U.N.: Israelis Set Mines in Lebanon (AP)

[Eugene]

U.N.: Israelis Set Mines in Lebanon
U.N. mine action group: Israeli forces planted land mines
in Lebanon during summer war

BEIRUT, Lebanon, Nov. 25, 2006
(AP) A U.N. agency said Saturday that Israel laid mines in Lebanon
during this summer's war between the Jewish state and the Lebanon-
based Hezbollah group _ the first time Israel has been accused of
planting mines during the latest fighting.

The report by the U.N. Mine Action Coordination Center follows its
investigation of a land mine explosion Friday that wounded two
European disposal experts and a Lebanese medic.

The explosion was caused by an Israeli anti-personnel land mine placed
in a mine field newly laid during the fighting in July and August, the
center in south Lebanon said in a statement.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/25/ap/world/mainD8LK6EO00.shtml

[msmcghee]

1. Some info you left out. The next paparagraph says . . .

"Lebanon's south is riddled with land mines, laid by retreating Israeli soldiers who pulled out of the region in 2000, after an 18-year occupation. Hezbollah has also planted mines to ward off Israeli forces."

________________________

A couple of things come to mind from this article. First, it is my impression that land mines are not illegal. It seems there would be a strong incentive to use them - as they are the only practical way to deny enemy access to areas that you must defend other than having a permanent military presence there - like when protecting many miles of border border from people who cross it to kill and kidnap your soldiers.

The other question that comes to mind is whether the UN has seen the maps of the minefields that were laid by Hisb'allah.

[Scurrilous]

2. Four de-miners wounded in southern Lebanon

<snip>

"Four members of an international de-mining team have been wounded in an Israeli minefield in southern Lebanon, a UN spokeswoman said Saturday.

'A British and a Bosnian de-miner working for the London-based company ArmorGroup on a United Arab Emirates-funded project had their feet amputated after stepping on a landmine Friday,' UN spokeswoman Dalya Farran told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.

A third de-miner, a Lebanese, suffered injuries in the incident in Deir Mimas close to the Israeli border in southern Lebanon.

Investigators at first thought the explosions were the result of cluster bombs, but on Saturday a team from another London-based firm, BACTEC, went out to investigate and another British de-miner was wounded in what was proved to be a minefield.

'It was an Israeli No 4 anti-personnel mine. It was newly planted during the summer conflict,' the spokeswoman for the UN Mine Action Coordination Centre (MACC) confirmed of the blast."

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1225994.php/Four_de-miners_wounded_in_southern_Lebanon

[oblivious]

56. 800 uncleared landmine sites. I have so much respect for those de-miners.

These guys were trying to rescue a shepherd caught in a minefield.

[oblivious]

57. "At least 23 people have been killed and 136 injured by cluster munitions since hostilities ended"

[msmcghee]

59. I have great respect for the deminers and I'm sad they were injured.

My wish is to make them unnecessary by using the pressure and intelligent will of world opinion and institutions like the UN to remove the murderers who make land mines necessary - from power.

[breakaleg]

3. What I don't get is why Israel wouldn't tell the UN it had put them there, knowing

that UN forces would be in the area and that they would likely be found out.

But this kind of action by Israel is par for the course.

[msmcghee]

4. Maybe because they'd remove them . .

. . making it easier for Hisb'allah to cross the border to kill Israeli soldiers to start the next war with Lebanon that can be blamed on Israel.

Ya' think?

You do understand that land mines are a defensive weapon, don't you?

[breakaleg]

5. Did you read my post? I'm not going to write it again.

[cali]

6. Land mines are despicable

they maim and kill innocents for years and years after being deployed. I don't give a hoot whether they're for defensive reasons or not. I'm incredulous at your defense of this.

[Lurking Dem]

8. They ARE despicable.

Yet both sides are using them. Didn't the U.S. block some sort of effort to make these things illegal? Whatever happened to that?

I remember seeing a documentary once on land mines in Cambodia and the toll they still took. I don't know how you rid the world of these things but we have to start somewhere.

[breakaleg]

10. For the record, my post was questioning not why they had put them there, but

why they didn't notify UN forces who had been brought into the area, of their existence.

[Solo_in_MD]

88. I want to recall that they have

but its a weak memory...

[msmcghee]

9. Well, be incredulous then.

Perhaps you could save a little incredulity for the people attacking Israel across her borders making Israel's defense of her borders necessary.

I guess that would require actually looking at the situation objectively though and it might make Israel's enemies appear at least partially to blame for the land mines being there to start with. Can't have that can we?

I notice that Israel has no land mines along its border with Egypt or Jordan. I wonder why.

[cali]

11. Right. I'm just soooo anti-Israeli. Not.

and you damn well know it. Landmine use is an atrocity. I suggest you check out the link I'm providing to Sen. Leahy's fantastic work to establish a world wide ban on landmines. What's more I heartily condemn H'zbollah's use of landmines as well. That is equally despicable. Your blind, yes blind, support of Israel is simply the other side of the coin of the realm around here- blind support for the Palestinians and Israel hate on one side, and folks who will even support the use of landmines on the other. I don't think much of either position.

http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/landmines/index.html

[Boston Critic]

14. Please point to the threads...

...where you condemned Hezbollah's landmine use without first attacking Israel and then being prompted about hypocrisy.

I'd like to see landmine use banned, too, but I find people quick to condemn Israel while remaining silent about other states usually have a different agenda than they are proclaiming.

[cali]

17. Your hypocricy is noted.

On another ongoing thread you refuse to present posts demonstrating another poster's bias- a bias I happen to agree with- on the grounds that it's self-evident, and that it's a troll's game. Do your own damn research on my posting history, and then come back and apologize to me. I won't hold my breath, but calling me anti-Israeli is laughable.

As for my not having condemned Hzbollah in my first post; I responded to the OP, which neglected to mention that H'zbollah also used landmines. I don't need any prompting to condemn what I view as wrong, and if you were aware of my posting hx you'd know that.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. You agree with what Boston Critic said about another poster's bias??

I've just read the accusations against the poster in another thread and you agree with that? I hope I've misread what you've said, cali...

[breakaleg]

55. I'm pretty sure they meant it.

I think what people need to realize is that this is a message board and we respond to posts as they come up.

I don't think it's necessary in every post to make a statement on both sides of the conflict. If the subject is 'a family was killed by Israeli gunfire while they sleep', is it necessary for me to say that while I think that's terrible, I also think it's terrible that innocent Israelis are killed? Even when a death of innocent Israelis isn't the subject of the post?

That's what this place has been reduced to.

[Violet_Crumble]

58. I hope not...

I thought better of Cali than to resort to those clumsy tactics...

don't think it's necessary in every post to make a statement on both sides of the conflict. If the subject is 'a family was killed by Israeli gunfire while they sleep', is it necessary for me to say that while I think that's terrible, I also think it's terrible that innocent Israelis are killed? Even when a death of innocent Israelis isn't the subject of the post?

That's what this place has been reduced to.

I tend to agree with you there, especially on what this place has been reduced to in what seems to be merely a matter of weeks - it wasn't nearly this bad before I left on my holiday. What I find incredibly hypocritical is that most of those who are the loudest in demanding there be some ridiculous absolute equal criticism/blame/praise/etc ratio are the ones that rarely if ever criticise or blame Israel for anything and indeed will try to justify things that no left-winger should try to justify (eg bombing Gaza's electricity grid, the use of landmines, collective punishment)...

[breakaleg]

63. I agree.

I also think that if the type of statements that are currently being said against Palestinians, were instead being said towards Israelis, the posters would have been banned already.

[cali]

95. Violet, you know perfectly well I think

most folks here are hopelessly mired in hardened positions, that prevents them from giving the benefit of doubt to the "other". That includes posters who are pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli.

[msmcghee]

99. Here's another place where I agree with you, cali.

Hardened positions are usually accompanied by justifications that include a lot of emotional (and little rational) arguments. I think this thread was a very good example of that - although almost every thread in the I/P zone is emotional - because I/P is emotional. It's a human nature thing. Violent conflict is highly emotional - even just viewing pictures of it. Humans are naturally attracted to violence and also to choose sides in order to participate.

Billions are made in violent movies and video games that satisfy that need in vicarious, less destructive ways than real violence. I think that forums like DU are like a very low cost, interactive video game for many members. Their main reason for being here is the verbal violence they get to engage in with real people in real time. They hone their skills at couching their insults in terms that impact viciously enough - but don't get deleted. Then there's that "tombstone" looming in the distance if one doesn't figure out the actual unwritten rules of the game fast enough - or forgets them when responding to a particularly vicious insult. The more advanced players see getting their opponents TS'd as the grand slam and this skill seems to be most highly developed here in I/P .

I used to think there was a difference between the right and left - as to their ability to consider important questions dispassionately. After my few years here at DU I no longer believe that is true. It was just wishful thinking. The great majority of positions expressed here (DU) about important things like nuclear power, global warming, pollution, etc. are just as emotionally based as their counterpart on the right. There's just about as much rationality expressed here in these threads as there are on FR. And the very few rational arguments offered are just as violently attacked. There's nothing more disturbing than a rational argument that exposes one's own position as emotional hot air. These are often the target of the worst possible personal insults in threads at both DU and FR.

If anyone values dispassionate and logical discussion about these and other issues, the first step is to stop insulting people. Every insult causes a little "moment of online conflict" where one has been publicly insulted and feels compelled to answer in kind - or perhaps a little better. These escalate and I'll admit I am too easily drawn in.

A lot of "gnashing of teeth" and virtual "rending of cloth" is not a discussion. It's a small arena of (verbal) violence and soon everybody gets to take sides and join in the fun. The actual discussion of issues is left far behind and underlying emotionally held positions are hardened from each of the insults that were thrown. Sort a microcosm of the real world I/P conflict.

I greatly prefer the dispassionate discussion of issues to the verbally violent ones. Wiki has a very good, dispassionate explanation of land mines.

In case anyone wants to actually understand more about land mines - instead of reacting emotionally and calling people "scum" who see some justification for their use and try to discuss that justification - here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_mines

Here's one paragraph:

Land mines have two core uses - to create tactical barriers and as area-denial weapons. The latter use seeks to deny access to large areas, since they are often unmarked and affect civilian populations after the cessation of military operations or hostilities. When used as a tactical barrier, they serve as deterrent to direct attack from or over a well defined and marked area. Without land mines in the demilitarized zones (DMZs) of hot spots such as Cyprus and Korea it is conceivable that small raiding parties crossing though these barriers could have inflamed hostilities since all that would oppose them would be physical barriers (such as barbed wire, which can be easily penetrated) and opposition soldiers (whose use would naturally indicate open conflict). In this latter use, anti-personnel land mines keep hostile parties from fighting each other.

Other sections in the article discuss the drawbacks and anti-land-mine activism - for which I also agree there's a case to be made.

[Violet_Crumble]

103. That's not what you were agreeing with...

The poster was accusing breakaleg of some really ugly beliefs, but I know now after reading yr accusation about my POV in another thread that you and Boston Critic are not that far removed from each other when it comes to attributing stances and views to pro-Palestinian DUers that they don't hold. I won't include pro-Israeli posters, coz to be honest, I've yet to see you do that to any of the regulars...

[msmcghee]

15. This is what bothers me.

You are fast to condemn the use of land mines. Land mines are a defensive weapon. They are used to deny terrain to an attacking force. The choice to use them is usually not taken lightly. They are typically used in areas that an enemy might use to attack you - but where it is not so certain that you can justify the great expense of placing military units there permanently - and thereby reducing forces in more vulnerable areas.

So you place your units where an attack is most likely to occur. The land mines go where they are most appropriate and are part of a complete defensive plan. Yes, they will be dangerous to civilians even after a conflict ends - and it is unfortunate that they are needed at all.

But they are needed because Hisb'allah chooses to attack Israel repeatedly across that border. If that was not happening - they would not be there - i.e. no threat from repeated attacks across that border, no land mines.

That's like accusing someone who's house gets broken into repeatedly of attempted assault for placing a strand of barbed wire along the top of his fence. How about blaming the assholes that keep breaking in to his house who make the barbed wire necessary in the first place? Or, is that too much to ask from you.

[Boston Critic]

23. That really says it all

It's hilarious -- and also a bit sad -- watching people with one-sided agendas huff and puff about how even-handed they are.

If someone is trying to kill me or my family, I'm not the slightest bit interested in the validity of their grievances, or how hard a childhood they had, or whatever excuse is being made for their criminal, violent aggression.

Let the Palestinians agree to a complete ceasefire (unlike the phoney, one-sided truce Hamas offered and that Israel rightly rejected)and then their grievances can be addressed in peaceful negotiations.

Unfortunately, the anti-Israel crew really has contempt for the Palestinians as well, treating them like children who aren't responsible for their own actions.

[breakaleg]

28. If you are calling cali biased, then you need to do some reading.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

[cali]

26. Damn straight I'm fast to condemn the use of land mines

I stand with Senator Leahy on that issue. Again, I suggest you check out the links I provided.

Now how about addressing the fact that you know I'm not anti-Israeli, or has it slipped your mind that you complimented me for being fair minded?

[Boston Critic]

29. If you're truly fair-minded...

...no doubt I'll have the opportunity to compliment you again.

Here you were impossible to differentiate from the usual and predictable anti-Israel contingent. If that truly does not characterize you I apologize for the misunderstanding and suggest you remember that these debates are not taking place in a vaccuum.

[cali]

32. I suggest

that you review my posting history both in I/P and general- particularly during the Lebanon war. That should settle it. Yes, I'm critical of Israel. They're deserving of criticism. Yes, I'm critical of the Palestinians, too, and unlike you, I have sympathy for the vast majority of Palestinians, and for the vast majority of Israelis.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. I will say this...

Although I don't always agree with her, cali is one of the more fair-minded posters. She is, what I would call 'pro-Palestinian,' in that she favors the Palestinian cause, but not because she is anti-Israel, but for other reasons. She will also comment on Palestinian misdeeds, and has, at times, defended Israel. I figure she considers herself more neutral, but I can say she does not harbor a great resentment for Israel! There are a few others here like her, but sadly, they tend not to be as "loud" as she is, but you will see them pop in from time to time.

I understand it is hard sometimes to weed out the anti-Israelis and the pro-Palestinians (because there are more of the first, then the second), but, without a doubt in my mind, cali is NOT an anti-Israeli poster!

[cali]

34. Thank you bta,

I appreciate the clarification, and I think it's accurate.

[Boston Critic]

35. I stand corrected then...

I think you are mistaken in believing that the majority of Palestinians are not supporting the terror campaign being waged in their name. I wish that wasn't the case. If the Palestinians would give up the terror and show they are ready to live in peace with Israel, I think a peaceful Middle East could be one of the world's economic powerhouses.

That TRULY would be beneficial to the vast majority of Palestinians AND Israelis.

[cali]

37. And I think you're mistaken to

condemn most Palestinians, and to deny that they are living under occupation. I'd also suggest that your tendency as demonstrated on this thread to leap to conclusions, doesn't serve you well.

[Boston Critic]

45. They aren't living under "occupation"

...and now thanks to Israel hanging tough against Hamas, they will enjoy the benefits of a REAL ceasefire.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. Maybe you can clarify something, cali?

As those who praise you for being fair-minded have also in the past labelled me an anti-semite for my stance on the conflict, could you point out where the difference in our views is? I'm not quite seeing much of a difference :)

[Violet_Crumble]

102. Here's where the difference is...

While our POV on the main issues of the conflict appear to be the same, we differ when it comes to this forum and our interaction with regular posters here. Yr praised and told yr fair-minded not because of yr POV, but because you more often than not single out and attack people you consider to be pro-Palestinian and accuse them of behaviour and tactics that you rarely if ever accuse pro-Israeli posters of having, even though certain ones are text-book cases of what you claim you despise. Examples are accusing me of having a predisposition to blame Israel for everything even though my posts don't reflect that at all, telling a pro-Palestinian poster off and telling them they were using clumsy and disgusting tactics because they once made a clearly sarcastic comment about the Israeli govt. Yet one particular pro-Israeli poster who is notorious for constantly making sarcastic comments about the Palestinians hasn't been told the same thing by you. The double standard is noticed and that's what earns you the praise, and imo it's nothing to be proud of...

[Violet_Crumble]

82. Reading you and bta's posts reminded me of something...

In a recent thread bta made a bizarre and totally unfounded claim that B'tselem had an agenda that was biased against Israel. Only a few threads later, you made the same claim. I did ask you why you thought B'tselem was biased while you thought AI wasn't, but unfortunately it was a massive thread and my question was easy to miss. So I thought I'd ask it again here, coz I'm interested to find out how you came to that conclusion about B'tselem :)

[msmcghee]

38. If I complemented you for being fair-minded . .

. . then I'm glad I did that. I try to focus on your current post when I reply and not hold a preconceived idea about it. I figure each post is a separate expression of that person's thoughts that should stand on its own merit. I think you are wrong on this one.

No matter how fair you were on another subject - it is unfair to condemn someone defending themselves from attack. The question of which defensive weapons Israel chooses do defend itself is not even close to the question of who is attacking who - when looking at right or wrong.

Imagine your 15 yo kid comes home one day bloodied and beat up by the gang from down the street. When you find out that he had to swing a baseball bat at them before he could scatter them - will you punish him for not fighting fair and tell him he deserved it because he's a rotten kid who doesn't play nice with other kids?

Not only is this grossly unfair to your kid who just escaped with his life, but the worst thing is that now you've guaranteed that your kid is going to get jumped again, probably with knives next time - knowing you will side with them against your kid.

You're telling your kid that the "good people" in the world - that's you, you are his Mom - says he's a bad person and must be severely punished for defending himself from attack by a gang of thugs. What do you think that will do for him and his trust for you?

Some kids have been in his position. Their parents and teachers let them down like that and one day they decide the world is unjust and is stacked against them and that life is hopeless - and they just snap. Maybe they and a lot of other kids and teachers lose their lives who didn't have to on that day.

That's what happens when those in charge adopt the simple-minded position that the bad guy is not the one who started the fight. The bad guy is kid who didn't want to fight but managed to defend himself too well.

What are you people thinking?

[cali]

40. Sorry, you're wrong.

And your excuses for the use of landmines are disturbing. Landmines need to be banned. There is no excuse for their use.

[msmcghee]

43. You say, "Landmines need to be banned . .

. . There is no excuse for their use."

Not even saving the lives of your family on the other side of that line of land mines? Are you saying that if land mines were the only thing that could save your family from death . . that wouldn't be a good enough excuse for you.?

That defies all credulity.

And, "And your excuses for the use of land mines are disturbing."

Disturbing? It's disturbing that someone would want to defend the lives of their family from thugs and murderers who have attacked them in the past?

Certainly you can explain yourself better than that. Make a logical case why you are more concerned about what weapons someone uses to defend themselves from attack - than the fact that someone attacked them to start with. Just how does that work in your world?

[Solo_in_MD]

89. Legitimate tool of warfare

And no prosect of that changing or mines going away in the foreseable future.

[oblivious]

92. Legitimate, sure. Do you puff out your chest when you say that?

Indiscriminate anti-personel mines that keep on killing innocents decades after a conflict has ended are hardly legitimate.

Why do you think 75% of the world's countries have pledged not to use them, and all but a tiny handful of the rest do not use them.

And there is indeed some prospect of their going away in the foreseeable future, with just 3 or 4 governments using them any more.

[Solo_in_MD]

94. They have specific tactical uses for which there is no alternative

Unless one is found, expect them to stay in use. Note that the rules for use are well defined, including mapping and maintenance of those records. Some newer US mines have a time based safety as well, but it is not perfect.

I've seen the results of mines and boobytraps first hand. I know the horrific injuires they inflict. However, mines are cheap, effective, and the stockpiles are massive. To expect them to go away is foolish.

[frylock]

70. poor widdle iswael..

all they do is mind thier own business... on stolen and occupied territory.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Boston Critic]

13. To contrary, I've never said anything remotely like you claim

My objection is to the hypocrisy of people who say nothing about terrorist attacks on civilians, but have a laundry list of complaints against the terrorists' victims.

If the Palestinians would kick out Hamas and elect a leader who would agree: a.)Israel has a right to exist, b.)we should have an immediate and COMPLETE ceasefire, and c.)we should negotiate a peaceful two-state solution, you'd find me applauding. The problem is that Hamas *rejects* all three things.

When I see a handful of far lefties betraying the longstanding Democratic support for Israel and, instead, blaming Israel as the primary obstacle to peace, I will point out the hypocrisy, the lies, the errors, and the propaganda in those statements.

It's not "nationalism." It's called honesty.

[IntiRaymi]

16. "If this, if that" - you are ignoring what is actually going on.

Quit speaking in hypotheticals, and pay attention to what is actually going on.

That is the basis of my statement - you turn a blind eye to these things, due to your obvious indifference to palestinian victimhood.

[Boston Critic]

19. I do pay attention what is going on...

...that's why I'm appalled at your hypocrisy. The Palestinians have brought this on themselves. They back corrupt leaders like Arafat and then terrorists like Hamas. They teach their children that martyrdom is good, and if you can kill and maim Israel children, teenagers, grandparents, supermarket shoppers, commmuters, college students, etc. so much the better. I read about the latest suicide bomber -- a grandmother! -- and I wonder what sort of sick culture would arm an old lady with a bomb and send her to go kill people?

Let the Palestinians finally end their terrorist campaign -- completely, not piecemeal -- and support a full truce, as Israel has offered. Let them finally recognize Israel's right to exist (Hamas as renounced all past agreements). Let them have an honest leader finally willing to negotiate in good faith as Arafat did not.

THEN they'll have a claim on my sympathy. Until then, they are the problem, not the victims.

[IntiRaymi]

21. I have mentioned elsewhere this:

That such obvious enemies of palestinians are here, in full force, explaining the palestinian perspective to us 'ignorants.' It is not surprising, then, that it turns out that it is the palestinians that are actually at fault when Israel does anything bad to them.

In other words, I will not pay much attention to the letter of the statements you make on these issues - what I will pay attention to, however, is your lack of adherence to any sort of progressive ideals on the issue of human rights in Gaza, essentially, to the spirit of your posts.

Cue the accusations of disregard for Israeli victims...

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IntiRaymi]

62. Never said that.

... so now there is no question that you have little interest in the Israeli civilians *targeted* by your beloved Palestinian terrorists.

But if a -> b, then perhaps b -> a ?? So how about this:

... so now there is no question that you have little interest in the Palestinian civilians *targeted* by your beloved Israeli terrorists?

People are under more state sponsored terror at the receiving end of Israeli's military apparatus. What is not-so unique about you is that you exhibit blatant disregard for PEOPLE not 100% in line with your favored organization. Any mention of Palestinians is met with vicious attacks, accusation made point-blank of an existence of disregard for israeli lives.

Once again, if israeli lives are so important to you, I suggest you take up the cause of crime in Israel, since these are a far bigger threat to israeli life & limb than these Famous Qassams have proven themselves to be. And if you do so, you will have the luxury of actually being right, for once.

[MrPrax]

18. Boy you showed them!!

But the part I don't get is, 'why exactly is being anti-Israel considered some grave act of omission to you is really quite deluded. OK they maybe anti-Israel and OK Hezbullah uses landmines...but what does this have to do with the OP that is about Israel planting landmines in another country?

The OP doesn't mention hardened Hezbullah jidahists being injuried by the cleverly placed landmines that thwarted their invasion plans? The people injuried were from the UN-directed teams who were hurt while tasked with the job of removing THESE LANDMINES placed by Israel just recently.

Now why exactly if someone having read this story as well as the many many others posted here, there and everywhere by supporters and detractors alike, then comes to the conclusion that 'they don't like Israel much', is proof to you of anything other than the fact 'they don't like Israel much' is really quite extraordinary.

You make it seem like it's a bad thing to no longer accept the excuses of war criminals and their stomach-turning arguments and monstrous justifications for killing children? Nobody is required to carry the Zionists' cans on their little excellent adventures anymore, pal. You shouldn't either if you want anyone to take you seriously...

[Boston Critic]

20. Why should I believe anything the UN reports?

You need to get out into the real world and realize that when the UN reports something it probably isn't true, particularly in the Middle East. Remember the Jenin "massacre" that turned out never to have happened?

The UN is not at all a reliable source. Someone was injunred by a landmine and pronounces, after the fact, that they "know" it was Israeli. I consider the source and, as any rational and informed person would, decide it lacks credibility without further support.

I also see plenty of posts blaming Israel for everything under the sun, most lacking even the most basic knowledge of the history or current facts of the region. So don't be surprised that your empty post isn't taken seriously.

[IntiRaymi]

22. If the UN says anything bad about Israel, then it is obvious.

The UN is the enemy.

This is a good example of israeli paranoia at the world that surrounds it.

[Boston Critic]

24. Back here on Earth we call it...

realism.

The UN's longstanding record of anti-Israel bias is beyond denial.

[IntiRaymi]

27. Back in Israel, it is called paranoia.

You are not on earth, since that is what the UN represents.

[Boston Critic]

30. You are mistaken...

The UN no more represents Earth than George Bush represents the United States. I can't believe anyone would make such a ridiculous claim.

It's an institution we're stuck with for the moment (like Bush) but it utterly fails in its job, unless you imagine its job is being a force for evil at worst and indifference at best.

[IntiRaymi]

60. Oh, but it does.

It is the only worldwide organization in this capacity, in this present day.
It certainly represents the world's interests more than the USA-Israel axis does. And silly you, to define good and evil from your own peculiar perspective - this goes a long way towards explaining this fantasy world of yours.
Ever wonder why you are constantly going against the grain?

[MrPrax]

31. "basic knowledge of the history"?

OK...let's test your knowledge.

You said you don't listen to the UN, but then you mention the Jenin 'massacre'???? Um...the UN report absolved Israel and said there wasn't a massacre? So I assume from this that you either think there was a massacre and the UN is probably lying about it or your irredeemably stupid?

BTW -- the people claiming this are not just 'someone' but trained British military specialists who can probably identify these things quite easily...are they also out to get Israel? Is that why they are lying? They want to kill jews too, right?

[Boston Critic]

36. Yes, FINALLY they admitted they were wrong about Jenin

...but that's like that moral idiot Kofi Annan rushing to condemn Israel's attacks on Lebanon and only belatedly admitted that it was Lebanon's attacks that pushed them into it.

And do you really want get into Britain's sorry track record in the Middle East? They helped create much of the problems that exist to this day.

[Englander]

98. About Jenin.

I've changed my view about that. I've referred to what happened there as a massacre, I shall no
longer make mention of the Jenin massacre, but shall instead refer to what happened as war crimes.

From 2002;

'Monday, 4 November, 2002, 05:48 GMT
Amnesty says Jenin operation 'war crime'

By Ian MacWilliam
BBC News
The human rights organisation, Amnesty International, has accused the Israeli army of committing war crimes during its incursions into the West Bank towns of Jenin and Nablus earlier this year.

In a new report, the London-based organisation says that some of the actions carried out by Israeli forces during their military operations between April and June breached the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The Amnesty report, some details of which were released in April shortly after their investigation, is also critical of an earlier United Nations report on the Israeli incursions.

The group calls upon Israel and the international community to investigate those responsible.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2396071.stm

___________


Israeli war crimes committed in Jenin and Nablus must be investigated

The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) committed war crimes in Jenin and Nablus in March and April 2002 during Operation Defensive Shield, states AI in a new report.

Human rights violations by Israeli forces included unlawful killings and the wanton destructions of hundreds of homes, in some cases with the inhabitants still inside. In one case 10 members of the Shu'bi family were buried alive under the rubble of their house in Nablus for six days - eight of them died and only two survived. In Jenin refugee camp and Jenin city, more than half of the 54 Palestinians who were killed in the IDF incursion between 3 and 17 April appear not to have been involved in fighting. Four of those killed were children. Other human rights violations include torture and ill-treatment of prisoners; the blocking of ambulances and denial of humanitarian assistance; and the use of Palestinian civilians as "human shields".

While Israel has the right to take measures to prevent unlawful violence, in doing so it must not violate international law. In Jenin and Nablus, the IDF blocked access for days to ambulances, humanitarian aid and the outside world while the dead and wounded lay in streets or houses. In Jenin a whole residential quarter of the refugee camp was demolished, leaving 4,000 people homeless.

AI submitted most of the cases detailed in the report to the IDF for comment but, despite repeated promises, no response has yet been received. All attempts to end human rights violations and install a system of international protection in Israel and the Occupied Territories, in particular by introducing monitors with a clear human rights mandate, have been undermined by the refusal of the government of Israel. The USA has consistently supported the Israeli position, effectively leading to inaction by the international community.

AI reiterates its call for the international community to stop being an ineffective witness of the grave violations that take place in Israel and the Occupied Territories. Stressing that there will be no peace or security in the region until human rights are respected, it urges meaningful, urgent and appropriate action.

http://web.amnesty.org/wire/December2002/Israel

____________


Israel and the Occupied Territories
Shielded from scrutiny: IDF violations in Jenin and Nablus

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE151432002?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CISRAEL/OCCUPIED+TERRITORIES

[MrPrax]

100. Agreed...

I didn't doubt the original claims for a minute...my love affair with Israel ended well before that massacre. Sometime in the 90s with another peace process that came crashing down, I started to believe the cynics from the 80s that were saying that Israel had invented a 'two state solution' and the various Peace groups simply because they were getting international heat over Sabra and Shatila and the fact that it's close ties to South Africa were coming under increasing scrutiny. Best defense is an offense and so Israel then disingeniously paid lip service to 'peace' while the whole time expanding the settlements (all illegal regardless of how kind Barak's gift was -- rem that one!). So by the time Israel had more or less declared itself an enemy of peace with the Sharon election and March.

The pattern is the same -- whenever they get too close to peace, Israel does something that destroys the process. At one point, they had Arafat locked up in his compound practically under house arrest demanding something that nobody even remembers, but, by Jehovah, at the time, it was of serious import to the very survival of the Israel.

At this point the biggest threat to Israel's survival are mostly the actions of Israel and the compulsive and pathological lying and propaganda that is done more to control the minds of the 'supporters' and 'citizens', than convince anyone outside that increasingly small circle. A lot of this propaganda is so shamelessly bad, that I figure it's more a 'gut check' for the their fanatics to see how much they can convincingly swallow.

The big Achilles heel for Israel is attracting people -- Israel needs to manage it's international perception because they need Israel to look good enough to Jews that might consider returning there. That's also why they have to cover up their ethnic cleansing and it's also why they avoid international tribunals that might place financial judgments against them -- it's hard to attract people if people figure that will get stuck with huge reparations.

If you notice the same Israel attack script was used and you probably found that Human Rights Watch (oddly enough) also condemned both the massacre and the UN report's omissions. It was like deja vu when HWR sheepishly used the word 'war crime' in it's Lebanon report. Israel went on the attack. There have been tons of massacres of various size and length...I am not too sure whether was they did in Jenin was even as bad as what they did in Rafah.

It was during this period that Corrie was murdered. Israel ended up reducing nearly 80% of the town, openly massacred unarmed protestors and ended up displacing 16,000 people. In Israel's eyes, Rafah was a successful operation because they managed to stay on top of the information

[IntiRaymi]

101. Israel does not subscribe to the 4th Geneva Conventions:

This is a mistake many people make concerning Israel - that the government, and perhaps even the people within it, CARE about these things. I am posting statements made by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), since anything else would likely elicit the usual slander:

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/UnitedNations_94/3468_94.asp

Israel rejects applying the 4th Geneva Convention to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, stating that those territories were captured in 1967 as a result of a defensive war against countries which had illegally occupied them since 1948.

Switzerland is the Depository for the 4th Geneva Convention. This means that the Swiss are technically responsible for organizing and convening a meeting of the signatory nations. However, the Swiss may only convene the meeting if a majority of the signatory nations agree to do so.

ADL has vigorously opposed convening the Fourth Geneva Convention in regard to Israeli settlements arguing that it could dangerously politicize the international legitimacy and high standings of the Geneva Conventions. It could open a Pandora’s box across the globe haphazardly applying the convention to a plethora of nations. Furthermore, it would give credence to the Palestinian tactic of using the international community to air grievances regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and thereby threatens the peace process itself.

I get the sense that there is a vile, arrogant attitude emanating from these stances. According to the ADL, the Palestinians should not have the right to speak to anyone other than Israel concerning what Israel does. And, on the heels of Jenin, it is quite obvious that speaking to Israel is like speaking to no one.

Thank goodness for the interest that Israel has in maintaining the semblance of a positive public image and the action of internet activists. Hit them where it hurts, till they learn to respect human rights.

[breakaleg]

90. I didn't condemn Israel for their use of land mines. I merely asked why they

didn't tell the UN they had put them there. Surely the land mines weren't meant to harm the UN.

And secondly, you say I missed an opportunity to condemn Hezbollah. What opportunity? What has Hezbollah do to with this thread?

[Behind the Aegis]

91. From the article:

"Lebanon's south is riddled with land mines, laid by retreating Israeli soldiers who pulled out of the region in 2000, after an 18-year occupation. Hezbollah has also planted mines to ward off Israeli forces."

That should answer: 'What has Hezbollah do to with this thread?'

[breakaleg]

93. and if you look at the OP it states that land mines were placed there

by Israel, this summer, and that it was an Israeli land mine that caused this incident.

[Behind the Aegis]

104. You really should read the WHOLE article and not JUST the clipped...

...portion of the OP.

[breakaleg]

105. Talk about missing the point of the article!!!!!!

That line you quoted was in there. It was not the focus of the article, it was mentioned in passing and nothing more. But I can see how someone looking to direct any blame or resposibility away from Israel would notice it, focus on it and run off in another direction.

Seriously, if you can't read that article and figure out what the main point was, there is nothing I can do for you.

[Behind the Aegis]

106. Re-read your own posts!

You asked what it had to Hizb'allah. I pointed it out! You seem to have missed the point that some of the mines have been there for YEARS! Some of those mines were planted by the group that "defended" Lebanon for the "evil Zionist Empire," yet you seem to have missed that point. I don't expect you do anything for me, as I am quite capable....I am not the one asking what as article has to do with something that is STATED in it!

[breakaleg]

107. You asked me to comment on something as if it were a highlight of the article.

It wasn't. But I see you've managed to turn the focus of the article away from what it actually said. I wonder why?

[Behind the Aegis]

108. I didn't ask you to comment on anything.

You asked a question and I answered, you just can't admit you were mistaken.

[oblivious]

39. I think anyone who defends the use of landmines by Israel or Hezbollah is scum.

I am ashamed to be a part of the same community as them.

[cali]

41. And I think calling people scum

is reprehensible. There's something really, really wrong with people who label other people scum.

[oblivious]

42. Unbelievable. That you would save your worst for those who condemn land mine use.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oblivious]

46. When people here on DU are defending land mine use, it has become a cesspool.We can't go any lower.

Is my use of the word 'scum' in this context remotely comparable to statements by others defending land mine use?

[msmcghee]

47. Since I'm the one only defending land mine use . .

. . perhaps you'd like to explain to me why defensive land mines are such a terrible crime and worse than the thousands of rockets fired over Israel's northern and southern borders over the last few months, killing and maiming many innocent Israelis - the rockets that are part of the attack that made the land mines necessary.

You are saying that a defensive weapon placed in the possible path of an infiltrating enemy who has sworn to kill you - and has tried before - is worse than say a Katyusha rocket, filled with ball bearings and high explosives and sent off toward population centers with the sole purpose of killing civilians at random.

Let's see. A defensive weapon laid specifically in the path of someone repeatedly trying to kill you is bad - but a rocket designed to kill random Israelis with high velocity ball bearings is OK?

But then, maybe I'm bigoted and I hate all Palestinians. Maybe you could explain your reasoning on this.

Added on edit: A good case can be made that if there had been more land mines in use by Israel, the squad of terrorists who killed several IDF and kidnapped two others on Israel's side of the blue line - maybe never would have made it across the blue line to start with. Those IDF soldiers would still be alive - the war would not have started - a few dozen Israeli citizens would not have been maimed and killed by the Katyushas - Lebanon would not have suffered billions in damaged infrastructure and over one thousand Lebanese would still be alive today - but are actually dead.

And the important thing for you is that Israel used land mines to defend itself along that border. And people like me who defend that use are just scum to you.

[oblivious]

48. Because they are "placed in the possible path of children walking to school,farmers working the soil

...livestock and so on.

The unintended consequences last decades. They have killed or maimed over a million innocent people around the world in the last generation.

Oh what's the use.

[Lurking Dem]

49. Here, msmcghee

Read some of this. You know I am very much a pro-Israel partisan. But there very much needs to be an international ban on these things.

http://www.icbl.org/problem/what

[msmcghee]

51. Don't think I like land mines.

I also don't like hand grenades, rpg's, AK47's, M16's, APC's, tanks, F16's, or smart bombs.

I don't think that all the land mine fatalities in the world for the last 100 years - would amount to a fraction of all the innocent women and children and non-combatants who have been killed by any one of those other weapon types during the same period.

My point is not that land mines are good. It is that people who attack others, who make defensive weapons like land mines necessary - are bad. They must be condemned - not those who use whatever weapons are available to defend themselves from them.

You have to understand something. When people are defending the lives of their families you can not expect them to do less than everything they can to defend themselves and their lives. You can not expect them to choose a less effective weapon or less cost-effective weapon - and have more of their citizens die for that decision - for any reason on earth.

Please explain to me how you can sit here in the USA behind your keyboard and tell Israeli citizens that its OK for more of their families to be killed - because they shouldn't use the most effective defensive weapons available - because those weapons have the unfortunate side effects that a small number of civilians on the other side might be killed or injured at some time in the future.

I find your sense of sacrifice - of other people's lives less than admirable. Just how many Israeli lives are you willing to demand that they sacrifice to your God of war-correctness?

I'm not trying to glorify land mines - I'm trying to make them relics of the past by condemning those who make them necessary. When the world rises up and says enough killing, enough attacks against civilians for past insults, whatever they are. When the world says we will no longer let you get away with it. When simple-minded people in free countries with well-defended borders stop making excuses and justification for thugs and murderers who attack others to get what they want.

That is the only way that the deaths and maiming from millions of land mines will ever decrease in the future.

I am actually the only one here who actually wants to see a reduction in land mine fatalities and is willing to face reality and human nature as it exists - in order to do the only thing that will actually end or decrease their use and the terrible human carnage they will cause.

[breakaleg]

52. So, as long as someone pisses someone else off, then all means of

defense are necessary.

Tell me more about these defensive weapons you mentioned. "The question of which defensive weapons Israel chooses do defend itself.." Are they different from other weapons? What makes them defensive only? Do they not kill innocents?

Or was that just more Israeli PR you copied from?

[msmcghee]

54. I will patiently try again to explain what you refuse to see . .

. . because you won't like the conclusions as they would apply to your Hamas , Hisb'allah, IJ and Fatah friends who's actions you love to defend here.

During times of calm, peaceful nations who expect attack from their neighbors need to defend their borders. It's not an easy task because the enemy will try to attack where you least expect it and where you have the weakest defense.

Land mines allow the defender to close off some avenues of attack - leaving more troops and armor to defend more easily defended avenues of attack. That means that a nation defending itself under some circumstances can expect to suffer fewer causalities and better defend the lives of its citizens by using land mines as one element of their defense.

Neither you nor anyone in the world has the moral standing to tell someone under mortal attack and whose family is threatened by terrible and indiscriminate offensive weapons - that they should choose a less effective strategy for their defense because land mines seem so "cruel" to you.

PS - After reading your post again - it almost seems like you were suggesting that land mines were offensive weapons - and therefore morally equivalent to rockets filled with ball bearings and fired at civilian centers. Please tell me you at least understand that very basic difference.

[breakaleg]

65. This is what I don't get about you!

You start off with that same condescending tone "I will patiently try again to explain what you refuse to see" and then the insults begin "...Hisb'allah, IJ and Fatah friends". Friends? Are you completely fucking insane? Because I find it offensive that Israel has "accidentally" killed so many Palestinians with their "defensive weapons" I am now friends with all these groups?

That is the reason people don't answer your questions.

[msmcghee]

67. When someone condemns Israel for using an effective defensive weapon . .

. . to save its citizens' lives - they are effectively defending those who are attacking Israel. They are saying that they wish Israel's enemies greater success in their offensive attacks - because that would be the result if Israel stopped using those weapons.

The reason you don't answer my questions is because you can't.

[breakaleg]

73. First of all, where did I condemn Israel for using land mines?

I said nothing one way or another about them and if you read my posts you'd know that.

My comments to you were about the term defensive weapons. If you know anything about linguistics you'd know where I was going.

So, either you are directly your comments / accusations at me in error, or you've again chosen to put words into my mouth. Either way, it doesn't matter much to me.

[msmcghee]

75. Post 52. n/t

[breakaleg]

76. I read it many times. You are dreaming.

The quote in that was from a post of yours above but I posted it there as this thread was getting messy and this was where you were actively posting at the time.

[msmcghee]

78. My previous post to yours was titled . .

"Don't think I like land mines." In it I explained that all weapons are bad but that we can't limit a nations defensive use of land mines to protect their citizens' lives.

You then started the next post with,

"So, as long as someone pisses someone else off, then all means of defense are necessary."

So yes, that is the use of sarcasm to condemn Israel for using land mines, IMO.

But, I could be wrong.

I didn't get from your statement that you are you now saying Israel has the right to use land mines in its defense? Were you? If so, we agree.

[breakaleg]

79. This was what got me into this thread:

"It is that people who attack others, who make defensive weapons like land mines necessary - are bad." You make it seem like the use of land mines is justified as long as someone (a bad guy, in this case) does something to piss another person off.

And I again got into this thread due to your choice of words. You are using linguistics to make statements that run a little deeper than the words appear on the surface. I find it interesting because Israel does the same thing. Instead of using words like "occupied territory" let's call them "disputed territory" - kind of dulls the edge a little bit. Instead of referring to a specific settlement as a settlement they call it a neighborhood. All meant to sway public opinion, to distort the facts, in subtle little ways so that it becomes ingrained and pretty soon we forget the facts.

I made no mention of Israel but was referring to land mines in general. In fact throughout this thread I've said very little and my only real point I made related to the OP was why didn't Israel tell the UN they were there so they could be aware of them and look out for them? I think many others have made enough statements about the use of land mines already and didn't need to insert my 2 cents.

[msmcghee]

81. In Israel's case in the ME . .

- none of her enemies are just trying to "piss her off". They are trying to destroy Israel. Your analogy is simple and stupid IMO.

[breakaleg]

83. what a surprise.

[oblivious]

87. disputed rather than occupied; neighborhood instead of settlement. Thanks for pointing that out.

I'll have to pay more attention to the framing used to shape these issues.

[cali]

97. You've repeated so much bullshit in this thread

that it's ridiculous. Landmines as defensive weapons are bullshit. Israel placing landmines in Lebanon to prevent the hordes of H'zbollah from attacking Israel, more bullshit. That is not legitimate action and it kills innocents far into the future. Can you criticize Israel on anything?

[Lurking Dem]

61. Goody.

I find your sense of sacrifice - of other people's lives less than admirable. Just how many Israeli lives are you willing to demand that they sacrifice to your God of war-correctness?

I can be misrepresented and attacked from both sides now!

[msmcghee]

64. Those are strong words, I can see why they seem like an attack.

They are a case for my position. I think you are correct on most opinions you express here. I think you are wrong on this one.

Consider the example a heartfelt opinion. I may have overstated it. This subthread started with one poster calling me scum if you remember and I might be feeling a bit defensive myself.

But the underlying logic is correct IMO. Do you really think it's OK for some folks in this country to tell Israel that some of their mothers, fathers and babies should die because we don't like their choice of weapons?

[cali]

96. My worst?

Hardly my worst. I suggest you check out some of my other posts to people defending the use of landmines, but I do have a thing about people referring to other people as scum. I hate it. I think it's wrong, and I called you on it. And seeing as I have repeatedly and harshly condemned landmine use in this very thread, you're twisting my condmenation of the use of the word scum to condemnation of people condemning landmines, is particularly duplicitous. Unbelivable.

[IntiRaymi]

66. Landmines are a useful battlefield tool.

They shape the battlefield, eliminate variables, funnel the enemy through specific routes. Landmines are here to stay - the only thing that can be done about them is to map them well, and to hand the maps to organization that can then 'clean them up.'

[oblivious]

68. They are an impediment to attack or counter-attack by the forces placing them for the same reasons.

Funnelling them through specific routes, logistical problems, danger to troops without maps.

[IntiRaymi]

72. And that is why you have time triggered land mines.

US Army uses these - they generally last a few hours before deactivation. Not sure what the 'inverse dud' rate is, the number of landmines that FAIL to deactivate, and remain hazardous, though.

[msmcghee]

69. I actually agree pretty much with that. I would add . .

. . that we should try to keep them away from belligerent parties prone or known to attack others. They can also be used by those who start wars for defense against expected counterattacks - as Hisb'allah also used them in S. Lebanon.

[IntiRaymi]

71. Just a thought.

"...we should try to keep them away from belligerent parties prone or known to attack others."

Good luck with that.

[msmcghee]

74. I can't believe we are discussing this . .

. . reasonably.

Yes, it's tough to do. But if the UN was doing its job Hisb'allah would not have replenished all its weapons in S. Lebanon already.

I think ambiguous attempts to condone or apologize for attacks against others is what cause those attacks in the first place. But yeah, it's a tough - the world has to do it if we ever expect peace.

[IntiRaymi]

77. You ought to clarify your last sentence.

About Hezbollah & Landmines:
Hezbollah made effective use of them, accurately predicting likely avenues of approach by the armored forces. From this standpoint, and I have mentioned this before, Hizbollah merits respect, as they showed themselves to be an organization that was able to do something that no arab 'army' was capable of.
I read somewhere that it had come as a great surprise to american analysts that Nasrallah had been able to enforce a ceasefire, even after a month of IAF attacks on Command & Control centers. If the organization is that hardened, then you have a worthy enemy, whether you like it or not.

And notice that Hezbollah did not target civilians with their landmines, as Israel has apparently done, in Lebanon proper.

[msmcghee]

80. Whew, I was worried that you were starting to make sense.

The world is back to normal now.

I guess you must have great admiration and respect for Hitler's Panzer divisions that struck so effectively and wiped out so many civilians at the start of WWII. And the Janjaweed currently wiping out hundreds of thousands of defenseless poor people and children in the Sudan and Darfur must rank right up there on your military conquest hall of fame.

I don't approve of the use of any weapons by Nazi-like regimes that attack others to get their way - land mines or otherwise. I find your praise of Hisb'allah's use of land mines to make it harder for Israel to stop the rockets that were killing her civilians particularly disgusting.

Your claim that Israel targeted civilians with land mines is ludicrous. Israel could have killed many thousands of civilians in S Lebanon if that was Israel's intention. I suspect that any use of land mines by Israel except to prevent infiltration and attack across the border was to make it more difficult for Hisb'allah and its civilian supporters to re-arm, re-aim and fire their rockets. Hisb'allah chose to place those rocket launchers in civilian areas. Israel didn't make them do that.

If you have evidence to the contrary now's the time to lay that out.

[IntiRaymi]

84. A technical skill is a technical skill.

Regardless of who wields the skill.

About Hitler's panzer divisions: They laid the foundations for the current AirLand Battle doctrine, used by the US Military...the concepts used these days come from 2 kernels: Hans Guderian, and George S. Patton.

- Napoleon was a jerk, sure, but he was a brilliant tactician, the best there ever was.
- Attila the Hun, need I say more?
- Hannibal of Carthage crossed the Alps with elephants, but only by being extraordinarily cruel with his troops, as well as the people that lived in the area.

This list goes on, and on, and on.

You don't need to wrap yourself up in some kind of absolutist reasoning, since that leads to institutional failure.

About Israel & landmines in Lebanon - it really isn't Israel's fault that the 'battlefield' in Southern Lebanon was essentially all of Southern Lebanon. Too bad actual people live there, as well. Incidentally, this small factoid, that people live in Lebanon, is what drove the propaganda machine to blame all lebanese for the coming atrocities. Very similar to the logic used on palestinians, by the way. Always keep an eye on attempts to form public opinion.

[msmcghee]

85. I don't even know where to start.

So I won't.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.