A Hezbollah tunnel has been found 100 metres from a United Nations peacekeeper base in Lebanon, raising questions about how the UN could be unaware of it and why UN troops are refusing to evacuate. The Telegraph has the story.
High up on the dry brush hills that rise steadily from the Israeli border, the UN watchtower surveys southern Lebanon and the plains below as far as the eye can see.
But no more than 100 metres from the blast walls below the tower, a rusty metal trapdoor swings open to reveal a tunnel cut deep into the rock.
This, the Israeli military says, is the entrance to a Hezbollah attack position.
It is one of two within a stone’s throw of a UN base where international soldiers have for years rotated in and out to prevent another war breaking out.
The tunnels were shown to the Telegraph by Israeli troops on Sunday before the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, ordered the UN to withdraw “immediately”.
His demand came as Israeli tanks rammed through the gates of a UN base – and a few days after UN soldiers were injured by IDF tank rounds.
The “most important part is to see the proximity to the UN. It’s right here”, an Israeli soldier told this newspaper as he stood over the tunnel entrance.
“To build a tunnel like this you need a lot of equipment. You can’t hide it. It’s very odd to us that the UN didn’t see these activities,” General Yiftach, whose division now controls the area, added.
The Telegraph, the first British newspaper to enter southern Lebanon from Israel, was taken to the tunnel in an armoured vehicle. …
After a string of incidents in the past two days which have seen Unifil peacekeepers once again coming under fire, the IDF’s spokesman, Nadav Shoshani, said more than 24 attacks had been carried out by Hezbollah firing missiles near Unifil posts, “in some cases a few dozen metres away”.
“Hezbollah has been purposefully locating their weapons in areas such as near Unifil bases,” Mr. Shoshani told reporters. Today, 25 soldiers were injured in a “planned Hezbollah attack in very close proximity” to a Unifil post where Hezbollah is known to operate.
According to the IDF, the peacekeepers were already in shelters after being notified.
“Hezbollah has chosen to bring the battlefield near Unifil posts… a pattern Hezbollah operates,” Mr Shoshani added, saying Hezbollah wants to “drag Unifil into the line of fire”.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Great article. Thanks for this very informative insight into the peer review process.
“Science” turned into “Official Science” and waved through for political purposes.
Thank you for a thought-provoking article. It challenges how we, as lay people, trust scientific reports and those behind them.
In one organisation where I used to work, we wrote engineering reports. These had to be thoroughly checked by a fellow employee and then authorised by our group leader. The group leader would quiz the checker thoroughly – “to shake his tree” – to see that he had grasped the report’s contents and could defend them. If the checker fell out of his tree, he would return bruised to the author and demand corrections.
This seems to be quite a rigorous process. Authors may tend to seek kudos and over-sell their reports. But if that task is given to a checker who does not stand to gain anything, there will be more critical appraisal.
Peer review is no guarantee of truth or accuracy. The reviewer of extensive reports or papers do not have the time to check every claim thoroughly. ——-Classic example is “The Hockey Stick Graph”
Indeed. Yet another nail in the coffin of peer review – so-named, I guess, because it tends to just ‘peer’ rather than to check.
We always hear from activists that something is “peer reviewed”. And the idea is to give the impression to the general public who are reluctant to question anything to do with science that this is all perfectly understood or settled knowledge. It may well be, but not because it has been peer reviewed. It is only good quality science if the scientific method has been followed and the results can be replicated.
Interesting but I have one lingering question: who pays the for-profit journals? How do they make their money? In other words, if so much of what is published is garbage, who is interested in paying for garbage studies?
Excellent point
Whenever I come across an organisation unfamiliar to me I start by trying to find out how they are funded and who runs it
An interesting read; thanks
I guess some kind of quality control is needed to prevent overload, but I can’t help thinking that it’s preferable to have random junk published than having only specially selected junk that fits a narrative
You’re right as in addition to the random junk there will be the innovative ideas and theories that may currently be suppressed because it hurts too many expert reputations, might undermine a lucrative industry or might benefit humanity in general.
Exactly – any not just innovative ideas and theories but also debunkings of nonsense like “thermostat theory” as stewart puts it.
You know this.
I know this.
But who are we?
Over the last 25 years I trained more than 20,000 people in project management peer review on some of the world’s most complex products. I became the global lead in my craft and learned more from my delegates than I ever knew myself.
Whilst this doesn’t guarantee I’m always right, it does entitle me to an opinion.
Peer Review requires two essential components: subject matter expertise (you know what you’re talking about); and a relative level of political independence.
This independence can vary. For example, a low value, low risk, low complexity project with little strategic importance can be reviewed by your mate on the next desk.
Now change all those ‘lows’ to ‘highs’ and you’re looking for a different beast, probably from outside your political organisation who can speak without fear of consequence (‘its rubbish!’) or personal benefit.
Compromise either the expertise or independence and the review is not only meaninglessness but dangerous, conferring integrity where there is none.
Humility and an open mind are also essential components.
The COVID business has already led to a process of secondary peer review, where published papers are dissected (and destroyed) by worldwide people with an interest and expertise. This alone makes one question the formal process of anonymous review by selected individuals. I have been a reviewer and have experienced much of the author’s problems. I have also written papers and report another side to the whole thing. I submitted one paper to a prestigious journal and it was turned down – with the rider that if I was prepared to pay $1500 they would publish it online. I submitted elsewhere, to another prestigious journal and it was accepted instantly. My stats site told me last week it had had 10000 reads…
Perhaps all papers should appear online first, and those who put them up can be persuaded to go to print, or not, depending on the online critics.