So much for neutrality

Fox News is reporting that Kofi Annan is claiming the Israeli military intentionally targeted a UN position that may have killed up to 4 UN peacekeepers.

An Israeli bomb destroyed a U.N. observer post on the border in southern Lebanon, killing two peacekeepers and leaving two others feared dead in what appeared to be a deliberate strike, U.N. chief Kofi Annan said. ....

As reports of the attack emerged, Annan rushed out of a hotel in Rome following a dinner with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora."I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defence Forces of a U.N. Observer post in southern Lebanon," Annan said in the statement.

Annan said in his statement that the post had been there for a long time and was marked clearly, and was hit despite assurances from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that U.N. positions would not be attacked.

It's interesting that Annan's allegation comes within minutes of the incident. Israel insists it was an accident.

Keep in mind that when the UN could stand up for Israel when terrorists do their dirty deeds, the UN insists they can't because they must keep their "neutrality".

[A] U.N. "interim force" has been "monitoring" the border since 1978. (The Hezbollah and U.N. flags fly side by side there). In 2000, blue helmets videotaped Hezbollah kidnapping three Israeli soldiers (one of them an Israeli Arab). The video could have been useful in rescuing the soldiers. But, for eight months, the U.N. troops angrily denied even having the tape. When forced to admit they did, they refused to release it because that might compromise their "neutrality."

That neutrality was compromised long ago. As Muravchik notes, the U.N. is chockablock with agencies and bureaucrats dedicated to undermining Israel. Even known terrorists, including members of Hamas, are on the payroll. And in 2002, the UNCHR endorsed the "legitimacy" of Palestinian terrorism against Israel. Indeed, it says something that democratic Israel is - by leaps and bounds - the most condemned nation in the history of the U.N. Not China, the Soviet Union or North Korea. Israel.

Kofi Annan could not, in the immediate aftermath of the incident, have access to credible evidence that this was anything other than an accident. It's clear that he either did not consult with Israel or he rejected their adamant assertions this was an accident. So why was he so quick to comprimise this sacred "neutrality" & make a very serious accusation that will no doubt be reported globally as fact by the MSM?

Where was the instant condemnation from Annan or any UN Official when Hezbollah sunk a civilian ship?

Another Hizbullah missile also hit and sank a nearby civilian merchant ship at around the same time, Nehushtan said. He said that ship apparently was Egyptian, but he had no other information about it.

This "neutrality" thing from the UN seems pretty one sided to me.