Wednesday, August 23, 2006

War Crimes

Amnesty International released its report on the war in Lebanon in which it clearly condemns the Israeli aggression as war crimes. It states that Israel deliberatly targeted civilians and the country's infrastructure as part of its military strategy. Israel's statement that it was targeting Hizbollah who were using civilians as human shields "rings hollow," stated the respected organization. It's time that IDF stops acting as a bully and starts abiding by the Geneva Convention. Why did Israel target a milk factory for example? RS visited the bombed site in the Bekaa yesterday and he will update you on that soon. Some sources claim that the Lebanese milk factory had won a profitable EU contract recently, beating an Israeli milk factory who came in second place. If this is true or untrue, the question still holds: why a milk factory?
Here is an extract of the report by Amnesty International, entitled: Lebanon: Deliberate destruction or "collateral damage"? Israeli attacks on civilian infrastructure.

Deliberate destruction or ‘collateral damage’?
During more than four weeks of ground and aerial bombardment of Lebanon by the Israeli armed forces, the country’s infrastructure suffered destruction on a catastrophic scale. Israeli forces pounded buildings into the ground, reducing entire neighbourhoods 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 air strikes 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. The hundreds of thousands of Lebanese who fled the bombardment now face the danger of unexploded munitions as they head home.

The Israeli Air Force launched more than 7,000 air attacks on about 7,000 targets in Lebanon between 12 July and 14 August, while the Navy conducted an additional 2,500 bombardments.(1) The attacks, though widespread, particularly concentrated on certain areas. In addition to the human toll – an estimated 1,183 fatalities, about one third of whom have been children(2), 4,054 people injured and 970,000Lebanese people displaced(3) – the civilian infrastructure was severely damaged. The Lebanese government estimates that 31 "vital points" (such as airports, ports, water and sewage treatment plants, electrical facilities) have been completely or partially destroyed, as have around 80 bridges and 94 roads.(4) More than 25 fuel stations(5) and around 900 commercial enterprises were hit. The number of residential properties, offices and shops completely destroyed exceeds 30,000.(6) Two government hospitals – in Bint Jbeil and in Meis al-Jebel – were completely destroyed in Israeli attacks and three others were seriously damaged.(7)

In a country of fewer than four million inhabitants, more than 25 per cent of them took to the roads as displaced persons. An estimated 500,000 people sought shelter in Beirut alone, many of them in parks and public spaces, without water or washing facilities.
Amnesty International delegates in south Lebanon reported 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 attack and were destroyed, totally or partially, as a result. Business premises such as supermarkets or food stores and auto service stations and petrol stations were targeted, often with precision-guided munitions and artillery that started fires and destroyed their contents. 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 lack of fuel also stopped residents from getting water, as water pumps require electricity or fuel-fed generators.

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.

Statements by Israeli military officials seem to confirm that the destruction of the infrastructure was indeed a goal of the military campaign. On 13 July, shortly after the air strikes began, the Israel Defence Force (IDF) Chief of Staff Lt-Gen Dan Halutz noted that all Beirut could be included among the targets if Hizbullah rockets continued to hit northern Israel: "Nothing is safe [in Lebanon], as simple as that,"(8) he said. Three days later, according to the Jerusalem Post newspaper, a high ranking IDF officer threatened that Israel would destroy Lebanese power plants if Hizbullah fired long-range missiles at strategic installations in northern Israel.(9) On 24 July, at a briefing by a high-ranking Israeli Air Force officer, reporters were told that the IDF Chief of Staff had ordered the military to destroy 10 buildings in Beirut for every Katyusha rocket strike on Haifa.(10) His comments were later condemned by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.(11) According to the New York Times, the IDF Chief of Staff said the air strikes were aimed at keeping pressure on Lebanese officials, and delivering a message to the Lebanese government that they must take responsibility for Hizbullah’s actions. He called Hizbullah "a cancer" that Lebanon must get rid of, "because if they don’t their country will pay a very high price." (12)

The widespread destruction of apartments, houses, electricity and water services, roads, bridges, factories and ports, in addition to several statements by Israeli officials, suggests a policy of punishing both the Lebanese government and the civilian population in an effort to get them to turn against Hizbullah. Israeli attacks did not diminish, nor did their pattern appear to change, even when it became clear that the victims of the bombardment were predominantly civilians, which was the case from the first days of the conflict.

For the full report click here.

16 Comments:

Blogger HCB said...

Susu - I gather "go to a library look up a book on israel's history bcs i wrote a paper on it a long time ago," is your answer to my question in the next topic about what you suggest I read. You'll recall you said people have no right to comment unless they've read Israeli history.

Your responses are a bit shrill if the idea is reasoned discourse - which I assume to be your purpose. If that is not your purpose, then nothing is served by reading more - we just throw insults and accusations back and forth.

What in particular is it in your mind that one should understand about Israel's history so that he or she can participate meaningfully here?

4:19 PM  
Blogger HCB said...

And Jaeger (a wonderful name in these circumstances, by the way) "Amnesty International used to be a respected organization but now it's just another anti-American anti-Israel propaganda outfit." "Used to be" respected because it said nothing like it now is saying? I'm American. I served in our Army in Vietnam. I now concern myself with what has happened to America. Guantanamo is wrong. Period. There is absolutely no justification for its existence or for how it has been used. Period. The secret "rendition" of "detainees" as has been done is wrong. Period. The wiretapping, the domestic spying, the baseless prosecution of, for example, Sami al Arian - all of that is wrong. It is wrong that we spend billions of dollars to destroy and then spend billions more to rebuild. Period.

It is wrong that Israel creates its environment of impunity. It is wrong that Israel has and uses so much power so indiscriminately. It is wrong that Israel repeats the mistakes made by the United States in Iraq - by jumping into a situation simply because it thinks it has the power to do so with impunity and the "shock and awe" resulting from its demonstration of what it imagines to be its irresistable power will so impress its enemies they will fold up and go away. Likewise, Israel nonsensically thinks the rest of the world will agree that such an enormously powerful country is being picked on by Hezbollah.

The trouble is both sides are controlled by power hungry egomaniacs. The only differences are that Nasrallah thinks and Olmert doesn't. Aside, of course, from the grossly disproportionate ability to wage "war."

Think ....

4:28 PM  
Blogger J said...

So you're saying that Arab people do not drag their feet in negotiations? Nah, Arafat never did that, never.

5:46 PM  
Blogger HCB said...

No - I understand what you are saying and, if you look back through some of these posts, you'll see I've said some of the same things.

However, through talking here, I've learned a lot I didn't know. Of importance to what you are saying is that there are moderates in Israel who, while not agreeing with you completely, understand the anger and frustration. Surprising as it may be, they do not feel nearly as powerful or invincible as they appear to you and others outside Israel.

All of that means what I tried to say - that a few people have taken advantage of the situation to advance agendas that are not necessarily representative of the people they purport to represent. What real good does it do, for example, when Hezbollah launches a rocket or rockets into Israel? It may feel good to say "there - I've killed some of you as well," but other than that, it just keeps the anger on the Israeli side up. Likewise, what real good comes from the astonishing destruction Israel has just accomplished? It creates even greater hate and turns moderates into enemies.

And what real good is served by simply saying Israel must do ..... (fill in the blank) while Israel says, Hezbollah must .... (fill in the blank) and condition any further attempts at talking or understanding on satisfaction of those initial demands?

All that has occurred so far is that Israel has armed itself better than the other mideast countries and is determined to keep it that way. While all the others are determined Israel must cease to exist. Israel is not going to voluntarily cease to exist and, apparently, Syria, Iran, hezbollah, Hamas and others are not going to cease that demand. The result of all that is interminable war. And the various demands on each side are not going to change that result a bit. Nor will bombing or rockets.

If the grievances cannot be set aside, then the situation will be decided as has always been the case in recorded history: the more powerful will prevail. For the proof of that in recent history, you don't need even to look at the mideast. Look at the American Indian.

Take a breath, Susu. Your anger and frustration are completely understandable. But ....

5:56 PM  
Blogger HCB said...

Sarcasm is also not helpful.

5:57 PM  
Blogger HCB said...

Sarcasm is also not helpful, James Quigley

5:57 PM  
Blogger J said...

Complete ignorance and bias on his part is? If he wants to debate something, at least set it up for what it is.

7:31 PM  
Blogger HCB said...

Carmel - so many Israelis and their supporters want to justify what was done in the light of some very sound criticism. I think it ultimately will become clear to most Israelis as well that the best that can be said for what was done was that it was done in a fit of rage by an over-exuberant military released and encouraged by a prime minister and defense minister who hadn't thought the matter through. It wasn't carefully planned tactically and it certainly wasn't carefully planned strategically.

But - to continue to argue things like (and I know you are not, directly) Hezbollah was "hiding behind civilians" and "every war is a war crime" is to simply keep the wound open and running. There's no good reason that can be supplied for bombing the airport or the hospitals or the other infrastructure other than to impress the Lebanese Parliament and to force southern Lebanon to evacuate. The charge of war crimes has been made but the response by Jaeger (which I think is likely to be the same by many people) this morning is that Amnesty International "used to be" credible but now is simply another anti-Israeli organ. That's not very convincing.

There's coming a time to respond to the charges. Israel really should be looking for ways to soften the coming anger by showing its real desire for peace and to help. But the continued attempts to justify what's been done are not likely to convince a lot of people who don't already agree with you.

8:21 PM  
Blogger HCB said...

Doc - I've not looked at Lebanon's tour guide, but what is set forth above is cut and pasted from here:
http://www.goisrael.com/Tourism_Eng/Tourist+Information/Facts+and+Figures/

Although it's apparently state sponsored (and Florida does the same thing), here's the disclaimer at the bottom of the first page:

The Ministry of Tourism is not responsible for information appearing at this site, provided by third parties. The use of this web site and responsibility therefore falls solely upon the information providers. It is recommended that one clarifies/verifies the information with the information providers. Copyright © All rights reserved 2005

9:24 PM  
Blogger HCB said...

The precise link is:

http://www.goisrael.com/Tourism_Eng/Tourist+Information/Facts+and+Figures/Israel+Past+and+Present.htm

9:35 PM  
Blogger HCB said...

Well - we're finding some common ground, finally. Both countries use the same PR firm.

10:00 PM  
Blogger beirutlive said...

carmel about brigitte gabriel, please look at a previous post we put about her...it will answer alot of ur questions about her...

duckforcover, i am not saying that HZ launching rockets on civilian areas are not warcrimes, but when you have precision guided missiles and you state you want to attack HZ alone, why is it there is so much 'collateral damage'? HZ doesnt have precision guided missiles, yet there are more israeli soldiers killed than civilians. i am not defending HZ, far from it, but i am surely not defending the IDF and the attacks they have performed...

11:01 PM  
Blogger Yuu Nakamichi said...

Coming back to lilu's earlier request for a source for susu's newsflash: IDF soldiers were killed and wounded when they drove their tank over one of the 400,000 landmines Israel planted in Southern Lebanon close to the Blue Line (scroll down to 'Landmines and UXO problem') during the previous occupation. (Israel refuses to hand over maps of these landmines to Lebanon.)

You can watch/listen to/read about the problems civilians face in S Lebanon here. There's also a backgrounder on land mines and cluster munitions.

1:55 AM  
Blogger Yuu Nakamichi said...

I agree. Reports of military incidents are often very difficult to decode -- it's super-easy to get things completely backwards. And that's before you take into account that they are almost always wrapped into multiple layers of censorship and 'strategic communications'. I don't know about the other incidents susu mentions.

It's not clear what happened to the tank from the English version of the article (although it seems to suggest that the tank was at least disabled by the mine, because the casualties had to be evacuated in a different (armored) vehicle from the area.) Perhaps the Hebrew edition is more precise? In any case, if you want to get a really detailed and accurate picture, it will be necessary to compare reports from as many reliable sources as you can find and then cross check / triangulate.

Btw, for an interesting critique of the reporting of IDF affairs in Ha'aretz, have a look at this blog post about the differences between the Hebrew vs. English (or domestic audience vs. international audience, if you will) coverage of the arrest of Marwan Barghouti late in 2004.

Quote:

Too often, reports from Ha’aretz’ military analysts consist of an unquestioning repetition of unsubstantiated claims about Palestinian intentions and military capabilities, or an uncritical justification for I.D.F. actions with no analysis, no corroboration and no source except some unnamed, unspecified “military source”. If I wanted to read a press release justifying the I.D.F.’s latest "incursion" or "targeted killing", or laying the groundwork for the next mass home-razing in Rafah, I could go to the I.D.F.’s homepage: I don’t need to have it regurgitated as “news” on the pages of Ha’aretz. Adding a correspondent’s name to the top of an I.D.F. press release and publishing it in a respected newspaper doesn’t suddenly turn propaganda into journalism.

It even comes with a nerdy comparative chart. :-)

4:21 AM  
Blogger Yuu Nakamichi said...

P.S. Here is a link to the original post about the IDF's abuse of ambulances for combat operations that is being referred to.

4:31 AM  
Blogger Yuu Nakamichi said...

Hmmmm. Interesting. :-)


The English version was revised several times during the day - I think they spoke of three fatalities first, then two, and later one. They also had the word tank in the headline (not any more). Also, there were several different explanations (other than the 'navigational mistake' version) for what happened. So there you go.

5:06 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home