebanon also wants Israel to leave a strip of land known as the Shebaa Farms at the foot of Mount Hermon, but the UN has ruled that this land belongs to Syria and that its future should be decided by Israeli-Syrian negotiations.

STALEMATE

Under this scenario, the Israeli military effort to remove Hezbollah fighters from south Lebanon gets bogged down and Hezbollah refuses to pull back or reach any agreement with the Lebanese government. Fighting continues.

This would leave Israel far short of its aims. There would be domestic political fall-out in that great ambitions were laid out for this conflict.

A stalemate in which Israel was making little headway might also be interpreted as "Israel loses", in that it did not achieve its goals.

Already the Israelis have found the going tougher than they might have expected. The terrain - mountainous, rocky, and full of caves, gullies and ravines - is ideal guerrilla country and the Israelis cannot use their armoured forces there easily.

Israeli woman and children flee Hezbollah rocket attack  

It is therefore conceivable that the Israelis will not achieve the decisive victory they seek.

If that happened, the fighting could go on indefinitely to a greater or lesser degree. Israeli bombing could continue in an attempt to cut off Hezbollah reinforcements moving south.

Hezbollah could continue firing rockets from north of any Israeli-controlled zone.

The civilian suffering would go on and people might not be able to return to normal lives on both sides of the border.

Israel could establish control over a self-declared "buffer zone" along the border and just stay there. There would be stalemate, with continuing confrontations and fire fights with the potential of the conflict erupting again at any time.

ISRAEL DECLARES SUCCESS

Israel would go on until it reckoned it had achieved success. It might or might not announce a ceasefire but it would in practice hand over southern Lebanon to an international force and withdraw. In due course, the Lebanese army would deploy to the border. Israel would declare victory against Hezbollah, though it would probably not get its two captured soldiers back.

THE WAR WINDS DOWN

It is possible that at some stage the Israelis will announce they have achieved their main aims through bombing and the removal of Hezbollah from the border. There might be no ceasefire but the bombing would stop or be reduced. Hezbollah might respond by stopping its rocket attacks. There might be occasional incidents.

This would leave issues unresolved however, including that of the missing Israeli soldiers. Israel will not exchange them for the prisoner Hezbollah wants most, Samir Qantar, who attacked a block of flats in Nahariha in 1979, killing a father and his daughter. The only prisoner release Israel says it will engage in is one through the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

WIDER ISRAELI INVASION

Israel might decide to step up its ground attacks, for example, after a Hezbollah attack on cities further south.

In 1978, the Israelis invaded up to the Litani River some 20km (12 miles) north of the border and in 1982 they went all the way to Beirut. They did not leave south Lebanon until 2000.

Their aim in those operations was to remove Palestinian fighters, from whom Hezbollah has taken over.

It is possible that the Israelis will decide to expand their currently quite limited ground attacks into the kind of big operation carried out in 1978. An attack on Tyre on the coast would be considered as Hezbollah has been firing rockets from around Tyre.

However, all this would leave Israel in occupation and under constant harassment and attack. It would not be the long-term solution they seek. If they simply left again, Hezbollah would move back in.

THE CONFLICT ESCALATES OR SPREADS

The intensity of the fighting might increase. Hezbollah might extend its attacks to other cities. Israel might step up its bombing and ground operations.

If this happened, tensions would rise all round.

The Lebanese government, product of an uneasy alliance between Lebanon's various populations, and in which Hezbollah sits with reforming elements from the Cedar Revolution, has held together.

But it could fall apart if the pressure is not eased and some solution does not become apparent, especially to the suffering of civilians. Hezbollah could emerge the stronger.

The fighting could develop into a new Jihadist front, drawing in fighters from elsewhere.

Hezbollah's supporters, Syria and Iran, could get drawn in.

Syria which has lost power in Lebanon over the last couple of years could be tempted to regain influence there.

The sidelined issue of Iran's nuclear programme could come to the fore again and become a diplomatic and economic confrontation with the West if tensions increased. The solution to the issue depends on understanding and confidence and this has been badly damaged by this crisis.

[mp_phonix 0]

The arabs litterly 'screwed themeslef over'. they sole us their land, and afterwards they are complaining. So why the hell did you sole it in the first place ? it is idiotc, like selling a car that wanting it back free/with force.

[Bernadotte 0]

The arabs litterly 'screwed themeslef over'. they sole us their land, and afterwards they are complaining. So why the hell did you sole it in the first place ? it is idiotc, like selling a car that wanting it back free/with force.

Please show me where Palestine's Arab leaders wanted back the 3% of the land that had been sold to the Jews.  I think you'll find that the Palestinians were ultimately much more concerned about the 52% of Palestine that the Jews got for free than the 3% that they purchased.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Well, the current situation isn't helping the israelis, and I don't believe that anything else short of a full invasion of Lebanon will give them any chance of halting Hezbollah's rocket attacks on Israel.

From an international point of view, I think Israel's image is in the shitters. Everybody acknowledges Israel's right of self-defence, but the over-reaction, which even led to the recent attack of a UN Obseravation base, isn't gaining the israelis any sympathies at all. I don't know if any international peace-keeping or security force of any sort was ever sent to the area around Israel (by this I mean that it's composed by military force coming from various countries), but even the US seems to be reluctant to even pose the possibility of being part of a peace-keeping and/or security force near Israel - and the US is just about the best ally Israel has. Nobody wants to be the filling of a deadly sandwich...

I don't see anybody being able to reign in Hezbollah through other means than force either - I don't believe the current situation will lead to a release of the two israeli hostages, and I bet Hezbollah will keep fighting Israel for as long as it still has a weapon and a man to pull a trigger...

[Garcia 0]

The arabs litterly 'screwed themeslef over'. they sole us their land, and afterwards they are complaining. So why the hell did you sole it in the first place ? it is idiotc, like selling a car that wanting it back free/with force.

It's more like, Ford sells a person a car, and then the guy somehow owns half of the company, not only the car...

[wildo 0]

I think Israel has lost the plot in some aspects, this laser guided bomb on the UN compound where the 4 UN observers were killed is WAY off the mark!

I mean WHY did they attack the UN?

The observers contacted the Israelis to stop shelling their posistion several times and the Israelis pormised to stop doing it, then BAG, bomb hits the top floor and collapses on the bottom.

Somehow I think Israel should get its priorities straight, for if I was "incharge" of the UN, I send the fucking lot into Israel.

Im not in favour of Hezbollah (sp?) but now nor do I favour Israel

And why is it every middle eastern country seems to be a major source for terrorism (Ok ok, terrorists come from EVERY country, but the majority from -> that side of the world)?

And since when is a holy war holy? Whats so fucking holy about killing people in 101 ways?

It just goes to show that peoples blind faith in their religion makes them do such terrible and stupid things

ALL religions should be abolished Thus making the world a "safer" (Theoretically) place.

Wildo

[deanosbeano 0]

Quote[/b] ]U.S. blocks UN statement condemning attack

China aint gonna be happy bout that, they tabled the statement and one of theres was killed.

Quote[/b] ]The draft proposed by China alluded to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's statement late Tuesday that Israel appeared to have struck the site deliberately - an accusation Israel vehemently denies. China softened the text, which initially expressed shock that Israel apparently deliberately targeted the post.

annan backtracks

Quote[/b] ]The UN said Annan has accepted an Israeli apology, as well as its claim that it did not target the post deliberately.

source

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Quote[/b] ]The UN said Annan has accepted an Israeli apology, as well as its claim that it did not target the post deliberately.

Somehow I think that the UN is got to be bullshitting itself... I mean I can't friggin believe the UN is letting Israel get away with it, especially after it's more than proven that the israelis only COULD be targeting the UN post specifically...

Quote[/b] ]UN observers in Lebanon telephoned the Israeli military 10 times in six hours to ask it to stop shelling near their position before an Israeli attack destroyed their border outpost, killing four observers

Source

... and then finishing it off with a precision-guided weapon!!!

[Bernadotte 0]

Deja vu, anyone?  Fortunately for Israel, people have short memories.  

Nearly the exact same thing happened 10 years ago when a UNIFIL base got shelled by IDF artillery, killing over 100 civilians who had sought shelter there from the nearby village of Qana and seriously wounding 4 UN staff.

Of course, Israel denied targetting the base deliberately and also denied having any aerial reconnaisance near the base at the time.  However, a UNIFIL peacekeeper near the base happened to capture the shelling on video along with a nearby Israeli helicopter and unmanned drone.  Israel was not able/willing to explain the presence of those aircraft to the satisfaction of the UN investigator.

Busted!!  ...but so what?  

Bottom Line:  "It is unlikely that gross technical and/or procedural errors led to the shelling of the United Nations compound. However, it cannot be ruled out completely."