Mutergem

By members مقالات الاعضاء · August 25, 2006

http://www.elaph.com/ElaphWeb/ElaphWriter/2006/8/172108.htm

لماذا شيعة لبنان أبطال وشيعة العراق روافض؟
GMT 10:30:00 2006 الجمعة 25 أغسطس
سامي البحيري

By members مقالات الاعضاء · August 25, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/world/mi.../25cluster.html

Opened Into Israeli Use of U.S. Bombs

By DAVID S. CLOUD
Published: August 25, 2006
WASHINGTON, Aug. 24 — The State Department is investigating whether Israel’s use of American-made cluster bombs in southern Lebanon violated secret agreements with the United States that restrict when it can employ such weapons, two officials said.
The investigation by the department’s Office of Defense Trade Controls began this week, after reports that three types of American cluster munitions, anti-personnel weapons that spray bomblets over a wide area, have been found in many areas of southern Lebanon and were responsible for civilian casualties.

By members مقالات الاعضاء · August 25, 2006

I got the following through email.. Not aware of the refrence.

The three quated Egyptian writers are considered within Arab ME as pro American and some accused them as CIA collaberators!!

I found a lot that inline with Salim's views..

##################################################

During the war in Lebanon, three prominent Egyptian intellectuals known

for their reformist views expressed support for Hizbullah as well as

fierce opposition to the positions of the U.S., Israel, and the Arab

regimes.

Dr. Sa'd Al-Din Ibrahim: Americans are Ugly, the Israelis are Even

Uglier, and the Arab Leaders are the Ugliest

In an article titled "The Ugly American and Lebanon, Once Again," Dr.

Sa'd Al-Din Ibrahim attacked the U.S.'s support of Israel and wrote that

"the Israeli frenzy could not have continued for more than two weeks

without direct American aid, and perhaps also its indirect

encouragement." He related that while participating in a July 2006 London

demonstration protesting the events in Lebanon, he had heard cries calling for

"the downfall of the ugly American," and said that these cries took him

back 24 years, to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the summer of 1982.

He said that as President Bush was doing today, President Reagan had

supported Israel and given it economic, military, and diplomatic aid,

with the goal of uprooting from Lebanon the resistance to Israel.(1)

In a follow-up article, Dr. Sa'd Al-Din Ibrahim explained his stand

regarding the U.S.:

"First of all... None of those who believed the lies of the official

media and the [security Service] Investigation Division has ever read any

book, study, or article of mine from which it would be possible to

conclude, directly or indirectly, that I am a propagator of anything

American – whether merchandise, policy, or any [American] invention. But they

listened, or passed from one to the other, the cud that the official

newspapers and the Investigations Division newspapers were chewing...

"Second... Many writers and speakers on satellite television have come

to be possessed by the 'American demon,' and the see the 'American

ghost' behind every tree and wall... They hold to the theory of the

'American conspiracy' concerning every problem that exists in Egypt, every

disaster that befalls the Arab world, and every calamity that occurs in

the Muslim countries, from Indonesia to Morocco. I am not among those

whose specialty is [such attacks on the U.S.], and those who are addicted

to them. I relate to the U.S. in the same way as do many intelligent

and upright people of various nationalities and from every group and

race.

"The U.S. is a [world] power, and it is the strongest [power] of the

post-WWII period... Just like every other country, it has interests, as

well as beliefs and values. When its interests are in keeping with its

values, the U.S. is at its best (as in the terms of Wilson, Roosevelt,

Eisenhower, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton). However, when its interests

stand in opposition to its values, the U.S. prefers its interests, and

then it is at its worst (as in the terms of Truman, Johnson, Nixon,

Reagan, and Bush). This is true of the presidents, the government, and

foreign policy. As for the American people, it, like the other peoples of

the world, aspires to peace, justice, and liberty...

"In 1982, I first published in [the Egyptian government dailies]

Al-Ahram and Al-Gumhuriya a series of articles on 'the ugly American.' Those

articles provoked at the time many responses in Egypt and in the U.S.,

to the extent that President Mubarak, his advisor 'Osama Al-Baz, and

the late foreign minister Kamal Hassan 'Ali asked me to desist, so as not

to pose a threat to relations between Egypt and the U.S. Even one of

the experts in attacks on the U.S. was surprised [at my articles], and

wrote things in his newspaper Al-Ahali to the effect that he and leftists

like himself were the only ones qualified to attack the U.S., and a

beginning amateur like myself... had best not burst in onto their turf.

The very same thing surprises the Nasserists, the Islamists, and the

Marxists in 2006, after the article I wrote...

"The Israelis are ugly just like the Americans who conspired with them,

encouraged them, and aided them in 1982. But the Israelis have become

'uglier,' since they repeated the same act 24 years later, in 2006. Over

the course of this period, Israel has become a very large military

power, very wealthy in its economy, very advanced in terms of technology,

but less wise in terms of strategy. In this way, they are like an echo

of the ugly American – but he lives dozens of miles distant from the

Middle East... whereas the stupid Israeli is surrounded by [Arab]

peoples... Every time his Arab neighbors give him an opportunity for [peaceful]

coexistence, like Egyptian President Sadat and King Hussein of Jordan

did, he wastes it through bloody adventures that ignite hostility

towards it among its neighbors, and provokes hatred for its behavior

throughout the world... It is as though the 'Israeli' provokes the entire

world, and enjoys the killing and the destruction. He doesn't care that he

becomes uglier in others' eyes, so long as he is accompanied by, and

under the protection of, the 'ugly American'...

"Israel has forgotten, or has attempted to forget, that it was its

military occupation of southern Lebanon in 1982 that created the resistance

movement called Hizbullah, just like its occupation of Palestine

created the Palestinian resistance, which has borne various names, from Fatah

to Hamas and Jihad. Hizbullah fought this occupation since 1982, until

it forced it to withdraw from 97% of Lebanese territory, [having not

withdrawn] only from one small part called the Shab'a Farms... Hizbullah

undertook to continue its armed resistance until every inch of the

Shab'a Farms was liberated and until the release of all of the prisoners.

Since Israel procrastinated on these two issues for six years, Hizbullah

captured two Israeli soldiers, in order to trade them for its own

prisoners who were still in Israeli prison. Israel saw this as an

unjustified provocation and even as an opportunity to respond, to take revenge,

and to get rid of Hizbullah. It even claimed that Syria and Iran incited

Hizbullah to this action, and it began its all-out attack, not just on

Hizbullah bases and fighters, but also on all of Lebanon...

"However, the surprise that embarrassed Israel and the U.S., but

gladdened the Arabs, the Muslims, and the world, was Hizbullah's courageous

resistance, which has lasted three weeks – up to the very moment this

article is being written – against the strongest army in the Middle East,

and has inflicted on it fatalities and losses that are unprecedented

for it in any conflict with any Arab element...

"As the legendary Chinese leader Mao Zedong said: 'When popular

resistance stands firm and does not surrender – it is the victor. When a

regular army does not conquer and achieve its objective of destroying the

enemy or forcing him to surrender – it is the loser.' Up to the moment

this article is being written, and according to Mao Zedong's saying,

Hizbullah is the victor and the Israeli army is the loser. This army does

not learn; it just destroys, kills, and expels, and thus it is the

uglier..."(2)

In a third article on the "ugliness" that he claimed was revealed by

the war in Lebanon, Dr. Sa'd Al-Din Ibrahim states that the Arab

leadership is even uglier than the U.S. and Israel. According to him, the

current war between Israel and Hizbullah has demonstrated anew – in at least

two instances – that Arab leaders are "the ugliest of all."

The first instance, he writes, was when "the collusion of several Arab

countries with Israel, the U.S., and Britain" became known. "This

collusion ranged from official silence – as though what is happening is not

going on in an Arab state called Lebanon, but rather on Mars – ... to

condemnation of the victim. Accordingly, they used expressions like

'irresponsibility' in order to describe Hizbullah's action in which two

Israeli soldiers were captured and eight others killed... meaning that

Hizbullah had overstepped its bounds and entangled all of Lebanon – the

government and the people – in a battle, without having taken into

account the position of the Lebanese – this despite the fact that Hizbullah

is represented in parliament and is a partner in the government. Even if

this were indeed true, is that not a purely Lebanese matter?..."

The second instance in the course of the war in which, according to Dr.

Sa'd Al-Din Ibrahim, the Arab leadership proved that it is "the

ugliest" was when it attempted to isolate Hizbullah, claiming that its people

are Shi'ites and thus are destined for badWord. This argument was made in

a statement by the mufti of Saudi Arabia, as well as in statements by

preachers at mosques in Egypt who hold to the Wahhabi school of Islam.

According to Dr. Ibrahim, "the introduction of sectarian dispute [into

the issue] has to do with some of the Arab regimes' fear of the

strengthening of Iranian influence in the region... In this context, the King

of Jordan spoke [in the past] about the danger of what he called the

'Shi'ite Triangle' or the 'Shi'ite Crescent,' and the president of Egypt,

Mubarak, did likewise when he said, in April, 2006, that the loyalty of

Arab Shi'ites is given not to their countries, but to Iran. This

statement, like the Saudi fatwa and the King of Jordan's statement, awakened

strong dissatisfaction...

"Whatever the hubris and the barbaric use of force by the 'ugly

American' and the 'uglier Israeli,' they at least act this way because, from

their vantage point, it serves the national interests of their nations.

The Arab rulers [on the other hand] are colluding against their Arab

sister states, and they are not acting this way in order to serve the

national interests of their countries, but rather in order to serve their

own personal and familial interests. To this end, they are prepared to

accommodate the demands of the American master and [to obey] his

orders, even if the [demands and orders] are for the good of his spoiled

daughter, Israel, and even if the price is the blood of thousands of

Lebanese dead, injured, and refugees. Thus, in the eyes of their peoples,

they are 'the ugliest of all'..."(3)

Gamal Al-Banna: The American Interest is to Destroy any Islamic Entity

and to Establish a New Middle East

The Islamic thinker Gamal Al-Banna wrote that the war would indeed lead

to the creation of a new Middle East, but it will be one entirely

different from that which the U.S. envisioned:

"For the Arab states, the war that was forced on Lebanon is something

akin to what the events of 9/11 were for the U.S.

"The first thing that attracted attention... and provoked shock was the

intentional cruelty in [israel's] conduct in the war, the singular

objective of which is destruction and annihilation...

"The second thing that deeply affected the public was the U.S.'s

position. Israel has repeated precedents of killing, destruction,

humiliation, and inflicting agony, but the U.S. outdid it in this war. After it

gave Israel the green light for the attack, the U.S. fought off every

political or humanitarian effort that intended to lessen the tragedy or

treat its humanitarian aspects, and encouraged Israel to continue its war

under the pretext of wiping out the Islamic resistance in Lebanon...

But Israel destroyed not the resistance, but rather beautiful Beirut and

the liberty and culture that it symbolizes...

"Condoleezza Rice wanted this all-out destruction to continue for one

or two weeks, until people went crazy and lived like they lived before

the first industrial revolution, and until [Lebanese] society collapsed

into chaos... out of which, and thanks to which, a new Middle East

would arise.

"[American policy] showed that the U.S. has an interest in this war,

and that it was it that caused its ally, Israel, to wage it in its name.

The American interest is the destruction of any Islamic entity – Hamas

in Israel and Hizbullah in Lebanon – in order to realize its old plan

for the Middle East... The aim of this policy is to take advantage of

the chaos and the deterioration that the war caused, in order for the

U.S. to crush the forces of resistance and create a new Middle East.

"The third factor that deeply affected the public... was the stand of

the ruling Arab regimes on the war, a stand characterized by stupidity

and 'surrender,' and likewise their support for U.S. policy and the

attribution to Lebanon of responsibility for the outbreak of the war.

"To these factors one should add the resistance's success in defeating

the Israeli army in its first fight with it, [and the fact] that the

resistance's missiles succeeded in inflicting punishing blows on the

settlers [i.e. the Israelis], and made them taste something of what they

are doing to the Palestinians. Likewise, [one should take into account]

the courage, faith, and dedication that characterized [Hizbullah leader]

Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of this resistance...

"These factors prepared the region for the appearance of a new Middle

East, but in a form that the U.S. had not dreamt of, since it will be

the opposite [of the U.S.' expectations], and will destroy the bridges on

which the current Middle East is built and the alliances with the

U.S...."(4)

Dr. Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd: The "Intelligent" Liberals are Afraid of Islam

Dr. Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd attacked those intellectuals whom he referred

to ironically as "intelligent liberals" who wash their hands altogether

of the resistance and support the stand of Israel and the U.S.: "One

cannot continue to remain silent in the face of the discourse of the

'intelligent' liberals and their analysis of Israel's actions, which

include destruction, murder, demolition, and the destroying of an entire

society, whose name is Lebanon... These 'intelligent people' do not see, or

rather do not want to see, anything other than 'the crime of

Hizbullah', which [only] exercised its natural right to capture Israeli soldiers

in order to trade them for Lebanese soldiers who have remained for a

long time in Israeli prison...

"These same intelligent people were driven into a collective 'craze'

when the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Jordan and in other Arab countries

decided to become political parties and to take part in the

'democratic' game, in accordance with the existing rules, in the shadow of the

emergency laws and the restrictions of liberties. The craze turned into a

neurosis when the Muslim Brotherhood won 88 seats in [the Egyptian]

parliament, despite the cheating, the fraud, and so on.

"In occupied Palestine, Hamas decided to join the ranks of the

'democrats,' and raked in the majority of the Palestinian vote. Once more, the

curse of the 'neurotic craze' afflicted the intelligent liberals – for

that is not what democracy is, that is not what it should be. The

intelligent liberals in our countries want... 'democracy' that will bring

them to power, without their having to take it upon themselves to descend

to the level of the 'masses,' the 'rabble' – or, in more elegant

terminology, 'the man on the street' – and without having to rub shoulders

with him and to understand his situation...

"In the rational liberal discourse, which shakes off its [Arab] history

and washes its hands of the disgrace of 'resistance' – any resistance –

the U.S. and Israel are completely innocent. It is their right to

protect their interests and their security, and it is their right to fight

against the terrorism that threatens human civilization and brings

nothing but destruction.

"As I am a rationalist and one of those who call for rationalism, and

as I am also a liberal who has believed in freedom, democracy, and human

rights since my earliest youth, I cannot remain silent in the face of

this intentional falsification of the values of rationalism and

liberalism. The most important characteristic of a rational and liberal

intellectual is a sharp sense of criticism, which allows him to criticize

himself and to reevaluate his own statements. Thus I am not opposed to true

criticism of our history, our culture, and our situation, and I even

think that such criticism is obligatory, essential, and vital in order to

make progress. However, I am incapable of agreeing with the one-eyed

criticism that inspects the facts with only one eye [and claims that] the

error is always here, and the truth is always there. This is not

criticism, but rather falsification, since it uncritically accepts someone

else's ideology.

"Oh rational liberals... you who exercise an exaggerated sense of

criticism towards the 'I' and look with total blindness on the other, it

saddens me to announce that I am washing my hands of you and your

positions. Resistance is not 'adventure', but rather the only existing option

at the moment for our peoples, after the [true] face of the modern Arab

nation has been exposed...

"You are against Hamas, against Hizbullah, and against the Muslim

Brotherhood because of their religious ideology. You are afraid that their

growing stronger will lead to the establishment of religious states, but

you ignore the actual existence of a state that is not only religious,

but also racist, since it is a state for Jews 'only.' In your neurotic

fear of the Islamic religion within [the Arab countries], and with your

surprising calm towards the politico-religious existence called Israel,

you reveal that your liberalism and rationalism are not just phony;

they are destructive rationalism. This is American rationalism, in which

an idea is correct to the degree that it is useful.

"Sirs, you are afraid of 'Islam,' and not of political Islamism. You

are not capable of understanding that the Islamist choice of the peoples

is a choice of necessity, and not the choice of free people. The

Palestinians voted for Hamas out of desperation [from the] Oslo [Accords],

which died without anyone wanting to announce their death, and in an

attempt to escape the financial, administrative, and political corruption

of the PA...

"Was not the vote for the Muslim Brotherhood candidates in Egypt and in

other Arab countries simply an attempt to escape the corruption in the

political, economic, and social establishments? What other choice was

there in Egypt?... The Muslim Brotherhood is an Egyptian political

faction with whom a dialogue must be held... Nobody has a monopoly on the

meaning of Islam, but the rational liberals assumed that it was the

exclusive property of the Muslim Brotherhood. In order to fight against this

meaning [of Islam], they are trying to eliminate the Muslim

Brotherhood, and Islam itself, if possible...

"Hizbullah has never aimed weapons at any Lebanese or Arab, and

throughout its history, the resistance has made efforts not to hurt Israeli

civilians. This last war drove it to change this rational-ethical stance,

since Israel is not fighting for the return of its prisoners, but

rather is destroying an entire nation – a nation characterized by a

pluralism of coexisting [ethnic and religious] groups, as opposed to the

Zionist existence... Hizbullah's discourse in the current war is not in

essence sectarian or religious, but is rather a discourse of national

liberation, a rational discourse known as 'resistance'..."(5)

By members مقالات الاعضاء · August 24, 2006

http://www.elaph.com/ElaphWeb/Politics/2006/8/171944.htm

In Arabic.. Many Palestinian groups "including Hamas" condenmed the kidnapping of the two American journalists. Hamas rep went futher to acuase Alqaeda saying that this is to cover some political non Palestianian agendas..

Many Palestinians thought that this kidnapping is to legitimize the shelling of Gaza by Isrealis !!

By members مقالات الاعضاء · August 24, 2006

>Subject: Fw: Open letter to President Bush

>

>--

>BYSalim al-Hoss, former prime minister of Lebanon " A moderate sunni "

>Dear Mr. Bush,

>

>We heard you express your regrets regarding the casualties of Israel's

>ravaging war against my country, Lebanon.

>

>I hope you have been furnished with a true profile of the atrocities being

>perpetrated in my country. You pose as being at war with terrorism. Let me

>honestly tell you: Charity starts at home.

>

>Israel is wantonly indulging in the most horrendous forms of terrorism in

>Lebanon: indiscriminately killing innocent civilians at random; not sparing

>children, elderly or handicapped people; demolishing buildings over their

>residents' heads; and destroying all infrastructure, roads, bridges, water

>and power arteries, harbors, air strips and storage facilities. Nothing

>moving on the highways is spared, not even ambulances, trucks, trailers,

>cars or even motorcycles, all in violation of the Geneva Conventions and

>human rights.

>

>The displaced population has reached more than one fourth of the total

>population of my country - all suffering the harshest and most miserable of

>conditions. The victims include thousands of killed and maimed.

>

>If this is not terrorism, what is?

>

>Israel's savage assault has been labeled retribution for Hizbullah's

>abduction of two Israeli soldiers. This smacks of collective punishment,

>which constitutes a brazen violation of the Geneva Conventions and human

>rights. Furthermore, the alibi is far from plausible. The two Israeli

>soldiers were abducted for the express purpose of reaching a swap of

>hostages with Israel. In fact, Israel had acceded more than once to such

>swaps in the past. Why would a swap of prisoners be acceptable at one time

>and a taboo, rather a casus belli, at another? This created a conviction

>among the Lebanese that the sweeping assault against them was premeditated,

>and the abduction was only a tenuous excuse.

>

>Israel is indulging in terrorism at its worst, at its ugliest, using the

>most lethal and sophisticated weapons you have supplied them.

>http://www.dailystar.com.lb

>

>We the Lebanese are justified in seeing in Israel as a most atrocious

>terrorist power, and seeing in you a direct partner. Mr. President: You are

>indeed a terrorist practicing the worst variant of terrorism as you condone

>the annihilation of my country, precluding a cease-fire to be announced,

>supporting the aggression against my people politically and diplomatically

>and bolstering Israel's destructive arsenal with the most lethal weaponry.

>

>Mr. President: You are not fooling anybody with your alleged war against

>terrorism. In our perspective, you and Israel are the most unscrupulous

>terrorists on earth. If you want to fight terrorism, we suggest that you

>start with your administration and your hideous ally, Israel.

>

>You repeatedly claim that Israel is acting in self-defense. How

>preposterous! Self-defense on other people's occupied territory is

>tantamount to one thing: blatant aggression.

>

>You call Hizbullah a terrorist organization. We call it a legitimate

>resistance movement. There would have been no military wing of Hizbullah if

>there had been no Lebanese territory under Israeli occupation, if there had

>been no Lebanese hostages languishing in Israeli jails, and if Lebanon had

>not been exposed to almost daily Israeli intrusions into its airspace and

>territorial waters, and to sporadic incursions into Lebanese land and

>bombardment of civilian targets.

>

>You cannot eliminate a party by demolishing a whole country. This would

>have been achieved peacefully by Israel withdrawing from the land it

>occupies, releasing Lebanese prisoners, and desisting from further acts of

>aggression against Lebanon.

>

>Israel is the most horrendous terrorist power. And you, Mr. President, are

>unmistakably a direct partner, and hence a straight terrorist.

>

>Salim al-Hoss, former prime minister of Lebanon

>

>August 1, 2006

By members مقالات الاعضاء · August 24, 2006

Human Rights Group Accuses Israel of War Crimes

By JOHN KIFNER

Published: August 24, 2006

BEIRUT, Lebanon, Aug. 23 — Amnesty International accused Israel on Wednesday of war crimes in its monthlong battle with Hezbollah, saying its bombing campaign amounted to indiscriminate attacks on Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure and population.

“Many of the violations examined in this report are war crimes that give rise to individual criminal responsibility,” Amnesty International, the London-based human rights group, said in a report on the Israeli campaign. “They include directly attacking civilian objects and carrying out indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks.”

“During more than four weeks of ground and aerial bombardment by the Israeli armed forces, the country’s infrastructure suffered destruction on a catastrophic scale,” the report said, contending this was “an integral part of the military strategy.”

“Israeli forces pounded buildings into the ground,” the report went on, “reducing entire neighborhoods to rubble and turning villages and towns into ghost towns as their inhabitants fled the bombardments.

“Main roads, bridges and petrol stations were blown to bits. Entire families were killed in airstrikes on their homes or in their vehicles while fleeing the aerial assaults on their villages. Scores lay buried beneath the rubble of their houses for weeks, as the Red Cross and other rescue workers were prevented from accessing the areas by continuing Israeli strikes.”

Mark Regev, the spokesman for Israel’s Foreign Ministry, categorically rejected the claim that Israel had “acted outside international norms or international legality concerning the rules of war.” Unlike Hezbollah, he said, Israel did not target the civilian population, nor did it indiscriminately target Lebanese civilian infrastructure.

He added: “Our job was made very difficult by the fact that Hezbollah adopted a deliberate policy of positioning itself inside civilian areas and breaking the first fundamental distinction under the rules of war, by deliberately endangering civilians. Under the rules of war, you are legally entitled to target infrastructure that your enemy is exploiting for its military campaign.”

Citing a variety of sources, the Amnesty International report said Israel’s air force had carried out more than 7,000 air attacks, while the navy had fired 2,500 shells. The human toll, according to Lebanese government statistics, was estimated at 1,183 deaths, mostly civilians, about a third of them children; 4,054 wounded; and 970,000 people displaced, out of a population of a little under four million.

“Statements from the Israeli military officials seem to confirm that the destruction of the infrastructure was indeed a goal of the military campaign,” the report said. It said that “in village after village the pattern was similar: the streets, especially main streets, were scarred with artillery craters along their length. In some cases, cluster bomb impacts were identified.”

“Houses were singled out for precision-guided missile attacks and were destroyed, totally or partially, as a result,” the report said. “Business premises such as supermarkets or food stores and auto service stations and petrol stations were targeted.

“With the electricity cut off and food and other supplies not coming into the villages, the destruction of supermarkets and petrol stations played a crucial role in forcing local residents to leave.”

The Amnesty International report said the widespread destruction of apartments, houses, electricity and water services, roads, bridges, factories and ports, in addition to several statements by Israeli officials, suggested a policy of punishing the Lebanese government and the civilian population in an effort to get them to turn against Hezbollah.

“The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of public works, power systems, civilian homes and industry was a deliberate and integral part of the military strategy rather than collateral damage,” the report said.

It also noted a statement from the Israeli military chief of staff, Lt. Gen Dan Halutz, calling Hezbollah a “cancer” that Lebanon must get rid of “because if they don’t, their country will pay a very high price.”

The Amnesty International report came as a number of international aid and human rights agencies used the current lull in fighting to assess the damage.

The United Nations Development Program said the attacks had obliterated most of the progress Lebanon had made in recovering from the devastation of the civil war years. “Fifteen years of work have been wiped out in a month,” Jean Fabre, a spokesman for the organization in Geneva, told reporters.

Another urgent issue, aid groups say, is the number of unexploded bomblets from cluster bombs littering the southern villages. Tekimiti Gilbert, the operations chief of a United Nations mine removal team, told reporters in Tyre: “Up to now there are at least 170 cluster bomb strikes in south Lebanon. It’s a huge problem. There are obvious dangers with people, children, cars. People are tripping over these things.”

United Nations officials say at least five children have been killed by picking up the bomblets scattered about by the cluster bombs.

Despite the cease-fire, southern Lebanon remained tense on Wednesday. Three Lebanese soldiers were killed trying to defuse a rocket that had not exploded. An Israeli soldier was killed and two others wounded when, according to the Israeli military, they walked over a minefield that Israel had previously buried.

The Israeli military also said it had fired artillery rounds from the disputed territory of Shabaa Farms to the Lebanese village of Shabaa. There were no reports of casualties.

Greg Myre contributed reporting from Jerusalem for this article.

Sign In

Mutergem

Posts

Joined

Last visited

Content Type

Profiles

Forums

Events

Posts posted by Mutergem

الفكر الشيعي والحرب في لبنان

Israeli bankruptcy

Israeli bankruptcy

Israeli bankruptcy

Israeli bankruptcy

Israeli bankruptcy

Qatar ... Al-Jazeera ... and More

Browse

Activity