Amnesty Int.: Evidence indicates deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure

[ray liotta]

The U.N. is a joke and has been for a long time-it is a very corrupt organization and frequently looks the other way and that corruption is from the top down.

 

[northern_tantra]

Some? Many agencies including the UN Human Rights Council are suspicious of Israel's disproportionate response.

Ah yes, that new upholder of human rights replacing the old, corrupt Commission -- and with such bastions of human rights as China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Pakistan and Russia as members. You're kidding, right?

I can't understand why you are not as well. How many Lebanese civilians were killed?

First off, I deplore the loss of lives that occurred in this war. And the destruction of homes and infrastructure. But, I place the blame for it squarely on Hezbollah, where it belongs.

Second, there were somewhere between 1000 and 1200 people killed in Lebanon -- quite a small number considering the scale of the Israeli counter-offensive and, in my opinion, clear evidence in itself that they were not "indiscriminately targeting" civilians or punishing them. Had the IDF wanted to take out civilians, it surely could have killed thousands more with all the ordinance they dropped.

Third, how many of those 1000+ people were actually civilians and how many were Hezbollah or Hezbollah supporters is anyone's guess. We'll probably never know the truth. By the time you eliminate the Hezbollah fighters and collaborators, and those who were in the proximity of same and died as a result, the number of actual civilian casualties caused by deliberate or accidental Israeli action is probably quite low. Though I will grant you that property destruction is quite high -- thanks to Hezbollah fighting from the midst of civilian areas.

How much Lebanese civilian based infrastructure was destroyed? How many Israeli precision bombs were dropped? Now tell me, if all these were actually military targets -why were so few Hezbollah fighters killed and so few Hezbollah rocket launchers destroyed? In good conscious, I just can't believe Israel is completely innocent here.

Lots ... and lots. Now you tell me -- how can you prove they weren't hitting military targets? Where did Hezbollah mount its attacks from?

As to why so few Hezbollah fighters were killed or rocket launchers destroyed, the answer is obvious: because the IDF was unable to find, kill or destroy them without taking even more innocent lives. Essentially, Israel fought with both hands behind their backs.

I've never claimed Israel is "completely innocent". Mistakes were made. Some soldiers on the ground were probably over-zealous. That seems to have been the case at Qana and at the UNIFIL outpost. But that's also the nature of war. On balance, Israel fought a very restrained war and took great care to minimize civilian casualties while fighting an enemy that sought to maximize Israeli and Lebanese civilian casualties.

Anyone with a good conscience would be 100 times more furious with Hezbollah than with Israel. But if so, you'd never know it from your comments, the Arab media, or most of the western media.

 

[ray liotta]

Northern hits the nail on the head. Part of the problem with a modern army such as Israel in this dispute and also the U.S. in Iraq is that both have the power if they used it in a conventional way to not only kill their enemies but due to the way their enemies (terrorists) fight by using civilians as cover and civilian buildings houses etc...would incur a lot of collateral damage and the press and public would blame them for all the civilian deaths that would result. So these armies fight more of a policing action and as a result their own soldiers incur a lot more casualties than if their commanders were as indiscrimanant as they get blamed for already being.

 

[onthebottom]

*d*,

Given that the title of your thread has the word "evidence" in it can you point us to what you believe the "evidence" is? I read the report, but I missed this.

OTB

 

[Truncador]

As if who attacked who first, waives one side's responsibility to humanitarian laws. I don't think so. Signees to these laws step away from the rules of the jungle and no longer do either parties to the conflict or members of their armed forces have an unlimited right to choose methods and means of warfare. It is forbidden under int. humanitarian laws to use weapons or methods of warfare that are likely to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering.

This is some kind of medieval theocratic fantasy. No nation has "stepped away from the rules of the jungle", because that would mean forfeiting its sovereignty and submitting to a world government- which no State has done or ever will do. All your so-called "international laws" have about as much weight as a private-sector mission statement- if someone breaks those laws, who's gonna enforce them ? God ? You ? Until there is a world government- whose inherent duties, mind you, would include effectively defending Israel against bandits and punishing the latter- the people of Israel have the inherent human right to defend their lives and property as they judge necessary, and to judge the "humanitarian laws" etc. in their own case.

And even private citizens in the most advanced and free States such as the USA enjoy legal recognition of the natural human right to shoot an attacker stone dead even if the perp was unarmed. So much for "excessive force", which notion got its start as a legal violation of the individual human right of self-defense in the UK and is now being used in an attempt to strip entire nations of their collective right of self-defense. It's no wonder that the UN-worshipping NGO types such as Amnesty International want to take our guns even as they (however indirectly) exhort for the destruction of Israel; in both cases, they're doing the same fucking thing, namely trying to stop people from defending their own lives against criminals in a way they judge likely to work, as is their natural human right. Fat chance chumps- self-defense isn't called a law of nature for nothing. They'll get about as far they would trying to violate the laws of gravity. At least the latter project wouldn't be as psychopathically immoral as trying to convince people to allow themselves to be killed.

 

[*d*]

Ah yes, that new upholder of human rights replacing the old, corrupt Commission -- and with such bastions of human rights as China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Pakistan and Russia as members. You're kidding, right?

From your posts it seems any organization, or anyone for that matter, that seeks to question your pov is either corrupt or bias. Well take heart, so far the UN Human rights council has its hands tied on how it can investigate Israel's possible humanitarian violations. Its not impartial, but I think it will be to your liking. The council can only look at the evidence Israel chooses to hand to them.

First off, I deplore the loss of lives that occurred in this war. And the destruction of homes and infrastructure. But, I place the blame for it squarely on Hezbollah, where it belongs.

Blame?? What does blame have to do with humanitarian laws? A states responsibility to the principles of humanitarian law do not change due to blame.

Second, there were somewhere between 1000 and 1200 people killed in Lebanon -- quite a small number considering the scale of the Israeli counter-offensive and, in my opinion, clear evidence in itself that they were not "indiscriminately targeting" civilians or punishing them. Had the IDF wanted to take out civilians, it surely could have killed thousands more with all the ordinance they dropped.

So 1200 dead and a huge civilian infrastructure in ruins is not your idea of a lot. Then 157 dead Israelis shouldn't be worth mentioning. But of course it is. And both sides must be held accountable.

Third, how many of those 1000+ people were actually civilians and how many were Hezbollah or Hezbollah supporters is anyone's guess. We'll probably never know the truth. By the time you eliminate the Hezbollah fighters and collaborators, and those who were in the proximity of same and died as a result, the number of actual civilian casualties caused by deliberate or accidental Israeli action is probably quite low. Though I will grant you that property destruction is quite high -- thanks to Hezbollah fighting from the midst of civilian areas.

That's what the world humanitarian agencies want investigated. To what extent were the humanitarian laws violated?

Lots ... and lots. Now you tell me -- how can you prove they weren't hitting military targets? Where did Hezbollah mount its attacks from?

If indeed all these targets were military targets, 7000 Israel bombs should have wiped out the Hezbollah and all their rocket launchers. Instead they wiped out a civilian infrastructure and few military targets. If hitting a civilian water supply is somehow a military necessity, where is the beneficial results? -where are all the dead Hezbollah fights and their destroyed military equipment?

As to why so few Hezbollah fighters were killed or rocket launchers destroyed, the answer is obvious: because the IDF was unable to find, kill or destroy them without taking even more innocent lives. Essentially, Israel fought with both hands behind their backs.

Unable to find them???? Oh I have to add even more question marks to that whopper ??? If Israel couldn't find them, why was so much infrastructure targeted? I thought all these targets were hit because Hezbollah was basically camped underneath them?

I've never claimed Israel is "completely innocent". Mistakes were made. Some soldiers on the ground were probably over-zealous. That seems to have been the case at Qana and at the UNIFIL outpost. But that's also the nature of war. On balance, Israel fought a very restrained war and took great care to minimize civilian casualties while fighting an enemy that sought to maximize Israeli and Lebanese civilian casualties.

Anyone with a good conscience would be 100 times more furious with Hezbollah than with Israel. But if so, you'd never know it from your comments, the Arab media, or most of the western media.

I am furious with Hezbollah's involvement and their humanitarian violations as well. They should be held accountable. But that doesn't let Israel off the hook. They also have humanitarian responsibilities when involved in armed conflicts. There is no leniency in the principles of humanitarian law for those that claim self-defense. Israel must also be held accountable. And many world humanitarian agencies are in agreement.

 

[*d*]

Is *d* still ranting BS. Gee what else is new. Northern you hit the nail on the head and couldn't be more right. This fool *d* tries to call himself a defender of humanity and human rights all the while supporting the worst abusers.


bbk

And I doubt you even understand what's going on.

 

[*d*]

*d*,

Given that the title of your thread has the word "evidence" in it can you point us to what you believe the "evidence" is? I read the report, but I missed this.

OTB

The word 'evidence' is in the title of Amnesty's press release. The report lays out what they believe is the evidence.

 

[*d*]

This is some kind of medieval theocratic fantasy. No nation has "stepped away from the rules of the jungle", because that would mean forfeiting its sovereignty and submitting to a world government- which no State has done or ever will do. All your so-called "international laws" have about as much weight as a private-sector mission statement- if someone breaks those laws, who's gonna enforce them ? God ? You ? Until there is a world government- whose inherent duties, mind you, would include effectively defending Israel against bandits and punishing the latter- the people of Israel have the inherent human right to defend their lives and property as they judge necessary, and to judge the "humanitarian laws" etc. in their own case.

And even private citizens in the most advanced and free States such as the USA enjoy legal recognition of the natural human right to shoot an attacker stone dead even if the perp was unarmed. So much for "excessive force", which notion got its start as a legal violation of the individual human right of self-defense in the UK and is now being used in an attempt to strip entire nations of their collective right of self-defense. It's no wonder that the UN-worshipping NGO types such as Amnesty International want to take our guns even as they (however indirectly) exhort for the destruction of Israel; in both cases, they're doing the same fucking thing, namely trying to stop people from defending their own lives against criminals in a way they judge likely to work, as is their natural human right. Fat chance chumps- self-defense isn't called a law of nature for nothing. They'll get about as far they would trying to violate the laws of gravity. At least the latter project wouldn't be as psychopathically immoral as trying to convince people to allow themselves to be killed.

Sorry if the worlds common agendas are interfering with your fascist view.

 

[*d*]

Northern hits the nail on the head. Part of the problem with a modern army such as Israel in this dispute and also the U.S. in Iraq is that both have the power if they used it in a conventional way to not only kill their enemies but due to the way their enemies (terrorists) fight by using civilians as cover and civilian buildings houses etc...would incur a lot of collateral damage and the press and public would blame them for all the civilian deaths that would result. So these armies fight more of a policing action and as a result their own soldiers incur a lot more casualties than if their commanders were as indiscrimanant as they get blamed for already being.

But there is a lot of collateral damage, that's the problem. So its hard to believe Israel held back. What doesn't make sense is Israel's lack of military success in such destruction.

 

[northern_tantra]

So 1200 dead and a huge civilian infrastructure in ruins is not your idea of a lot. Then 157 dead Israelis shouldn't be worth mentioning. But of course it is. And both sides must be held accountable.

One death is too many. But in the history of warfare, 1200 dead is not a lot. Over two million civilians died in the Vietnam war. Two and a half million died in the Korean war. 15,000 died in the Kosovo war.

Once again my points are: (a) it's unclear how many of the 1200 were actually combatents or collaborators, and (b) given the amount of ordinance dropped, a lot more people would have died had Isreal been deliberately targeting of civilians.

If indeed all these targets were military targets, 7000 Israel bombs should have wiped out the Hezbollah and all their rocket launchers. Instead they wiped out a civilian infrastructure and few military targets. If hitting a civilian water supply is somehow a military necessity, where is the beneficial results? -where are all the dead Hezbollah fights and their destroyed military equipment?

Apparently, much of it is still there. I think the depth and fortification of Hezbollahs underground bunkers has surprised even the Israelis. Thanks to UNIFIL and the Lenanese goverment, they had 8 years to dig in.

If Hezbollah was deeply entrenched, then 7000 bombs would not have had much effect on their bunkers. But they would have a devasting effect on the surrounding civilian structures. As for whether Israel can prove they believe the targets they went after were legitimate, I'll wait for the results of the UN investigation. I'm betting they'll have sufficient evidence to support their actions.

Unable to find them???? Oh I have to add even more question marks to that whopper ??? If Israel couldn't find them, why was so much infrastructure targeted? I thought all these targets were hit because Hezbollah was basically camped underneath them?

Roads, bridges, etc. are legitimate military targets if they are able to be used for military supply. I remind you again: Hezbollah's military infrastructure is the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon.

I am furious with Hezbollah's involvement and their humanitarian violations as well. They should be held accountable. But that doesn't let Israel off the hook. They also have humanitarian responsibilities when involved in armed conflicts. There is no leniency in the principles of humanitarian law for those that claim self-defense. Israel must also be held accountable. And many world humanitarian agencies are in agreement.

Well, I'll remind you again that there is much "leniency" in the principles of humanitarian law, if you read all the articles and provisions of Protocol 1, and not just the few you seem to want to hold Israel accountable for.

 

[northern_tantra]

From your posts it seems any organization, or anyone for that matter, that seeks to question your pov is either corrupt or bias. Well take heart, so far the UN Human rights council has its hands tied on how it can investigate Israel's possible humanitarian violations. Its not impartial, but I think it will be to your liking. The council can only look at the evidence Israel chooses to hand to them.

Your generalization that anyone who questions my point of view is corrupt or biased was a cheap personal shot.

The UN replaced the old Human Rights Commission with the new council because even they knew it was corrupt. Libya was chair, for God's sake.

 

[slowpoke]

As far as I can tell this is an unsubstantiated assertion by AI and the crux of the matter:

"Israeli government spokespeople have insisted that they were targeting Hizbullah positions and support facilities, and that damage to civilian infrastructure was incidental or resulted from Hizbullah using the civilian population as a "human shield". However, the pattern and scope of the attacks, as well as the number of civilian casualties and the amount of damage sustained, makes the justification ring hollow. The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of public works, power systems, civilian homes and industry was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather than "collateral damage" – incidental damage to civilians or civilian property resulting from targeting military objectives."


If it rings so hollow why don't they provide any support? It was clearly a strategy for Hezbollah to hide behind civilians and infrastructure (which I think must be a war crime) is not the use of precision guided munitions an act of restraint in itself.

OTB

I wasn't aware that cluster bombs qualified as precision guided munitions. Nor would I categorize their use in this situation as an act of restraint. Far from it. IMHO, part of Israel's strategy was to punish Lebanese civilians for living alongside Hezbollah. In Lebanon and Gaza Israel has shown it will knowingly kill or maim a great many civilians if that's what it takes to net a few enemy casualties. Apparently this is a crime. Go figure.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0824/p11s01-wome.html


...."Israeli and Hizbullah guns have fallen silent since an Aug. 14 cease-fire. But the pain and fear is likely to continue for years, as people trying to rebuild sift through rubble strewn with the explosives. Besides tapping into its own cluster-bomb stores, Israel asked for speedy delivery from the US, just days before the cease-fire, of 1,300 M-26 rockets, each of which carry 644 cluster munitions - a total of more than 800,000 more cluster bomblets.

"They are not prohibited, [but] one of the basic principles of the Geneva Conventions is the distinction between civilian and military," says Nadim Houry, a lawyer and head of the HRW office in Beirut, whose teams are charting cluster-bomb use.

Even if the cluster bombs were fired at Hizbullah military targets, and villages were empty of civilians at the time of attack - as many were, in the final stage of the conflict - the problem is that "you know the villagers are going to come back," says Mr. Houry. "With the high dud rates that we've seen here, you've laid out a minefield in each village."

That analysis came as Amnesty International Wednesday accused Israel of war crimes, saying the magnitude and systematic nature of attacks, the scale of civilian casualties, and statements from Israeli officials "indicate that such destruction was deliberate and part of a military strategy, rather than 'collateral damage.' ".....

 

[northern_tantra]

It seems to me while all these different agencies are working overtime to try to investigate and find evidence of Israeli war crimes, at least someone should be starting to work on prosecuting Hezbollah for their flagrant violations of Protocol 1 -- many of which are easily proven, for there is plenty of evidence.

Not saying the Israeli's are faultless, but once again I maintain there seems to be a systemic bias towards finding fault with Israel's actions while doing little or nothing about Hezbollah's.

As for cluster munitions, as far as I know they are not yet prohibited. Like ordinary munitions, there is an intent by the user there be 0 duds. But, just like ordinary munitions, the failure rate is not zero. And because there are many submunitions, there will be more duds even if the failure rate is the same. This is what makes them undesirable to use in populated areas, particularly where they might be hard to find amongst the rubble. Nonetheless, it would be difficult to prove intentional violation of human rights by use of cluster munitions, unless they were specifically prohibited. The probability of there being duds is not enough to establish intent.

Comparing them to mines is just specious and inflammatory nonsense.

Personally, I'd like to wait for the detailed reports to see where these cluster munitions were found and why they might have been used against those targets.

 

[northern_tantra]

Protocol 1 mitigating provisions

"They are not prohibited, [but] one of the basic principles of the Geneva Conventions is the distinction between civilian and military," says Nadim Houry, a lawyer and head of the HRW office in Beirut

Yes, Protocol 1 sets out clear distinctions between civilian and military -- distinctions that were completely ignored by Hezbollah. As for Israel, their actions seem to uphold most (if not all) of the articles and provisions. Those actions that have been called into question may be tempered by mitigating provisions, such as provisions 3 and 7 of article 51 (among others).

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Article 51.-Protection of the civilian population[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in circumstances.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](a) Those which are not directed at a specific military objective;[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](b) Those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](c) Those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](a) An attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](b) An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.[/FONT]

Under provision 3, civilians that helped Hezbollah launch rockets, cache weopons etc. lose their protection -- and endanger the lives of other nearby civilians in doing so.

Israel could use provision 7 to defend their actions, because of Hezbollah 's use of civilian areas to stage attacks.

 

[slowpoke]

Yes, Protocol 1 sets out clear distinctions between civilian and military -- distinctions that were completely ignored by Hezbollah. As for Israel, their actions seem to uphold most (if not all) of the articles and provisions. Those actions that have been called into question may be tempered by mitigating provisions, such as provisions 3 and 7 of article 51 (among others).


Under provision 3, civilians that helped Hezbollah launch rockets, cache weopons etc. lose their protection -- and endanger the lives of other nearby civilians in doing so.

Israel could use provision 7 to defend their actions, because of Hezbollah 's use of civilian areas to stage attacks.

Let's assume for the moment that you are correct and that Israel could legally hide behind those provisions in the Geneva convention. What does that get you? It will still require a coin toss to decide which side is more irresponsibly homicidal. Hezbollah fired primitive rockets in the general direction of the few Israeli towns it could reach and killed a fairly small number of civilians. Their rockets are so inaccurate, they could reasonably argue that no civilians were specifically targetted. They're doing the best they can but, hey, they're just a bunch of terrorist idealogues. WTF do you expect?

Israel also hit civilian targets and used cluster bombs which are, by definition, non-precision instruments intended to kill people over a wide area. So Israel's intent was a bit clearer and the scale of Israel's response was infinitely greater. Israel isn't even pretending they didn't use carpet bombs in civilian areas. They just claim it was legal, that it met international standards and was aimed at Hezbollah strongholds. Israel did the same thing in the last war with Lebanon. In 1982 the US actually stopped supplying Israel with cluster bombs for 6 years because they'd violated the conditions under which they were provided.

If there is any point to any of this it is simply that neither Israel nor its US sponsors can claim the moral high ground when their behaviour is every bit as reprehensible as those they are claiming they have the moral authority to annihilate. I don't hear Hezbollah making any lofty claims in any of this. Everyone knows they are terrorists and they don't deny it. Now if only Israel and the US would do the same, we'd probably feel less inclined to argue about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/25/AR2006082500209.html


..."The State Department Office of Defense Trade Controls will verify whether U.S.-made cluster bombs were used during the conflict with Hezbollah and will examine whether the weapons -- which scatter small bombs, or "bomblets," across wide areas -- were used "inappropriately," Gallegos said.

The agreements between Israel and the United States regarding the use of the weapons are secret. It is not illegal under international law to use such weapons against enemy combatants. The United States has used cluster bombs in Iraq, resulting in many civilian casualties.

The U.N. Mine Action Coordination Center in southern Lebanon reported this week that it has found unexploded American-made cluster bombs in nearly 300 locations across the area."...

 

[*d*]

Once again my points are: (a) it's unclear how many of the 1200 were actually combatents or collaborators, and (b) given the amount of ordinance dropped, a lot more people would have died had Isreal been deliberately targeting of civilians.

(a)Israel believes around 500 Hezbollah fighters were killed in the conflict. 200 or so in the last few days during ground battles along the border. It appears Israel had a lot more success turning their weapons on the actual enemy along the border rather than Lebanon's civilian infrastructure. Hezbollah claims around a 100 of their fighters died. (b)A lot of Lebanese civilian infrastructure was destroyed, as per the large number of Israeli bombs dropped. And because of the massive civilian destruction, the question of military necessity pops up over and over again. Where are all the Israel's military success stories in that destruction?

Apparently, much of it is still there. I think the depth and fortification of Hezbollahs underground bunkers has surprised even the Israelis. Thanks to UNIFIL and the Lenanese goverment, they had 8 years to dig in.

If Hezbollah was deeply entrenched, then 7000 bombs would not have had much effect on their bunkers. But they would have a devasting effect on the surrounding civilian structures. As for whether Israel can prove they believe the targets they went after were legitimate, I'll wait for the results of the UN investigation. I'm betting they'll have sufficient evidence to support their actions.

We will see.

Well, I'll remind you again that there is much "leniency" in the principles of humanitarian law, if you read all the articles and provisions of Protocol 1, and not just the few you seem to want to hold Israel accountable for.

Any leniencies in the principles of humanitarian law are equal to each party of the conflict. One side does not have more or less leniencies than the other.

 

[K Douglas]

You know the likes of the UN, Amesty Intl and BBC make me want to upchuck. They are so bias against Israel and the US. According to them, all the problems in the Middle East are due to Israeli military aggression and US imperialism. They are nothing but apologists for terrorism and religious fanaticism. Shame, shame.

 

[northern_tantra]

(a)Israel believes around 500 Hezbollah fighters were killed in the conflict. 200 or so in the last few days during ground battles along the border. It appears Israel had a lot more success turning their weapons on the actual enemy along the border rather than Lebanon's civilian infrastructure. Hezbollah claims around a 100 of their fighters died.

But your numbers have little to do with the uncertainty around the actual number of "civilian" casualties, current claimed by Lebanon to be around 1200 or so.

(b)A lot of Lebanese civilian infrastructure was destroyed, as per the large number of Israeli bombs dropped. And because of the massive civilian destruction, the question of military necessity pops up over and over again. Where are all the Israel's military success stories in that destruction?

Ah, well that's easy to answer -- but hard to prove. The military success was in preventing Hezbollah from acquiring additional arms, rockets, missiles, etc. In other words, had Israel not hit the targets they did, there might be a lot more dead IDF soldiers. Israel is already regarded as having lost (i.e. not achieved their military objectives) so I don't see how you can reasonably argue that the massive number of sorties they mounted were either disproportionate to the task, or unnecessary to achieve the objectives, given an enemy deeply entrenched in civilian areas.

Any leniencies in the principles of humanitarian law are equal to each party of the conflict. One side does not have more or less leniencies than the other.

Never said they weren't. But Hezbollah's violated far more articles and provisions, and almost all the news articles I've seen seem to be focused on the one or two provisions that Israel may have violated. Seems biased to me.

 

[basketcase]

From Alan Dershowitz

Amnesty Int'l redefines 'war crimes'

The two principal "human rights" organizations are in a race to the bottom to see which group can demonize Israel with the most absurd legal arguments and most blatant factual mis-statements. Until last week, Human Rights Watch enjoyed a prodigious lead, having "found" - contrary to what every newspaper in the world had reported and what everyone saw with their own eyes on television - "no cases in which Hizbullah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack."

Those of us familiar with Amnesty International's nefarious anti-Israel agenda and notoriously "suggestible" investigative methodology wondered how it could possibly match such a breathtaking lie.

But we didn't have to wait long for AI to announce that Israel was guilty of a slew of war crimes for "widespread attacks against public civilian infrastructure, including power plants, bridges, main roads, seaports, and Beirut's international airport."

There are two problems with the Amnesty report and conclusion. First, Amnesty is wrong about the law. Israel committed no war crimes by attacking parts of the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon.

In fact, through restraint, Israel was able to minimize the number of civilian casualties in Lebanon, despite Hizbullah's best efforts to embed itself in population centers and to use civilians as human shields. The total number of innocent Muslim civilians killed by Israeli weapons during a month of ferocious defensive warfare was a fraction of the number of innocent Muslims killed by other Muslims during that same period in Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, Algeria, and other areas of Muslim-on-Muslim civil strife. Yet the deaths caused by Muslims received a fraction of the attention devoted to alleged Israeli "crimes."

This lack of concern for Muslims by other Muslims - and the lack of focus by so-called human rights organizations on these deaths - is bigotry, pure and simple.

AMNESTY'S EVIDENCE that Israel's attacks on infrastructure constitute war crimes comes from its own idiosyncratic interpretation of the already-vague word "disproportionate." Unfortunately for Amnesty, no other country in any sort of armed conflict has ever adopted such a narrow definition of the term. Indeed, among the very first military objectives of most modern wars is precisely what Israel did: to disable portions of the opponent's electrical grid and communication network, to destroy bridges and roads, and to do whatever else is necessary to interfere with those parts of the civilian infrastructure that supports the military capability of the enemy.

That's how the American and Britain militaries fought World War II. (In fact, Israel shows far more restraint than Britain did during World War II. Prime Minister Winston Churchill directed the Royal Air Force to bomb the center of towns with the express purpose of killing as many civilians as possible.) Had the Allies been required to fight World War II under the rules of engagement selectively applied to Amnesty International to Israel, our "greatest generation" might have lost that war.

The strategy of destroying some infrastructure was particular imperative against Hizbullah. Israel first had to ensure that its kidnapped soldiers would not be smuggled out of the country (as other soldiers had been and were never returned), then it had to prevent Hizbullah from being re-armed, especially given that Hizbullah damaged a ship using advanced radar technology provided by the Lebanese army and rockets provided by Iran.

Hizbullah was being armed by Syria and Iran - as those countries themselves admitted - and the president, government, and population of Lebanon overwhelmingly supported the militia's indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israeli civilian population centers. The Lebanese army actively supported Hizbullah's military actions. Israel was, in a very real sense, at war with Lebanon itself, and not simply with a renegade faction of militants.

HERE'S HOW law professor David Bernstein answered Amnesty's charge:

The idea that a country at war can't attack the enemy's resupply routes (at least until it has direct evidence that there is a particular military shipment arriving) has nothing to do with human rights or war crimes, and a lot to do with a pacifist attitude that seeks to make war, regardless of the justification for it or the restraint in prosecuting it [at least if it's a Western country doing it], an international "crime."

In other words, if attacking the civilian infrastructure is a war crime, then modern warfare is entirely impermissible, and terrorists have a free hand in attacking democracies and hiding from retaliation among civilians. Terrorists become de facto immune from any consequences for their atrocities.

THE MORE troubling aspect of Amnesty's report is their inattention to Hizbullah. If Israel is guilty of war crimes for targeting civilian infrastructure, imagine how much greater is Hizbullah's moral responsibility for targeting civilians! But Amnesty shows little interest in condemning the terrorist organization that started the conflict, indiscriminately killed both Israeli civilians (directly) and Lebanese civilians (by using them as human shields), and has announced its intention to kill Jews worldwide (already having started by blowing up the Jewish Community Center in Argentina.) Apparently Amnesty has no qualms about Hizbullah six-year war of attrition against Israel following Israel's complete withdrawal from Southern Lebanon.

As has been widely reported, even al-Jazeera expressed surprise at the imbalance in the Amnesty report:

During the four week war Hizbullah fired 3,900 rockets at Israeli towns and cities with the aim of inflicting maximum civilian casualties.

AI has not issued a report accusing Hizbullah of war crimes.
Amnesty does not even seem to understand the charges it is making. Take, for example, this paragraph from its report:

Israeli government spokespeople have insisted that they were targeting Hizbullah positions and support facilities, and that damage to civilian infrastructure was incidental or resulted from Hizbullah using the civilian population as a "human shield". However, the pattern and scope of the attacks, as well as the number of civilian casualties and the amount of damage sustained, makes the justification ring hollow.

But the issue of human shields and infrastructure are different. The first relates to civilian casualties; the second concerns property damage. Of course Israel intentionally targeted bridges and roads. It would have been militarily negligent not to have done so under the circumstances. But it did not target innocent civilians. It would have given them no military benefit to do so.

The allegations become even more tenuous, as when Amnesty writes, "a road that can be used for military transport is still primarily civilian in nature." By this reasoning, terrorists could commandeer any structure or road initially constructed for civilian use, and Israel could not touch those bridges or buildings because they were once, and still could be, used by civilians. This is not, and should not be, the law.

Consider another example: "While the use of civilians to shield a combatant from attack is a war crime, under international humanitarian law such use does not release the opposing party from its obligations towards the protection of the civilian population."

Well that's certainly nice sounding. But what does it mean? What would Amnesty suggest a country do in the face of daily rocket attacks launched from civilian populations? Nothing, apparently. The clear implication of Amnesty's arguments is that the only way Israel could have avoided committing "war crimes" would have been if it had taken only such military action that carried with it no risk to civilian shields - that is, to do absolutely nothing.

For Amnesty, "Israeli war crimes" are synonymous with "any military action whatsoever."

The real problem with Amnesty's paper is that its blanket condemnations do not consider the consequences of its arguments. (It doesn't have to; it would never advance these arguments against any country but Israel.)

Amnesty International's conclusions are not based on sound legal arguments. They're certainly not based on compelling moral arguments. They're simply anti-Israel arguments. Amnesty reached a predetermined conclusion - that Israel committed war crimes - and it is marshalling whatever sound-bites it could to support that conclusion.

Amnesty International is not only sacrificing its own credibility when it misstates the law and omits relevant facts in its obsession over Israel. It also harms progressive causes that AI should be championing.

Just last year, for example, Amnesty blamed Palestinian rapes and "honor killings" on - you guessed it - the Israeli occupation. When I pointed out that there was absolutely no statistical evidence to show that domestic violence increased during the occupation, and that Amnesty's report relied exclusively on the conclusory and anecdotal reports of Palestinian NGOs, Amnesty stubbornly repeated that "Israel is implicated in this violence by Palestinian men against Palestinian women."

This episode only underscored AI's predisposition to blame everything on Israel. Even when presented with an ideal opportunity to promote gender equality and feminism in the Arab world, it preferred to take wholly unrelated and absurd shots at Israel.

Amnesty International just can't seem to help itself when it comes to blaming Israel for the evils of the world, but rational observers must not credit the pre-determined conclusions of a once-reputable organization that has destroyed its own credibility by repeatedly applying a double standard to Israel.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525974885&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer