Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Hailstones set off unexploded cluster bombs

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 21 November 2007
LEBANON'S first hailstorm of the season was a blessing in disguise for cluster bomb-infested southern parts of the country - setting off series of blasts yesterday from previously unexploded bomblets. No injuries were reported.
After a long dry spell , hailstones as big as walnuts hit the south's villages and struck bomblets scattered across the landscape, causing a string of blasts.

The United Nations and human rights groups accuse Israel of dropping about four million cluster bomblets during last year's war. Up to one million failed to explode and now endanger civilians in the area.

When cluster bombs are dropped they open in flight and eject hundreds of small bomblets across a wide area.



The full article contains 119 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 20 November 2007 10:09 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Lebanon
 
1

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 21/11/2007 02:10:23

Waiting for all those who hate to come here and blame Israel.

Forget the fact that Hezbollah attacked across the international border.
Forget the fact that as members of the Lebanese Government they were given defacto rule over the south of the country and chose to initiate a war.
Forget the fact that Nasrallah admitted it was a mistake
Forget the fact that they fired missiles at Israeli citites.
Forget the fact that Cluster munitions are legal.

Facts dont matter, just hatred of Israel.

2

Navvy,

21/11/2007 02:24:56

#1 - forget the 200 lashes for gang rape victim

3

49th State,

In the office, smelling wife's pumpkin pie baking 21/11/2007 03:29:38

And you athiests on this thread don't think that the Lord works in mysterious ways.

I knew an athiest once, he abandonded his point of view the moments after he was shot in the neck by a sniper. He sure called out for God to save his soul then.

4

FrancesP,

21/11/2007 04:17:17

#1. "Forget the fact that Cluster munitions are legal."

But are they moral though? Surely that's the salient point, because I've never noticed Israel taking much heed of international law anyway.

Oh, and one rather important fact you conveniently omitted - TEN TIMES as many Lebanese deaths as Israeli. But of course, I was forgetting, deaths are only 'facts' if they're Israeli deaths (or, of course, American).

5

Nuke EmAll,

21/11/2007 05:26:21

Resolution 42: The Palestine Question (5 March 1948) Requests recommendations for the Palestine Commission
Resolution 43: The Palestine Question (1 Apr 1948) Recognizes "increasing violence and disorder in Palestine" and requests that representatives of "the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the Arab Higher Committee" arrange, with the Security Council, "a truce between the Arab and Jewish Communities of Palestine...Calls upon Arab and Jewish armed groups in Palestine to cease acts of violence immediately."
Resolution 44: The Palestine Question (1 Apr 1948) Requests convocation of special session of the General Assembly
Resolution 46: The Palestine Question (17 Apr 1948) As the United Kingdom is the Mandatory Power, "it is responsible for the maintenance of peace and order in Palestine." The Resolutions also "Calls upon all persons and organizations in Palestine" to stop importing "armed bands and fighting personnel...whatever their origin;...weapons and war materials;...Refrain, pending the future government of Palestine...from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims, or position of either community;...refrain from any action which will endager the safety of the Holy Places in Palestine."
Resolution 48: The Palestine Question (23 Apr 1948)
Resolution 49: The Palestine Question (22 May 1948)
Resolution 50: The Palestine Question (29 May 1948)
Resolution 53: The Palestine Question (7 Jul 1948)
Resolution 54: The Palestine Question (15 Jul 1948)
Resolution 56: The Palestine Question (19 Aug 1948)
Resolution 57: The Palestine Question (18 Sep 1948)
Resolution 59: The Palestine Question (19 Oct 1948)
Resolution 60: The Palestine Question (29 Oct 1948)
Resolution 61: The Palestine Question (4 Nov 1948)
Resolution 62: The Palestine Question (16 Nov 1948)
Resolution 66: The Palestine Question (29 Dec

6

Nuke EmAll,

21/11/2007 05:27:03

Resolution 171: " ... determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
Resolution 228: " ... 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
Resolution 237: " ... 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967): Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area. Calls on Israel's neighbors to end the state of belligerency and calls upon Israel to reciprocate by withdraw its forces from land claimed by other parties in 1967 war. Interpreted commonly today as calling for the Land for peace principle as a way to resolve Arab-Israeli conflict
Resolution 248: " ... 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
Resolution 250: " ... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
Resolution 251: " ... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
Resolution 252: " ... 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
Resolution 256: " ... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
Resolution 259: " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
Resolution 262: " ... 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
Resolution 265: " ... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
Resolution 267: " ... 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 270: " ... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
Resolution 271: " ... 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem&quo

7

Nuke EmAll,

21/11/2007 05:27:27

Resolution 350 (31 May 1974) established the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, to monitor the ceasefire between Israel and Syria in the wake of the Yom Kippur War.
Resolution 427: " ... 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Resolution 444: " ... 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
Resolution 446 (1979): 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 450: " ... 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
Resolution 452: " ... 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
Resolution 465: " ... 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
Resolution 467: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
Resolution 468: " ... 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
Resolution 469: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians".
Resolution 471: " ... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 476: " ... 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
Resolution 478 (20 August 1980): 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'.
Resolution 484: " ... 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors".
Resolution 487: " ... 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility".
Resolution 497 (17 December 1981) decides that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands t

8

Nuke EmAll,

21/11/2007 05:28:00

Resolution 592: " ... 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
Resolution 605: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
Resolution 607: " ... 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Resolution 608: " ... 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
Resolution 636: " ... 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
Resolution 641: " ... 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 672: " ... 'condemns' Israel for "violence against Palestinians" at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
Resolution 673: " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
Resolution 681: " ... 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 694: " ... 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
Resolution 726: " ... 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
Resolution 1559 (2 September 2004) called upon Lebanon to establish its sovereignty over all of its land and called upon Syria to end their military presence in Lebanon by withdrawing its forces and to cease intervening in internal Lebanese politics. The resolution also called on all Lebanese militias to disband.
Resolution 1583 (28 January 2005) calls on Lebanon to assert full control over its border with Israel. It also states that "the Council has recognized the Blue Line as valid for the purpose of confirming Israel's withdrawal pursuant to resolu

9

,

21/11/2007 05:30:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1161074, Article id was mapped to record!
10

,

21/11/2007 05:35:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1161077, Article id was mapped to record!
11

Nuke EmAll,

21/11/2007 06:55:47

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5213026.stm

Isn't it funny how those who say that firing rockets into civilian areas is bad seem less opinionated about the use of cluster bombs being used in civilian areas.

The same logic that dictates that suicide bombing is unjustified but helicopter gun ship attacks are justified.

12

Nuke EmAll,

21/11/2007 09:45:13

10 am (uk) and Home not here yet? On the evening shift at the office of Israeli propaganda or perhaps off work today?

13

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 21/11/2007 09:45:30

Funny how Jordan massacred over 10,000 Palestinians and there is No UN Resolution
Syria killed over 10,000 of its own people in Hama - no UN resolution

And yet Nuke em would have us believe the little oil club of Arabs doesnt buy votes..

Yawn

14

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 21/11/2007 09:47:38

#12 Nukey boy

Perhaps you want to invent your own versions of international law and make it the Jews fault for your own failed existance as well.

Cluster Munitions are area denial weapons. They keep enemy troops from taking or retaking certain areas.

Firing Rockets into civillian cities targets noncombattants ONLY

It is a War Crime.
Advocate War Crimes and speak of morality?

Only a hater and a paid Arabist propogandist would do such a thing.

Yawn

15

Let's have the truth,

# 14 21/11/2007 12:55:12

"Cluster Munitions are area denial weapons. They keep enemy troops from taking or retaking certain areas".

......Really? They also blow the legs off children playing in their gardens whose curiosity gets the better of them. But that's OK, one less to grow up to be an effective enemy.

16

AJ of Fife,

21/11/2007 13:32:34

Impressive hail stones - as big as walnuts they say!!

17

FrancesP,

21/11/2007 14:02:03

#14. From Human Rights Watch - "researchers found numerous cases in which the IDF launched artillery and air attacks with limited or dubious military objectives but excessive civilian cost. In many cases, Israeli forces struck an area with no apparent military target. In some instances, Israeli forces appear to have deliberately targeted civilians."

Now remind me again what you call those who seek to justify war crimes? There's ample evidence that BOTH sides were intentionally killing civilians indiscriminately. The difference - unfortunately for Lebanon - is that Israel succeeded in doing so far more often.

18

Nuke EmAll,

21/11/2007 14:22:07

16. AJ of Fife---"Impressive hail stones - as big as walnuts they say!!"

Aye, they don't do frogs anymore. Hailstones are the future.

Good way of getting rid of the things.

Home: I critisise the use of weapons by all sides.

"Syria killed over 10,000 of its own people in Hama - no UN resolution"

You love making up wee stories, don't you? How would it be possible for the UN to pass resolutions against the Muslim Brotherhood when the MB is not a part of the UN, what with them not being a nation?

"Funny how Jordan massacred over 10,000 Palestinians and there is No UN Resolution"

Give a link to the Jordanian government massacaring 10 000 palestinians, please.

If I critisised the weather in israel, would I be accused of being an Israeli hater too?

You and your kind do more harm to the opinion on the state of Israel by what you write and how you twist and distort history than I would want to. The people of Israel will one day wake up and see the light. So too the everyday people of the Arab and Persian world.

19

Sinnerman,

Another Planet 21/11/2007 15:11:59

24 August 1929

20

Findlay Thompson,

21/11/2007 15:22:15

Homey

I agree with you. It was correct for Israel to hit Lebanon with millions of cluster bombs/guided missiles in retaliation for the "fire works" Hezbollah sent over the border. And why o' why did the international community not heartily critises the Lebanese!

21

Nuke EmAll,

21/11/2007 15:24:59

Home----"Firing Rockets into civillian cities targets noncombattants ONLY.It is a War Crime.Advocate War Crimes and speak of morality? Only a hater and a paid Arabist propogandist would do such a thing.Yawn."

I'm so glad that you have the human decency to describe such acts as war crimes. So, the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear power station was a war crime, what with it being in a city and all. How many helicopter launched rockets have the Israelis fired into crowded areas? Many.How's beirut looking these days? Unscathed? Hardly. All those were war crimes too. Glad you agree.

Maybe agreement can be reached on these pages from time to time. Well done.

22

Findlay Thompson,

21/11/2007 15:29:02

#18

It has been mentioned that #1 could well be a Muslim fundimentalist stirring up a cloud of discord aimed solely at the Israeli state.

23

Nuke EmAll,

21/11/2007 15:30:39

Sinnerman: Arafat's birthday?

Findley---"And why o' why did the international community not heartily critises the Lebanese!"


Oh, they did: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Report_Lebanese_rockets...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6761725.stm


http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/17/mideast.diploma...


http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/fd807e46661e3689852570d0...

Etc etc etc etc.............


Not much mention of the two Palestinian brothers abducted by the Israeli forces a few days before the rocket attacks, however. Funny that.

24

Nuke EmAll,

21/11/2007 15:31:41

Findlay 18:

Aye, black flag postings!

25

Findlay Thompson,

21/11/2007 15:43:37

#24

Socratic irony.

26

Sinnerman,

Another Planet 21/11/2007 15:53:07

#23. No, try again. I'm feeling generous today.

27

Andy Loates,

Rotherham UK 21/11/2007 16:09:26

"The United Nations and human rights groups accuse Israel of dropping about four million cluster bomblets during last year's war. Up to one million failed to explode and now endanger civilians in the area.

When cluster bombs are dropped they open in flight and eject hundreds of small bomblets across a wide area."

Four million bombs in one year? That's a lot of bombs. A quarter of them failed to explode? Thats a serious failure rate. I'd check these UN/HR figures very carefully.

One should remember two things; Israel is administered through a representative democracy and it is the factual intention of her neighbours (who are NOT representative democracies) to destroy the country. Only Egypt has made peace with her.

If I were living in Israel I'd be chucking cluster bombs at neighbouring countries as well.

A

28

Kobi,

21/11/2007 16:20:56

#18

""Syria killed over 10,000 of its own people in Hama - no UN resolution"

You love making up wee stories, don't you? How would it be possible for the UN to pass resolutions against the Muslim Brotherhood when the MB is not a part of the UN, what with them not being a nation?"

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_Massacre

"The Hama massacre occurred on February 2, 1982 when the Syrian army bombarded the town of Hama in order to quell a revolt by the Muslim Brotherhood. Amnesty International estimates between 10,000 and 25,000 were killed at Hama."

It was the state of Syria over which the UN DOES have jurisdiction, doing the massacring, and the Muslim Brotherhood who provoked it. You have got it the wrong way round.


"Give a link to the Jordanian government massacaring 10 000 palestinians, please."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan

"September 1970 is known as the Black September in Arab history and sometimes is referred to as the "era of regrettable events." It was a month when Hashemite King Hussein of Jordan moved to quash an attempt by Palestinian organizations to overthrow his monarchy. The violence resulted in the killing of 7,000 to 8,000 from both sides. Armed conflict lasted until July 1971 with the expulsion of the PLO and thousands of Palestinians to Lebanon"

There is sitll dispute over the figures of the numbers killed.


For someone who makes big claims about the conflict, you seem very shaky on your grasp of the basic well-known history of the area. However you demonstrate very well the inherent racial bias of the despot and thug dominated UN.

29

FrancesP,

21/11/2007 16:36:37

"Four million bombs in one year? That's a lot of bombs. A quarter of them failed to explode? Thats a serious failure rate. I'd check these UN/HR figures very carefully."

I've seen some astonishingly weak arguments on these pages but that takes the biscuit. Can we just rubbish any fact we don't like on the grounds of 'gosh, that's an awfully big number'? Six million perished in the Holocaust in just a few short years - a mind-boggling figure yes, but it doesn't make it any the less true.

Pedantic fact correction - Jordan has made peace with Israel, as well as Egypt.

"...it is the factual intention of her neighbours to destroy the country." Denying a nation's right to exist is of course outrageous, but isn't that precisely what Israel has done to the Palestinians for the last few decades? Except of course in their case it's been rather more than an "intention".

Finally, do "democratic" cluster bombs sting less than any other sort?

30

Kobi,

21/11/2007 16:44:06

#29

"isn't that precisely what Israel has done to the Palestinians for the last few decades"

Except the Palestinians did not exist as a distinct "people" until 1964, when they were invented for political and tactical purpose. Up until then, and still, they are just another variety of Arab, as numerous other Arab leaders have confirmed over the years. Up until that point the "Palestinians" were largely Jewish.

31

,

21/11/2007 17:09:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1163040, Article id was mapped to record!
32

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares` 21/11/2007 17:10:24

#28 Kobi

Proving Guga/Nukem wrong is too easy.

Waiting for him to admit he lies

Better to wait for the Messiah

33

Big Alan,

21/11/2007 17:12:34

I wonder who makes the profit on selling these bombs?

Their victims are invariably innocent kids, just like the kids you can look out your window here and see playing down on the street.

Forget the hated that's causing it, look at whose legs it is blowing off.

34

Kobi,

21/11/2007 17:22:21

#33

"I wonder who makes the profit on selling these bombs?"

Your pension fund?

35

Kobi,

21/11/2007 17:27:38

"The United Nations and human rights groups accuse Israel of dropping about four million cluster bomblets during last year's war. "

Tanslation: we don't really know, but we don't like Israel so lets make it a really big number.

"Up to one million failed to explode and now endanger civilians in the area."

Translation: we have absolutely no idea, it could be three or it could be twelve, but we really hate Israel, so lets go for a really big number.

#29 "I've seen some astonishingly weak arguments on these pages but that takes the biscuit. Can we just rubbish any fact we don't like on the grounds of 'gosh, that's an awfully big number'?"

Translation: I have even less idea, but I just don't like Israel and all it stands for, but I do like the idea of a really big number that makes Israel look bad, so I'm gonna go with that.

36

Nuke EmAll,

21/11/2007 18:53:20

28. Kobi and home (various)

I apologise withour hesitation for erring regarding the Syrian affair, a truly awful occurence detailed by HRW on http://hrw.org/campaigns/september11/opportunismwatch.htm...

As for the "Black September in Arab history ", I thank you for the data and will look into it later.

So, such events are truly awful, we agree. Not only that but the justifications given for these tragedies were absurd, we agree.

How about you guys coming to the same conclusions on about similar events such as:

http://hrw.org/reports/2007/lebanon0907/ (targetting of civilians by Israeli forces)

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/qana1206/ (Israelis attacking ambulances and the attempt to cover up the act)

Back on thread, here's HRW on the use of cluster bombs: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/01/29/usint15212.htm

From the above: "Human Rights Watch’s extensive field research in Lebanon this past summer showed that the Israeli military launched many of its cluster munition attacks at or near towns and villages, in some cases against Hezbollah forces, but in many other cases with no evident military objective, according to Israel Defense Force testimony. Many of these towns and villages remained populated by civilians, whose presence would need to be taken into account before launching attacks.

Many of the cluster munitions used by Israel also failed to explode, leaving behind an estimated 1 million dud submunitions that are still at risk of exploding. Dud submunitions from cluster munitions have killed more than 30 people since the end of the war and injured another 18

37

mike - across the pond,

frances... AND nukem.... 21/11/2007 19:14:12

so you dont like weapons on either side...

great... stop supporting the simpering fools in the refugee camps... (btw refugee camps populated by people who are expatriates not of Israel, but of OTHER arab states)

they are playing it up for IDIOTS like you....

Gaza has the potential to be a really vibrant place... IF the fools would stop fighting long enough to allow it.... but vibrant is NOT their goal, is it?

cluster bombs ARE area denial weapons... and like it or not, by the "civillians" allowing activities like launching rockets to happen in their midst, THEY are placing themselves right smack in the middle of a war zone... unless you are going to claim that launching rockets is NOT an act of war... (dont want to live in YOUR neighborhood)...

unfortunately there is no such thing as a cluster bomb that will only blow up if it detects an adult male with bad intent... in which case the bad actors would switch to women & children... oh wait THEY ALREADY HAVE....

the act of going back in time to find the "original sin" is pointless... everybody has some excuse... somehow some way somebody has to say enough is enough... I guarantee rockets wont do it... area denial just might....

38

Nuke EmAll,

21/11/2007 19:17:37

31 Home

Iraqi reactor

Even the US, amazingly, condemned the act (even though the US had given them satelite images). (not to mention the bombing of the French firm's production unit and the killing of a nuclear expert in his hotel room: http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0695/9506081.htm)

Also, Israel finally gave notice to the world that it had the 'bomb' two weeks after the event. Bombing a nuclear reactor (in a pre-emptive stick without any international ageement nor proof of intent. Had the inspectors been there?) cannot in any way be regarded as 'sane' or 'moral', Home.

The logic that I fear you will adopt will be along the lines of, "It prevented even more deaths". Surely you realise that such justifications could be used by anyone for any reason. It was a barbaric act, Home. Admit it.

"Civillian city
Illegal military nuclear site
Even for a microcepahlic such as yourself, pretending they are the same is moronic."

It was a perfectly legal nuclear reactor with a civilian population surrounding it plus the capital was close by. As for the microcephalic routine: really? Fascinating. I did not "pretend" they were the same items, simply pointed the rather obvious fact that bombing a nuclear power station is derranged. To justify such an act takes real belief and extreme hatred.

What if Iran blows up an Israeli nuclear power plant with the same justifications? Would you agree to such a move on their part?

39

Nuke EmAll,

21/11/2007 19:23:51

38 mike: .."(btw refugee camps populated by people who are expatriates not of Israel, but of OTHER arab states)"---so, nobody was forced out of Israel either?


"by the "civillians" allowing activities like launching rockets to happen in their midst, THEY are placing themselves right smack in the middle of a war zone"...same could easily be said for the settlements and schools placed within rocket reach.

"unless you are going to claim that launching rockets is NOT an act of war."..well, did the UK government consider it an act of war when the IRA bombed London? Did they litter the border between NI and Eire with cluster bombs while they invaded (and got repelled from) Eire?

40

Nuke EmAll,

21/11/2007 19:36:21

35. Kobi

You will find that such items have a designed failure rate and, considering that the USA supplied the things, the rough quantities used are easily verified.

Of course, it would help if the Isaelis told the aid agencies where they placed the things. Not going to happen.

As for all this crud about the UN hating Israel; Really? Did the UN "hate" iraq too when they all gave the green light to murderous sanctions? Did they "hate" Iraq when GWI was given the green light? Did they "hate" Syria when they placed sanctions upon them?

41

Nuke EmAll,

21/11/2007 19:39:31

26 Sinnerman

Please tell me, otherwise I will not be able to sleep.

42

Taz,

The Land of the Free & Pumkin Pie. 21/11/2007 19:45:56

The quicker we get out the UN the better off we are. The least we could do for the moment is kick them the hell out of the US.

43

Kobi,

21/11/2007 19:50:58

#38

"It was a perfectly legal nuclear reactor"

That's where you are wrong. Iraq, as a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty, was not entitled legally to have nuclear facilities of the sort that were attacked at Osirak. The reactor was a materials test reactor (MTR), which is not particularly useful to countries which have no established reactor programs, unless they are interested in transmuting U238 to Pu239 to make a bomb, via the high neutron flux characteristic of an MTR.

It was part of Iraq's programme for developing nuclear weapons. Oddly enough, that's what Iran belevied as well, as they were FIRST to attack the site, when two of their F4 jets attacked in September 1980. Don't remember the Iranians being condemned for that attack.

44

Nuke EmAll,

21/11/2007 20:30:47

Well, they were at war and the Israelis did ask them to, nicely, one assumes.

As to the legailty: There's a sure fire way to find out: ask for inspections. To simply bomb the place is barbaric. As I keep asking, how would you feel if some country used similar justifications for bombing an Israeli 'power station'?

45

mike - across the pond,

nukem.... 21/11/2007 21:26:29

methinks ya stepped in it pal

"by the "civillians" allowing activities like launching rockets to happen in their midst, THEY are placing themselves right smack in the middle of a war zone"...same could easily be said for the settlements and schools placed within rocket reach.

well... IF the Israeli army had their bases in the middle of those settlements and schools we'd be right there on the same page... but you blew it pal... the rocket launchers are not attacking the Israeli army... they are attacking settlements and schools... the Israeli army are then attacking those who launch the rockets... pretty simple math there pal... 10 point IQ penalty for you... that makes you 0-1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
the IRA and the 1980's correct me if I am wrong.... but there was a significant UK military presence in Ireland... and I didnt support IRA actions either.. so I'm not quite sure what you are going on about...

and if you are stupid enough to think that the Israeli army was repelled well... think again....

oh-fer-TWO?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
yes, I believe israel DID force people out of israel, those who didnt belong there... the FACTS are that the arab nations (much like cuba did in the late 70's) forced many of there undesirables out of their countries... why SHOULD israel take in every undesirable? and please dont bother to make some stupid claim about how there are no arabs in israel.

and that makes you a big ZERO for THREE....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
so in your little world if Israel asked Iraq to do something you think they would do it?

sorry thats another 10 point IQ penalty on you....

46

Kobi,

21/11/2007 22:06:32

#44

"As to the legailty: There's a sure fire way to find out: ask for inspections."

The IAEA was monitoring. However, as the IAEA inspector Roger Richter pointed out, the IAEA monitoring program was not adequate.

47

Kobi,

21/11/2007 22:09:57

#44

"Well, they were at war and the Israelis did ask them to, nicely, one assumes."

Er, no. The Israelis had no contact whatsoever with Khomeini's regime regarding this.

And in case you didn't notice, Israel was still at war with Iraq from 1973. Iraq refused any form of peace treaty or formal end to the war, despite repeated Israeli requests. That war officially ended after the US invasion in 2003.

48

Kobi,

21/11/2007 22:13:43

#41

24 August 1929 was the height of the ethnic cleansing of the ancient Jewish city of Hebron by the Arabs, with the connivance of the British.

49

,

21/11/2007 23:43:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
50

,

21/11/2007 23:47:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
51

FrancesP,

22/11/2007 01:47:54

#35. Kobi.

My words don't need to be "translated" by you or anyone else - I was pretty forthright in my condemnation of Israel, so if I really did "hate" the country or its people I see no reason for you to doubt I would say so directly. As for me also hating what Israel "stands for", the obvious question in response is what exactly does it stand for? To the extent that it stands for democracy and the rule of law (if only for its own citizens) then I thoroughly commend what it stands for. On the other hand, to the extent it also stands for the utter subjugation and humiliation of the Palestinian people (and actions speak louder than words on that score), I'm proud to say I utterly deplore it.

Now back to your rubbishing of the figures on cluster bombs contained in the article. You're on extraordinarily weak ground here, and I suspect you know that perfectly well. Essentially you're saying "ignore the leading experts employed by the UN to reach the most accurate estimate possible, just use your own intuition and common sense - you know it's too high a figure to be believable." Except it isn't. All you have to do to work that out is re-read the end of the article, ie. "When cluster bombs are dropped they open in flight and eject hundreds of small bomblets across a wide area". The four million figure is for the individual BOMBLETS, each one of which has the potential to kill or maim an innocent child (or anyone else) for years after they've been dropped. Therefore even if you're stupid enough to favour your own intuition over the consider judgement of UN experts, the figure quoted is more than credible.

52

Nuke EmAll,

22/11/2007 04:12:24

Mike...u on something?

1. The Israelis do target civilians.
2. If you can't see my analogy regarding the IRA/Brit, then I can't help you.
3. If you really believe that, fine.

47 Kobi...read up on what the Israelis were saying at the time.

53

Kobi,

22/11/2007 08:48:12

#49

As the report makes perfectly clear, neither the UN nor the other groups actually know how many cluster bombs were used. They are guessing. Educated guess, perhaps, but still a guess. And the report also points out that it is UP TO a million unexploded, not actually one million unexploded. That is an even bigger guess. There is a failure rate, but nothing like 25% for these bomblets.

The UN has been way wrong before in figures over Israel e.g. the so-called massacre in Jenin when there were claimed to be hundreds massacred, and it turned out to be 56 dead, most of whom were Arab combatants. The UN has big history in this arena.

54

Kobi,

22/11/2007 08:54:16

#50

"47 Kobi...read up on what the Israelis were saying at the time."

The Israeli Chief of Army Intelligence urged the Iranians to bomb Osirak, but that is different from there actually being any contact. However, all you did claim was "the Israelis did ask them to, nicely, one assumes", so I accept you were right on that, so far as it goes.

55

thatscottishwoman+00,

22/11/2007 10:11:10

Whilst the numbers are, and will continue to be, debatable, the death and destruction that Israel's use of such weapons caused, and continues to cause, is not.

"What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster bombs," the head of an IDF rocket unit in Lebanon said regarding the use of cluster bombs and phosphorous shells during the war.

Quoting his battalion commander, the rocket unit head stated that the IDF fired around 1,800 cluster bombs, containing over 1.2 million cluster bomblets"

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761781.html

56

Number 6,

Reading my postcards from labour around the world. 22/11/2007 14:15:10

Oh how brave the Israeli army is. Cluster bombs, just about the most vicious of the conventional weapons, used against civillians, causing death and disfigurement for years to come. They must be so proud.

57

James Donald,

Croix d'Torfin 22/11/2007 14:34:20

#54. Number 6 - Israel could have minimised Lebanese casualties from unexploded cluster bombs by using the latest type but chose to save money and use up older US type bombs:
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1260&id=16885...

58

Rob M.,

Minnesota 22/11/2007 15:50:16

Funny how people justify their actions hurting others by citing how hurt they are themselves. You'd think they'd understand how it feels for the other guy.

59

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 22/11/2007 16:27:57

#54 Number 6

Actually, since you want to know, missles used against civillian cities, aree the most vicious of conventional weapons.

Except they arent conventional.
Know why?

Because they are WAR CRIMES!!! The people who commit such acts commit CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

But you want to whine about legal and legitamate means of waging war in your non stop efforts to attempt to deliegitamize Israel.

Want to fing something to whine about?
Whine about Hezbolah crossing the international border, attacking, killing and kidnapping Israeli soldiers and starting the war.
Even the leader of Hezbollah admits it was his fault and a mistake.

Or would that entail a level of honesty you cannot bring yourself to?

60

James Donald,

Croix d'Torfin 22/11/2007 17:29:30

Attacks on civilian targets are war crimes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5184122.s

+

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5249972.stm

61

FrancesP,

22/11/2007 17:34:06

#57. "Actually, since you want to know, missles used against civillian cities, are the most vicious of conventional weapons."

I'd have thought most people would accept that the 'viciousness' of weapons can only be measured by the number of innocent civilains they kill or maim in practice. The statistics from last year's war speak for themselves - ten times as many Lebanese dead as Israeli.

And it really is utterly superfluous to continue endlessly repeating the mantra "Hezbollah started the war". As far as I'm aware, nobody who's commented here is a supporter of Hezbollah or would remotely condone their attacks on Israel. What Israel had the right to do was act proportionately in self-defence, not to act in revenge by indiscrimately killing masses of innocent civilians.

62

Hyline White,

22/11/2007 18:52:23

Well said FrancesP.

It may be an idealistic view but I feel that the person/organisation with the most power has the responsibility to maintain the highest of moral standards.

Also, and it's the very essence of pre-emptive strikes, the justifications for violence given by one side can easily be used by the other. "War on Terror" as a justification for violence against states can go both ways.

63

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 22/11/2007 19:49:20

#59 Frances

In the first place, MANY of the posters here do csupport Hezbollah and their attacks on Israel and DO claim they were in their 'right' to act.

As to your perception of Israelis actions, war is indeed awful and civilllians do die. That said, Israels action were taken to prevent as many civillians losses as possible while Hezbollah hid in civillians areas and attaked fromn those areas. This is not 3rd grade where one can run and call 'base' and be free to kill at will.

The facts speak for themselves? 10 times as many criminals are killed by cops than cops by criminals. Obviously, the cops are 'vicious' according to your 'logic'

Dislike cluster munitions at will - lobby the wordl to get them outlawed and Israel will no longer use them.
But do not try to pretend they are what they are not.
Missiles launched at civillian cities. And missiles launched from civillian sites are both illegal. THe first is a War Crime. The second - well, perhaps you need to read the Geneva Protocols to know who is responsible when deaths occur from such actions or reactions.

Your personal view that Israel must sit there and take such punishment and then allow its people to die while trying to walk around Hewzbollahs illegal tactics shows an absurd bias.

64

FrancesP,

22/11/2007 20:46:18

#60. I've skimmed through this thread again and, although I may have missed something, I really fail to see what there is that would even begin to justify your charge that "MANY of the posters here do support Hezbollah and their attacks on Israel and DO claim they were in their 'right' to act". Perhaps it would help if you gave a specific example (although preferably one where you don't have to 'interpret' the words to make it fit your claim).

"Israels action were taken to prevent as many civillians losses as possible while Hezbollah hid in civillians areas and attaked from those areas." We're going to have to agree to disagree on that, because my whole point has been that there is ample documentary evidence to show that Israel did the precise opposite of what you claim - they took totally inadequate precautions to protect civilian life, hence the horrendous Lebanese death toll. It even seems that on many occasions the supposed presence of Hezbollah in an area was claimed simply to provide a flimsy pretext for an attack on civilians.

"10 times as many criminals are killed by cops than cops by criminals. Obviously, the cops are 'vicious' according to your 'logic'" That's a very telling analogy - if you really see everything through the prism of Israel being the 'law enforcers' and everyone they choose to attack being the 'law breakers', then it's little wonder you struggle to conceive of the possibility of Israel ever doing something wrong. On the other hand, it does mean you'll have to explain to countless bereaved families in Lebanon exactly what crimes their relatives were supposed to have committed, and on what authority the Israeli military snuffed their precious lives out.

"Your personal view that Israel must sit there and take such punishment and then allow its people to die while trying to walk around Hewzbollahs illegal tactics shows an absurd bias." This paraphrase of my 'personal view' in

65

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 22/11/2007 21:34:24

#61 Franced

In fact it is your personal viewpoints that are telling. My point about cops and criminals was not analogous, merely to serve to prove that your point that 'the facts speak for themselves' when looking at causalties is absurd.
Perhaps you didnt read where I said war is indeed terrible. Those families in Lebanon (and Israel) who lost loved ones are tragic. But this was not a war of Israel's choosing. It did not attack across the international border. It did not attack the armed forces of another nation. It was viciosly attacked in just such a manner after many other such deliberate provocations.

Porpotionate self defense in International Law includes the threat. Since Hezbollah had over 10,000 missiles which it had shown no hesitancy in shooting at Israeli cities, the threat was great. That you feel that Israel should not have responded as it did, but perhaps just shot when Hezbollah graciously left civillian areas (which they nevr did) or shot at Israeli troops from plaes where there were no nearby civillians (which they rarely, if ever did), allthe while taking large causalties of their own to enforce this policy of your which no nation on earht would or has done, is an example of the absurd bias which I pointed out earlier.

That you continue to blame Israel for civillian causalties in spirte of International Law shows the absurd bias to which you are still a victim. Call it pot and keettle is you wish, but perhaps you should learn a little international law BEFORE you go criticizing Israel for any and every action the results of which you disagree.

Convention (IV) Relative to The Protection of Civilian Persons In Time of War
Signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949

PART III Status and Treatment of Protected Persons "Section I. Provisions common to the Territories of the Parties to the Conflict and to Occupied Territories"

Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain p

66

FrancesP,

22/11/2007 22:08:22

#62. I did indeed read your view that war is terrible and civilians get killed. I suppose the reason I didn't refer to it directly is that is such a transparently poor excuse for Israel's actions. Neither you nor I would accept Hezbollah deliberately targetting civilians and then excusing the deaths with a shrug of the shoulder and an 'ah, but that's what happens in war'. I don't see why anyone should accept the same excuse from Israel when they fail to meet their OBLIGATION under international law to protect civilians - an obligation which, contrary to your claim, remained fully in force in spite of Hezbollah's tactics. The part of the Geneva Convention you conveniently missed out goes as follows - "Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence". The operative words are 'in all circumstances'. In plain English, Israel were permitted to carry out military operations in civilian areas where Hezbollah were present, but were not relieved of their duty to protect civilian life and limb as they were doing so.

I'm also almost certain you've completely misinterpreted the meaning of article 29 - the words "by its agents" merely imply that a country that kills "protected persons" are responsible for those deaths over and above any "individual responsibility" attached to the agents who physically carried out the killings. There is no licence given here for a country to kill 'human shields' and then blame those deaths on the other side. But perhaps someone with a legal background could confirm which of us is right (although I don't think anyone else is reading this by now!)

67

thatscottishwoman+00,

22/11/2007 22:40:48

#63 FrancesP:

"article 29 - the words "by its agents" merely imply that a country that kills "protected persons" are responsible for those deaths over and above any "individual responsibility" attached to the agents who physically carried out the killings."

You are correct. The country or state is (in addition to any individual culpability) accountable for the actions, and resultant outcomes, of its agents.

68

,

22/11/2007 22:41:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1166564, Article id was mapped to record!
69

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 22/11/2007 22:47:30

#63 Frances,

While you keep wanting to twist International Law for your own purposes, it does not say what yuo want it to say.
I am an attorney. I DO have a legal background. And you can Google it till the ends of time and you will find NO reference that military operations must cease and desist if there are civillians present.
In fact, any reading will say exactly what I stated - that the party who uses civillians as human shields IS responsible for any and all causalties that occur as a result.

In your reading, Hezbollah could shoot missiles at Israel from apartment buidlings non stop and Israel would just have to sit and wait unti they came out.

Even you would probably agree that to be absurd.

There is no 'blaming the other side'. International Law is quite clear. The party using civillians as human shields is responsible for ANY AND ALL injury or death that occurs to the 'rtected persons'. The goal being to make certain than no one uses civillians as human shields.

That Hezbollah cars little for human life even the lives of its co-nationals is proven by their actions. The fact that Israel did not just carpet bomb the entire area gives proof to your lie about their not taking reasonable care.

Again, do some homework and read and learn.
Your assertions evidence your absurd bias.

70

FrancesP,

22/11/2007 23:13:18

#65. "I am an attorney. I DO have a legal background". When I sought a supporting opinion I was rather hoping it would come from a relatively objective lawyer, not an arrogant, blustering, dogmatic propagandist. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, and I try my best to refrain from personal criticism, but I'm afraid that characterisation has been well and truly borne out by your comments thus far.

"You will find NO reference that military operations must cease and desist if there are civillians present." I can only point out yet again (sigh) that you are putting words in my mouth I simply did not use. I did not make that claim. I said specifically (in #63) that Israel had the right to carry out military operations in civilian areas where Hezbollah were present, but were still obliged to protect civilian lives in doing so.

"There is no 'blaming the other side'. International Law is quite clear. The party using civillians as human shields is responsible for ANY AND ALL injury or death that occurs to the 'protected persons'." If you really believe that's the case you'd better provide the evidence of where the Geneva Convention establishes that principle, because as I have demonstrated (and #64 confirms) it certainly isn't established in article 29 as you initially tried to claim. If you really are an attorney as you claim, and still managed to completely misinterpret the clear meaning of that article, it makes me wonder as to the qualifications required to become a lawyer in the US (I assume you're American from the way you write).

71

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 22/11/2007 23:20:30

Since you have nohing to say and no point to make, you obviously need to degenirate into name calling.

Enjoy your ignorance.

72

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 22/11/2007 23:25:24

For anyone who has an IQ above room temperature and wants to understand why Frances is ridiculously wrong

Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions, Article 51(7)-Protection of the Civilian Population, which contains the key rule regarding human shields, states, "The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military objectives."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PBZ/is_5_84/ai_n7...

73

FrancesP,

22/11/2007 23:29:50

No point to make? I made TWO direct points that you would hard-pressed to challenge credibly (and I notice you're not even trying).

But if that really is the end of the discussion - phew, nighty-night, and all that.

74

FrancesP,

22/11/2007 23:30:10

Ah, spoke too soon.

75

FrancesP,

22/11/2007 23:40:37

#68. If that is the 'key rule', you have comprehensively failed to prove your case. It simply confirms that Hezbollah were in breach of the convention by using the tactics it did, which I have not disputed once. It categorically does NOT relieve Israel of its duty to protect the lives of civilians even when they are being used as human shields, nor does it relieve Israel of its responsibility for civilian deaths that occur as a direct result of its actions. Ironically, it is the very article you quoted earlier that establishes that unambiguous responsibility.

76

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 22/11/2007 23:44:31

Yawn

Try doing some of your own homework.

Targets protected by human shields might still be attacked subject to the attacking party's obligations under international law to minimize collateral damage. Collateral damage usually occurs when attacks targeting military objectives cause civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects. It often occurs when military targets are located in urban areas. (29)

Principle of military necessity. Any attack must be justified by military necessity, which means attacks should be limited to legitimate military targets such as armed forces and civilian combatants; positions or installations occupied by armed forces, as well as objectives that are directly contested in battle; and military installations such as barracks, war ministries, munitions or fuel dumps, storage yards for vehicles, airfields, rocket launch ramps, and naval bases. Legitimate but not purely military targets are commonly referred to as dual-use targets and include infrastructure, communications, and military-industrial, military research, and energy production facilities. (30)

77

FrancesP,

22/11/2007 23:56:21

#72. Now we finally get to the nub. As I've said TWICE, Israel were permitted to carry out military operations in areas where civilians were present but - as you helpfully point out - were obliged to "minimise collateral damage". My case - as I said earlier - is that they signally and wilfully failed to do so.

Some more 'homework' for you (are all American lawyers so bratty?) -
"Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited...the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate...an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57."

I rest my case, m'lud.

78

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 23/11/2007 00:02:17

Microcephally run in your family?

Indiscriminate would refer to carpet bombing or unguided munitions. Since Israel did neither, your point, such as it is, is moot.

It does not say 'do everything possible including sacraficing troops or leaving the enemy unassailed' as your contention would imply.

An attack which may be considered to cause injury or civillian loss of life is SPECIFICALLY COVERED IN MY POST.

You keep wanting desperately to invent your own law.

Rest? You have not stated anything worth consideration.

79

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 23/11/2007 00:03:25

minimize collateral damage. Collateral damage usually occurs when attacks targeting military objectives cause civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects. It often occurs when military targets are located in urban areas.

Does minimize mean 'cause none'?

Or are you dumb dead wrong?

80

FrancesP,

23/11/2007 00:19:23

#74. Well, 'rest' was obviously a joke because I somehow knew that wouldn't be the end.

"Indiscriminate would refer to carpet bombing or unguided munitions. Since Israel did neither, your point, such as it is, is moot." Once again, you're making a point that I had already demonstrated to be wrong (do you actually read my posts?). "Indiscrimate" is defined in considerable detail in Article 51 of Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977, and as I showed in #73 that definition is considerably broader than you'd like us to believe. Who exactly is trying to invent their own laws here?

#75. Where did I claim that every single civilian death in Lebanon was avoidable? Exactly. Nowhere.

I really am going to call it a day at this point, so the floor's all yours. If, however, the next comment starts with yet another bratty comment about the size of my brain, I would just like to note before I go the supreme irony of your "degenerating into name calling" remark.

81

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 23/11/2007 00:25:50

There is no irony in my comment.
Since you proved that you would rather call names than discuss, the idiocy of you (and perhaps your family) was a valid point.

As to your 'point' - your quote also states "
which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated' and as I had already shown in 72
"Principle of military necessity. Any attack must be justified by military necessity, which means attacks should be limited to legitimate military targets such as armed forces and civilian combatants; positions or installations occupied by armed forces, as well as objectives that are directly contested in battle; and military installations such as barracks, war ministries, munitions or fuel dumps, storage yards for vehicles, airfields, rocket launch ramps, and naval bases. Legitimate but not purely military targets are commonly referred to as dual-use targets and include infrastructure, communications, and military-industrial, military research, and energy production facilities. (30)"

So when Hezbollah troops were hiding within civillian populations, " armed forces and civilian combatants; positions or installations occupied by armed forces" applies.

Indiscriminate would indeed refer to attacks which did not take into account enemy fighters (such as carpet bombing).
This is what is usually referred to a Black Letter Law. So clear that an idiot should be able to understand it.

So either you are being obtuse, or microcephaly must be a factor.
Which one?

82

FrancesP,

23/11/2007 00:46:36

I'm sorry to go back on my word, but I can't resist replying after that.

What you're saying - apparently in all seriousness - is that the widely-held view that Israel were in serious breach of international law last year can be easily explained away by the fact that every single person that espouses it is in fact congenitally stupid. In fact, they are so stupid, it is quite legitimate to insult not only those people themselves but also their entire families.

Well, who could possibly argue? I obviously misjudged you completely earlier - not a trace of 'bias', 'dogmatism' or 'bluster' in any of that.

Good night.

83

Lynne,

USA 23/11/2007 03:55:00

Frances P...those who hold that view do not want an Israel, want the palestinians to push it into the sea...are all for Hezbollah and Hamas and don't care a fig for a Jewish life.
Hezbollah crossed international lines to kidnap and kill soldiers..they are CONSTANTLY launching rockets into Israel.
If we all go by what you say..Israel just sits back, turns the other cheek and waits to be obliterated.
I am sure James Donald, GugaII, Halitosis, ThatScotswoman,Number6, Nuke'emAll would be thrilled.
And probably you. How long should Israel stay silent? How many rockets should be launched into Sderot before you give them permission to defend themselves?
How many times does one have to hear, Israel will not be recognized as a Jewish state? And how many times is Hamas going to reiterate that their Charter calls for the complete destruction of Israel befoe you decide to let Israel take up arms to defend itself?
Oh yes, and how many times is Hamas and Hezbollah going to use women and children, and schools, and homes to set up their launchers?

While Israel sits back and does nothing? NOT ON YOUR LIFE.
Your angry that more Arabs died, then more Jews.
Well, when you start a war...expect casualties.

84

FrancesP,

23/11/2007 05:27:41

#79. Lynne, I appreciate you're saying that because you feel it strongly (in contrast to others who seem more interested in the sheer fun of a slanging-match). But like Home Sweet Home, I would ask you to do me the courtesy of looking at what I actually SAID. I explained umpteen times that I accepted that Israel had every right to self-defence, but that I simply did not believe it had exercised that right proportionately, as the above discussion demonstrates it was obliged to do under international law. The number of civilian casualties was utterly horrendous, and many - not all - were clearly avoidable.

And the idea that somebody that holds my views "does not want an Israel" is actually quite offensive. There has been absolutely nothing in my words that would imply that I do not support the continued existence of Israel. Indeed, I recall applauding its commitment to democracy and the rule of law - although I noted it has not applied those principles in the occupied territories. Which brings me on to the obvious objection your comment raises. If Hamas and Hezbollah's mere AIM to destroy Israel as a state is being used to justify Israel's disproportionate use of force, what on earth would you say Israel's denial of the Palestinians' statehood as a PRACTICAL REALITY has justified for all these decades?

My own view - before you misinterpret it yet again - is that it justifies nothing but peaceful agitation against Israeli oppression. I'm just pointing out the blatant double standards that people have to resort to in order to defend Israel's utterly indefensible position. And it will remain indefensible until there is a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders - or until the Palestinians are given Israeli citizenship and the right to vote in Israeli elections (which they largely don't want but would at least represent another potentially just solution).

85

Lynne,

USA 23/11/2007 08:40:04

FrancesP .. Can you name another country that returned the land it has won in wars?
Why should Israel be expected to do that?
Then there is the fact that Israel HAS returned lands....the last being the Gaza Strip. This also in the hopes of peace..this also was a lie. As Hamas had promised not to use the land to launch rockets. That promise was IMMEDIATELY broken.
Now they are told that if they give the West Bank up, they will still be attacked.
Why should Israel sue for peace?
Also, in the time Gaza was returned..what improvements were made to it? Was a school, hospital or any other improvement done? No...just the now daily rockets launched from there.
Israel hasn't denied a Palestinian Statehood..the Palestinians never wanted it..they would rather go to war..and if you honestly believe pre-1967 borders will make a difference..than there is a bridge in Manhattan I have for sale..Interested?
They do not want an Israel. They refuse to recognize her as a Jewish State. As a matter of fact the reasons they give would make you laugh. There are more than 55 countries that make up the Organization of the Islamic Conference. They are recognized as Muslim States..Then the 22 members of the Arab League are universally accepted as Arab States..but they won't recognize ONE state as Jewish. The Palestinian Authority's head negotiator said the Palestinians would refuse to recognize Israel's Jewish identity on the grounds that "it is not acceptable to for a country to link its national character to a specific religion". !!!!! "There is no country in the world where religious and national identity are intwined". !!!! Are you laughing yet?
Argentine law MANDATES gov't support for the Roman Catholic faith. The Queen of England is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The Danish, and Swedish Royalty must be members of their respective churches.
The flag of Saudi Arabia has the Islamic declaration of

86

Lynne,

USA 23/11/2007 08:48:08

FrancesP...NukemAll can name all the resolutions he wants...we all know the UN has a Jewish (Israel)obesession..
With all that is going on in the world, all the genocides, the only thing that the UN does is give resolutions against Israel!! Oh Please. It's time for the most corrupt, inane organization of jokes to go.
They should pack up their bags, turn in their diplomatic license plates, pay the millions of dollars they owe the city of New York in fines...and go home. There is better ways to use that land and buildings.

87

James Donald,

Croix d'Torfin 23/11/2007 08:58:24

#80. FrancesP - You Really are wating your time with these 2 (Lynne and HSH aka Tikun) - the more you disagree, the more vitriol you can expect.
Have a read of this thread fro example:
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=946352007
You can expect worse insults than "obtuse, or microcephaly" if you continue to engage with those who are only here to spout propaganda.

88

thatscottishwoman+00,

23/11/2007 09:29:10

#79 Lynne:

I take issue, again, with your hypothesis that individuals who challenge the actions of the state of Israel "do not want an Israel".

As I have stated on numerous occasions, both Israel and Palestine exist, both are here to stay, both should be supported to work together to achieve a peaceful and secure outcome that addresses the fundamental rights and freedoms of all.

In my opinion the best way to achieve this is to involve all protagonists in the process, this includes elected and civil society representatives. If individuals and groups continue to be excluded from the process so too will the conflict continue to take the lives of innocents.

89

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 23/11/2007 11:54:29

#85

The Israeli attack was not a pre-emtive strike. It was in response to an Act of War committed by the Lebanese Hezbollah.

While Frances can go on and on about 'porpotionate response' and then cite the fact that others have stated equally absurd statmements, as he stated, the facts speak for themselves.

In International Law, the response must be relative to the threat - Hezbollah attacked Israel across the international border, killing Israeli troops and kidnapping others and precipitating a war.
Since they were known to have over 10,000 missiles and showed no predilicition to use them against ISraeli cities (a War Crime, I might add), Israel's response was less porportionate than the threat.
That Lebanese civillian suffered is factual - that Israel was better prepared and thus had built bomb shelters that over 1 million of its citizens practically lived in for over a month is also suffering and also ffactual.
That the suffering of both peoples wwas caused by Hezbollah too is factual.
That groups can whine about anything and do, especially when Israel is involved is sad, but factual as well.
So that several groups have whined is not a substitute for International Law. These groups will lambaste Israel for surviving while claiming they just want Israel to 'maintain the highest of moral standards'.

Unlike NATO in Afghanistan or the US/Britian in Iraq, Israel did not resort to mass aerial bombings. Their assault was tagetted at Hezbollah fighters and lines of suppply, communication and infrastructure, as dictated by the Geneva Protocols lissted above.
THat people want a 'fair war' where if one side hits a power generator, then the other side can. If one side hits and airport then the other countries airport too should be assaulted is absurd.
Israel followed the Rules of War as set down in the Geneva Protocols on War.
Don't like the Protocols? Lobby your government to change them and to enforce them a


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.