Pretty much supports what I've been saying too. I couldn't agree with him more.basketcase said:
Amnesty Int.: Evidence indicates deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure
- Thread starter *d*
- Start date
Of all people you chose an article on war crimes by Alan Dershowitz?? -an apologist for murderers and an advocate of torture? Ex O.J. lawyer, Dershowitz believes that not all civilians are equal. He sees a great difference between the civilians of Lebanon and those of Israel. Unlike Israeli civilians, Lebanese civilians must be graded on a scale of terrorist'ness'. --categorized than conditioned for the continuum of civilianality. To him innocent Lebanese civilian victims are no longer classed as innocent if they don't voluntarily leave an Israeli declared war zone. Israel has every right to kill them as military targets. Any civilians that can't leave, -well, Dershowitz categorizes them as still innocent but sliding down the slippery scale of civilianality. He condones their death in order to hit the civilians of complicity because there's no way of knowing the difference. I'm sorry, but the author of 'a case for Israel' is an apologist for murder when it comes to the Lebanon war. He's also had run-ins with Amnesty Int. before for being an advocate of torture. So, I would not consider him a shining star on the subject of war crimes -or a critic of Amnesty Int..basketcase said:
Gee, I read the article and did see any of these things you attribute to Dershowitz. You must have a magic pair of eyes.*d* said:
What is your comment about what he actually said, rather than what you believe he believes? Your entire post basically says "he's not a credible source, therefore none of his points are valid". Not very objective of you.
Once again, I remind you that international law does not provide absolute protection to civilians, and it explicitly does not allow an enemy to use civilians to protect themselves from military action. See my posts re Protocol 1. Dershowitz is making the same point -- which you interpret as treating Lebanese civilians as different from Israeli civilians. But you are ignoring the facts: Israeli civilians were not being used as shield to prevent Hezbollah attacks. Therefore, there was, in this "war" a difference between Israeli civilians and Lebanese civilians. Lebanese civilians were, by Hezbollah actions, put severely at risk of being injured or killed by Israeli attacks against Hezbollah. Israeli civilians were simply targets of Hezbollah attacks. His point is valid.
Israel may have violated some aspects of Protocol 1, and I am not saying that the allegations against them should not be investigated. But we should not be too hasty to conclude they are guilty. Hezbollah, on the other hand, is clearly guilty of flagrant violations of Protocol 1, and charges against them should be brought immediately.
Of course, being a terrorist organization, it's a bit difficult to know exactly whom to prosecute for violations of Protocol 1. Nazrallah himself might be a good start.
Oh, I discredit the man. If you read any of Dershowitz's articles you will see that he only interprets laws to fit his own pov. The same with the article 'basketcase' quoted. You need to see his previous statements to understand the motives to that article and why he ignores the very violence limiting principles of the international humanitarian laws, and why he hates Amnesty Int. so much. He even wants some laws changed to advocate torture, to the objection of A.I. And like a lawyer, he's good at twisting ideas as if they are laws to justify his personal view. For example; he rates the innocence of Lebanon civilians on different levels. A view he would never give to Israeli civilians. To justify Israel's violation of the humanitarian law principle of military necessity, he argues that excepting the lame and sick, any Lebanese civilian who declines to leave their home despite Israeli orders to do so is, ipso facto, complicit with terrorism and presumably fair game to be killed.northern_tantra said:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...l22,0,7685210.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Under this racist view, the distinction between a military target and a civilian target become blurred and a disproportionate killing of civilians can be justified within the humanitarian law principle of military necessity. But of course that goes against the very casualty limiting principles of the laws of war and resembles more the fascist view of a murdering terrorist.
Understand that as per humanitarian law, it is reasonable to attack military targets, so long as every effort is made to reduce civilian casualities. If there is to be civilian casualties, these must be proportional to the civilian casualties that would be prevented by the military action. A right to self-defense does not excuse an armed party to this law. Reducing unnecessary civilian casualties is the very principle of humanitarian laws and if making civilians into military targets is a way around the law, as Dershowitz suggests, there is nothing to stop it going all the way to genocide. But of course, with Israel's thoughtfulness and restraint that never happened
No principle of proportionality in humanitarian law
The principle sought in Protocol 1 is reduction of unnecessary civilian casualties -- as you also say. But by adding in the principle of proportionality, you are going beyond what the current law actually says.
Protocol 1 also includes provisions against punishment of a civilian population, and other provisions which some people -- like yourself -- are interpreting as "proportionate response". But this is where Hershowitz's other arguments come into play. When dealing with a "civilian" population that consists of an intermingled mix of terrorists, terrorist collaborators, terrorist hostages (i.e. those prevented from leaving an area), and truly innocent civilians, how is any armed force able to abide by the provisions of Protocol 1 if they are interpreted so strictly as to require them to cease the conflict and cede victory to the enemy simply because they can't distinguish enemy from civilian? Any such interpretation not only goes beyond the letter of Protocol 1, it goes beyond the spirit of it too.
Sorry, but the bit in red is something you made up, not something in the law. At least, its not in Protocol 1. In fact, the word "proportional" does not even appear in Protocol 1.*d* said:
The principle sought in Protocol 1 is reduction of unnecessary civilian casualties -- as you also say. But by adding in the principle of proportionality, you are going beyond what the current law actually says.
Protocol 1 also includes provisions against punishment of a civilian population, and other provisions which some people -- like yourself -- are interpreting as "proportionate response". But this is where Hershowitz's other arguments come into play. When dealing with a "civilian" population that consists of an intermingled mix of terrorists, terrorist collaborators, terrorist hostages (i.e. those prevented from leaving an area), and truly innocent civilians, how is any armed force able to abide by the provisions of Protocol 1 if they are interpreted so strictly as to require them to cease the conflict and cede victory to the enemy simply because they can't distinguish enemy from civilian? Any such interpretation not only goes beyond the letter of Protocol 1, it goes beyond the spirit of it too.
I read through the article you cited. Your statement "he rates the innocence of Lebanon civilians on different levels. A view he would never give to Israeli civilians" is not supported by the text. I see nothing in what he wrote suggesting he would treat Israeli civilians any differently than Lebanese civilians were conditions the same; i.e. an enemy entrenched within the Israeli civilian population.*d* said:
He does not say "excepting the lame and sick, any Lebanese civilian who declines to leave their home despite Israeli orders to do so is, ipso facto, complicit with terrorism and presumably fair game to be killed". That is an over-interpretation on your part -- you are putting new words in his mouth. He does not mention Lebanese civilians specifically. He does not mention the lame or sick. He does, however, call out the fact that there are "civilians" who have been complicit in allowing Hezbollah to launch rockets from their homes, for example, and it is his contention that these "civilians" should be treated differently (in casualty counts) than other civilians. This, of course, is difficult to do -- but the terrorists score huge propaganda victories every time we count a collaborator as a civilian. Same for the terrorists themselves -- without dog tags or uniforms, we might have counted many dead terrorists as civilians.
The blurred distinction between military target and civilian target you refer to as "his racist view" is not as a result of any racism he may have. It's because Hezbollah has chosen to fight in a manner that clearly violates articles and provisions of Protocol 1 that are designed to prevent this kind of ambiguity. If Hezbollah wore military uniforms and dog tags, did not fight from civilian population centers, and were not actively supported by so-called civilians in their neighbourhoods, we would not even be having this debate. And Hershowitz would not have had to write these articles.
As you are so found of pointing out, you can't pick and choose the articles and provisions you want a party to uphold. You also can't ignore the fact that Hezbollah's flagrant violations of key articles and provisions makes it almost impossible for Israel to uphold Protocol 1 in its entirety. It is Hezbollah that is blurring the lines between civilian and combatent, and the media is helping them make Israel look like the party responsible for it. They are not. Hezbollah is. Don't help them.
Bottom line: I think Hershowitz is pointing out that the way Hezbollah (and their Arab sponsors) has used international humanitarian law to stop Israel in this conflict is something western media needs to consider in the way they report casualties in future conflicts, lest they end up supporting the terrorist cause.
And I thought we were beyond 'principle of proportionality 101'.northern_tantra said:
As formulated in Additional Protocol I of 1977, attacks are prohibited if they cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects that is excessive in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage of the attack. This creates a permanent obligation for military commanders to consider the results of the attack compared to the advantage anticipated. Its the humanitarian law principle of proportionality as interpreted by most of the world. If you don't believe me, check out the laws of war codified in the International Law Commission's State Responsiblities, articles 49 through 51. Then you'll understand why I say, "If there is to be civilian casualties, these must be proportional to the civilian casualties that would be prevented by the military action."
Come on! Look at what the apologist to murder Dershowitz says:northern_tantra said:
He's not talking here about Israeli civilians in southern Lebanon. He's talking Lebanon civilians on different levels of terrorist'ness'. He arguing that excepting the lame and sick, any Lebanese civilian who declines to leave their home despite Israeli orders to do so is, ipso facto, complicit with terrorism and presumably fair game to be killed. PLUS, he's not condemning the death of the innocent civilians either. Oh, he condemns the death of Israeli civilians, and eagerly under humanitarian law. But he's also quick to find guilt in Lebanese civilians and condone their death. As his last line says, "Every civilian death is a tragedy, but some are more tragic than others."
And as you point out again and again, you can't pick and choice only the articles and provisions of the humanitarian laws you want. You must consider them all. I have no intention of helping Hezbollah's cause through these laws. And unlike you, I have no intention of helping any possible violators of any of these laws.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said international law stressed the need to protect civilians.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5197544.stm
All civilians
I'll try, some of what AD says is pure bullshit, supposition, but he has some good points too.northern_tantra said:
I lived in Lebanon for years during the war I will tell you that when I read and saw tv coverage here in the west I saw misleading and false news. Even on terb we have excellent sleuths linking to sites illustrating faked news stories/pictures. WTF is a trained lawyer referring to the news and tv like its gods own truth. Wonder if he'd do that in court?
laudable statement AD, either complete supposition or pure ridiculousness, who knows how many may have been killed. Also callous and arrogant; try saying it to any Lebanese or Israeli family of the killed.
although an excellent point, again arrogant. To project a Jewish tenet of togetherness/oneness onto another religion is arrogant. Unfortunately, there is no and never has been any over-arching solidarity among Muslims, especially when they're black.
a complete fabrication. In interviews President Lahoud did not express this point of view before the mini-war started. He did after Israel started bombing Beirut, airport, highways; he expressed support (frustratingly- voice went high pitched, quivering chin) for Hezbollah as (my Arabic has become poor, bad translation) "protect the country by fighting the invader". The Lebanese government and population in general did/does not support Hezbollah, here AD is lying. It is true that Hezbollah has elected members to Lebanon's parliament, but that does not mean the government supports them. You might as well say all Democrats support Bush's Republican war because they're all American, it's the same generalization.
Supposition as conclusion, and false. This is a very complex situation summed up to one neat little package, i.e. a media sound bite. It's still incorrect supposition. A weak argument the likes of which AD et al are deconstructing in AI's report. The best, truer conclusion, is that "Israel was at war with an entrenched, well organized and supported faction".
is a very good point, and I whole heartedly agree with AD or whomever he is quoting. Too often it seems it's standard procedure for "social conscience" organizations to make outlandish, non-related, claims in support of whatever they are espousing.
I have read them ... yes they say what you say in the first sentence. But not what you say in the last sentence. That is your interpretation alone. And I doubt your interpretation will ever be accepted by signatories of Protocol I because it would be almost impossible to prove one way or another. Only badly written laws create a violation based on a hypothetical condition.*d* said:And I thought we were beyond 'principle of proportionality 101'.
As formulated in Additional Protocol I of 1977, attacks are prohibited if they cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects that is excessive in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage of the attack. This creates a permanent obligation for military commanders to consider the results of the attack compared to the advantage anticipated. Its the humanitarian law principle of proportionality as interpreted by most of the world. If you don't believe me, check out the laws of war codified in the International Law Commission's State Responsiblities, articles 49 through 51. Then you'll understand why I say, "If there is to be civilian casualties, these must be proportional to the civilian casualties that would be prevented by the military action."
Look at the current situation. If Israel did not have a substantial civil defense program and had not been able to evacuate their people into bomb shelters, there would have been possibly hundreds or thousands of deaths from Katushya rockets. So by your reasoning, because Israeli civilians were forced into bomb shelters and didn't die from indiscriminate enemy fire, Israel's counter-attacks on Hezbollah are disproportionate because they caused more civilian casualties than Hezbollah's rockets.
What nonsense!!!
My sentence fundamentally says the same thing.northern_tantra said:
What nonsense, indeed. That's hypocritical logic, since the same argument can be said for the other side. Care to tell me how many more Lebanese could have possibly been killed if a million of them didn't flee? ...'possibly hundreds or thousands of deaths'...??
