A spokesperson for UN peacekeepers in Lebanon on Saturday said that Israel had requested it leave its positions in south Lebanon where Israel is clashing with Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, but they had refused.

They asked us to withdraw “from the positions along the blue line … or up to five kilometers (three miles) from the blue line,” UN Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) spokesperson Andrea Tenenti told Agence France-Presse (AFP), using the term for the demarcation line between both countries. “But there was a unanimous decision to stay,” he said.

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    18 days ago

    The soldiers are sent from the militaries of member countries.

    • small44@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      18 days ago

      Doesn’t mean they have the same obligations as normal soldiers. Like unifil soldiers can’t engage in offensive attacks unlike soldiers in the members countries armies. Their role is to monitor rather than engage militarly. I don’t even think the country members have also the authority to order them to move due to the contract

    • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 days ago

      That does not mean they work under military rules. They are under UN control, and the UN is a peacekeeping force. It is not a nation state military force.

      • tal@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        18 days ago

        The UN isn’t, but the soldiers themselves are, and are acting for their respective member state military:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_peacekeeping

        Most of these operations are established and implemented by the United Nations itself, with troops obeying UN operational control. In these cases, peacekeepers remain members of their respective armed forces, and do not constitute an independent “UN army”, as the UN does not have such a force.

        • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          18 days ago

          … with troops obeying UN operational control

          That says the UN controls the troops.

          They are not an army, they are a peacekeeping force.

          They are also under UN rules, not their own nation’s.

          If the UN decides they can choose to stay or leave, that’s what happens.

          • tal@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            18 days ago

            They are not an army,

            They are members of their own state militaries acting in an operation headed by the UN.

            They have ROEs and similar orders handed to them.

            kagis

            Here’s a sample UN peacekeeping RoE for a recent exercise simulating an actual operation.

            https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/siteassets/english/swedint/engelska/swedint/courses/unsoc/d-29-roe-incl-annex-a-d.pdf

            It’ll lay out the conditions under which one attacks and to what degree peacekeepers should hold maintain a position given the possibility that it is attacked, who they are authorized to engage, and such.

            In this situation, you’ve got an active conflict underway between Hezbollah and Israel. Like, this isn’t going to be a “there’s nobody shooting at each other” situation. My point is that normally, countries are pretty particular about the lines for international conflict, and I’d expect an RoE to have specified whether they are expected to maintain positions during an evacuation order or not.

            • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              17 days ago

              I work for company A. Company A is based in Florida, USA. I work in a warehouse owned by Company X, and staffed by Company Z.

              As an employee of Company A, I do have my own conduct rules.

              That said, when working in Company X’s warehouse with Company Z’s people, I have a different set of conduct rules, some of which conflict with Company A’s rules. But since I’m currently on contract with and on the premises of Company X and Z, their rules take precedent. Company A understands this and is okay with it. I will not be fired.

              I am not being condescending, and genuinely hope this helps it click for you.