So, there is no dispute that both UNIFIL and the Lebanese army had been notified of the maintenance work in advance. Given that UNIFIL is based on the Lebanese side of the border, how exactly would routine maintenance on the Israeli side of the border be under UNIFIL "supervision"? Moreover, the photographic evidence demonstrates that UNIFIL soldiers were embedded with the Lebanese army and carefully observing the Israeli maintenance activity at the time of the attack.A Lebanese army official said the military had had prior notice of Israel's planned activity but it had been agreed on condition that it took place under UNIFIL's supervision, adding that said the Israelis had gone ahead without this.
No, and it didn't say whether Castro had Kennedy killed either. The UNIFIL statement speaks for itself; it didn't say whether the Israeli army had coordinated with the peacekeepers because the assertion that this had been agreed (or was required) has no basis in reality. It is simply a red herring tossed in by the Lebanese army to draw attention away from its own culpability.The UNIFIL statement did not say whether the Israeli army had coordinated with the peacekeepers.
And Reuters of course, happily takes the bait and feeds it to its readers.