Amnesty urges UN to probe Israel strategy

[Nutmegger]

Amnesty International says attacks on civilian targets by Israeli military forces during the recently ended fighting in Lebanon look like deliberate war crimes.

In a report released on Wednesday, the London-based human rights organisation argues that the destruction of Lebanese homes and basic infrastructure “was an integral part of the military strategy”.

Noting violations by both sides, Amnesty says it has asked the United Nations to open a “comprehensive, independent and impartial inquiry” about the 34-day war between Israel and the Lebanese-based Hizbollah militia.

The losses inflicted by Israeli forces were not just “collateral damage” under the accepted rules of war, according to Amnesty.

Full article: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/65bf7dfa-3203-11db-ab06-0000779e2340.html

[ewoden]

1. Can't we just probe Israel (hard) and not their strategy?

[whistle]

2. Actually it should not be that difficult to figure out, Israel took their

...orders to invade Lebanon from Bush/Cheney, who in turn immediately sent weapons of mass destruction for Israel to use to destroy as many Lebanese targets and people as possible in order to weaken their will to fight and to defend themselves. Hezbollah remained an unknown quantity and impossible target to distinguish from the Lebanese, so everyone in south Lebanon became fair game for the Israeli military.

After one month, Israel realized that all of the bombing and slaughter failed to achieve any of their objectives. Furthermore Iran could not be drawn into the conflict which BushCo was hoping would happen so that the neocons could launch nuclear attacks against Iran and other Middle East targets. Bush then did what he is most noted for doing, he broke his promise to Israel and has not invaded Syria or provided any direct military involvement. As a result, it is the Israeli army which has lost the will to continue fighting and are leaving the battle field to go back to Israel and be with their families and friends.

What a tremendous BushCo/Srael fuck-up this whole Israel/Lebanon conflict has been!

[MetaTrope]

16. Better yet, Israel's example gave Iran carte blanche

to begin shelling Kurdish rebel positions in Iraq.

[xultar]

3. My prediction about this thread...there will be a whole bunch of people

who come in and yell about Amnesty International and say they are anti-semites. Mainly cuz Hezbollah and Hamas have fucked up strategies too.

But what they don't get is Hezbollah and Hamas aren't governments. Even though Hezbollah and Hamas have been voted into by their own people Israel still feels the need to kidnap and assassinate their leaders.

I'd say to Israel you can't have it both ways. I'd also say what my what my mom says to me you have the power which includes responsibility.

Israel is a super-power yet they want to act like they aren't and not take responsibility for their actions. Yet they kidnap and assassinate the leaders of elected officials political parties and governments for state security. I don't know about y'all but I don't know if it is OK for governments to go around assassinating and kidnapping other countries political leaders and elected officials. If they do and those people fight back they can't call foul and victim.

Let's be honest here. Both Hezbollah and Israel have killed civilians. Let's make sure this shit stops. On both sides. Oh and can we get some investigations on BushCo's strategy please not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but here @ home too. I'm feelin like I need some fuckin amnesty from the Bushco muthafuckas.

[Pavulon]

4. War

kills innocent people. We killed many french on d day and afterward. It is not right but in an open war it is a natural consequence.

Jews, arabs, french, german, russian all victims of war. It would be better wars were not fought. When they are people who do not deserve to die, do.

Both sides fought an open war.

[ewoden]

5. What in Sam Hill is "open war"? n/t

[Pavulon]

6. WW1 , WW2

wars fought in and among civilian populations. Iraq is not an open war..

[ewoden]

7. Wait, so Iraq civilians are not being killed by the US as

collateral damage?

[Ragin_mad]

8. Since when is Iraq

inside Israel ?

[PointAndLaugh]

9. I agree.

Iraq is not an open war. It's pretty much U.S. troops and private security contractors shooting civilians and blowing stuff away on a daily basis.

[Flanker]

35. It also shows your internal contradictions in apologizing for both conflic

WWI was largely devoid of civilians casualties (the civilian/military ratio was < 1) and WWII was the oposite precisely because of warcrimes were committed at grand scale (both by allies and axis).

In Lebanon/Iraq the civilian death toll overshadowed the military one, whereas Hezbollah had a 50:50 record or close to.

[endarkenment]

15. And we hung a bunch of Germans and Japanese folks

for the way they went about conducting their "open war" (whatever that is) and we and the Israelis are signatories to a whole set of treaties that establish what is and what is not a war crime. Your argument is either dishonest or naive.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Amnesty slams Israel 'war crimes' (BBC)

Here is the BBC's report on this story:

Last Updated: Wednesday, 23 August 2006, 00:52 GMT 01:52 UK

Amnesty slams Israel 'war crimes'

Amnesty International has accused Israel of committing war crimes by deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure in Lebanon.

The human rights group says attacks on homes, bridges, roads and water and fuel plants were an "integral part" of Israel's strategy in the recent war.

The group also calls for a UN investigation into whether both Israel and Hezbollah broke humanitarian law.

Israel said it did not deliberately target Lebanon's civilian population.

In a report released on Wednesday, Amnesty International bases its accusations on an examination of Israeli attacks and comments made by Israeli officials during the 34-day conflict with the militant group Hezbollah.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5276626.stm

[Nutmegger]

11. Not that I want a flame-fest

but I thought there would be more discussion. :)

[PointAndLaugh]

12. It's really a given.

Everybody and their dog agrees Israel screwed up big time. (They committed massive war crimes that is). Even the most rabid pro-Israel, hardcore zionists know this now. Although, many of them are probably concentrating more on the Israeli tanks burning in the fields and hills of southern Lebanon, and hundreds of casualties Israel suffered. Hence all the silence in this here thread.

[Vidar]

13. Welcome to DU.

[Sherman A1]

14. Agreed

It was pretty much a bungle-fest by the Israelis from a military strategy point of view. It doesn't seem too much worked too well for them. Hence time to declare peace and order out for pizza.

[Recursion]

45. Umm...

Everybody and their dog agrees Israel screwed up big time. (They committed massive war crimes that is).

Screwed up big time? yes. Massive war crimes? no. It was a stupid and poorly-planned and poorly-executed campaign, but unlike our adventure in Iraq it was not essentially illegal.

[laststeamtrain]

17. Amnesty report accuses Israel of war crimes (Guardian)

Amnesty report accuses Israel of war crimes

David Fickling
Wednesday August 23, 2006

Guardian Unlimited
Israel deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure and committed war crimes during the month-long conflict in Lebanon, according to an Amnesty International report.

The report said strikes on civilian buildings and structures went beyond "collateral damage" and amounted to indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks under the Geneva conventions on the laws of war.

Kate Gilmore, the Amnesty executive deputy secretary general, said the bombardment of power and water plants and transport links was "deliberate and an integral part of a military strategy".

"Israel's assertion that the attacks on the infrastructure were lawful is manifestly wrong," she said.

"Many of the violations identified in our report are war crimes. The pattern, scope and scale of the attacks makes Israel's claim that this was collateral damage simply not credible."

Amnesty called for an official UN inquiry into human rights violations on both sides of the conflict.

<more>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1856587,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1

[Recursion]

18. It's now a war crime to target infrastructure?

When did that happen?

[atreides1]

22. Laws of War

Some of the central principles underlying laws of war are:

That wars should be limited to achieving the political goals that started the war (e.g., territorial control) and should not include unnecessary destruction

That wars should be brought to an end as quickly as possible

That people and property that do not contribute to the war effort be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship

To this end, laws of war are intended to mitigate the evils of war by:

Protecting both combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering;
Safeguarding certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians; and
Facilitating the restoration of peace.


Parties are bound by the laws of war to the extent that such compliance does not interfere with achieving legitimate military goals. For example, they are obliged to make every effort to avoid damaging people and property not involved in combat, but they are not guilty of a war crime if a bomb mistakenly hits a residential area.

By the same token, combatants that use protected people or property as shields or camouflage are guilty of violations of laws of war and are responsible for damage to those that should be protected.

[Recursion]

28. Yeah, I sat through the laws of war class in boot camp

And I don't remember anything about not targeting infrastructure. In fact, I remember learning that throughout history targeting a country's infrastructure has been an accepted and commonly used means to destroy that country's ability to fight and thereby end the war. So I'm curious when exactly it changed so that targeting infrastructure was illegal.

[Recursion]

68. Good point

By the same token, combatants that use protected people or property as shields or camouflage are guilty of violations of laws of war and are responsible for damage to those that should be protected.

You mean an organization who doesn't follow a standard order of battle, wear distinctive uniforms, or billet itself in areas clearly distinguished from civilian housing is legally responsible for the enemy's actions against them that result in the deaths of the civilians they so closely resemble?

That, I agree with.

[CollegeDUer]

26. According to treaties Israel is a party to, yes

I mean when you sign a treaty it's not like you're just kidding.

[Recursion]

29. Which treaties?

I have never heard of a treaty saying Israel would not target Lebanese infrastructure in any future war in Lebanon.

[Solly Mack]

27. Since First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions in 1977, that's when

The UN has said Israel could be guilty of Articles 51 and 57...and they've also said Hezbollah could be guilty under Article 51 and Geneva Convention,Common Article 3, 1949
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2283898,00.html




Additional Protocol I, Article 51:

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y5pagc.htm

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/94.htm

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm


Article 51: Protection of the Civilian Population
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 all circumstances.

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.

Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

- those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
- those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective;

- or 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.

Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

- 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 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.

(this part means you don't bomb if the military advantage gained doesn't out-weigh the loss to civilian life.)

- Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

- 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, favor 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.

- 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.

Chapter III: Civilian Objects

Article 52: General Protection of Civilian Objects

Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.

Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.



Also, Article 57

CHAPTER IV.-PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES

Article 57.-Precautions in attack

1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.

2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:

(a) Those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:

(i) Do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;

(ii) Take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;

(iii) Refrain from deciding to launch any 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;

(b) An attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack 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;

(c) Effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit.

3. When a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining a similar military advantage, the objective to be selected shall be that the attack on which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects.

4. In the conduct of military operations at sea or in the air, each Party to the conflict shall, in conformity with its rights and duties under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, take all reasonable precautions to avoid losses of civilian lives and damage to civilian objects.

5. No provision of this Article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.

[Recursion]

30. But the claim was about infrastructure, not civilians

I'm totally with you that the civilian deaths are a legal problem for Israel; I was reading the article, however, to be focusing on their destruction of things like the airport and bridges.

I think it's hard to deny honestly that airports and bridges are legitimate military targets, and they certainly seem to fall under the military targets as defined in the convention you posted.

[Solly Mack]

32. Military objectives

There are strategic targets (infrastructure) and targets (infrastructure) with no real military value or the value of the target doesn't out weigh the deaths caused...

Article 51 clearly states the military value of the target must out weigh the deaths caused...

The article in the OP says "deliberate attack on civilian infrastructure" - which can mean housing, hospitals, and schools...

[Recursion]

47. I'm with you there

There are strategic targets (infrastructure) and targets (infrastructure) with no real military value or the value of the target doesn't out weigh the deaths caused...

Yes, but what I'm seeing in the article is bridges, factories, power plants, and airports. How can you say those have no real military value?

The article in the OP says "deliberate attack on civilian infrastructure" - which can mean housing, hospitals, and schools...

Yes it can mean that, but does it in this case? I haven't heard of hospitals or schools being targeted.

Now, if someone can show that the buildings in Beiruit that were attacked were entirely residential buildings and were deliberately targeted, I'll agree that's a crime. If someone can demonstrate that that ambulance was known to be an ambulance and was deliberately targeted, I'll also agree that's a crime.

[Solly Mack]

50. You're missing the point - the objective has to out weigh deaths caused

among civilians - so in the after-action report - investigation, if it is deemed that a target, regardless of it's military value - is considered a bigger loss to civilian life than it gained militarily, then it can fall under article 51. That's what Article 51 says...please don't say it's what I said. I'm explaining what Article 51 states.

Google Lebanon, Israel, hospital and you get:
Israel arrests 5, kills 10 in hospital raid
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/02/mideast.main/index.html

I'll let the UN decide what that means

[Recursion]

53. OK, do you have a "human life" scale handy?

How many civilian deaths are "balanced" by a given military objective? And how do you decide that?

My own answer is "zero"; maybe that's yours too. Great! All war is now illegal. I'm very happy with that. If only everybody agreed. Ultimately it's a subjective question each commander has to face.

Israel arrests 5, kills 10 in hospital raid
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/02/mideast.main/...

Israeli commandos raided a hospital, captured 5 and killed 10. Israel says the hospital was being used as headquarters by Hezbollah. Hezbollah says they were not using it as headquarters. At least one of them is lying.

If Israel is lying, they attacked a hospital; that's as clear a breach of the law as I can imagine, and a war crime.

If Hezbollah is lying, they were using a hospital as a military headquarters; that is an equally clear breach of law, and a war crime.

You're right; the UN can sort that one out...

Oh, and if it turns out that Hezbollah did commit a war crime by using the hospital as a headquarters, I'll expect a condemnation of that war crime on this board and in the UN real soon now :eyes:

[Solly Mack]

54. LOL Take it up with the UN. I'm not a wet stone

and you'll have to grind that axe elsewhere.

"How many civilian deaths are "balanced" by a given military objective? And how do you decide that?"

I don't decide...but the UN has contact info of their web site and you can write them and ask.

I already posted a link to the article where the UN says that BOTH Israel and Hezbollah may have violated the Conventions, but that didn't seem to register.

[Recursion]

49. Ah, Stockholm linked the full report down the page

The report lists 11 categories of actions it considered illegal.

Civilian homes
Water facilities
Electricity and fuel supply
Environmental damage
Roads and bridges
Airports
Ports
Hospitals
Communications
Economic infrastructure
Blockades


1. Civilian homes

Thousands of civilian houses were destroyed in the Israeli bombardment in various parts of Lebanon – notably in villages and towns south of the Litani river, in the suburbs of the capital Beirut and in the town of Baalbak and its surroundings.

OK, if that was a deliberate targeting, that was a crime. If the houses were in the way of a legitimate military target, that's not a crime. And if that target is moveable and was placed there, that's a crime on the part of Hezbollah.

2. Water Facilities

Wells, water mains, storage tanks, pumping stations and water treatment works have been destroyed throughout south Lebanon. The water service in the entire country has also been disrupted, as water pipes running beneath roads have been extensively damaged when the roads above have been bombed.

"Military targets are those that by their own nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to an enemy’s military capability and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances existing at the time of an attack enhance legitimate military objectives."

Water supplies make an effective contribution to an enemy's military capability.

3. Electricity and Fuel Supply

Electrical facilities, power plants and fuel stations have suffered extensive damage. At least 20 fuel depots have been completely destroyed in bombing raids and 25 petrol stations have been destroyed or severely damaged.

Electrical facilities, power plants, and fuel stations make an effective contribution to an enemy's military capability.

4. Environmental Damage

The attack on Lebanon’s largest power station at Jiyyeh had both an immediate adverse impact on the population, and long-term implications for the environment and the economy. Israeli forces bombed the Jiyyeh power station, about 25km south of Beirut, and its fuel tanks on 13 July and again on 15 July. The resulting fire, which burned for three weeks, coated the surrounding areas with a fine white dust of pulverized concrete and filled the air with black soot. In addition, that attack caused 15,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil to leak into the sea.

That was a very stupid and damaging attack on Israel's part, and there should be legal consequences, but the power plant is still a valid military target.

5. Roads and bridges

Roads and bridges, despite their use primarily by civilians, have been declared a target by the Israeli military. The extensive damage to the land transportation network during the first three weeks of bombing alone has been estimated by the Lebanese government at more than US $300 million.

Roads and bridges are textbook definitions of valid military targets. The intent is to disrupt the enemy's movement, communications, and supplies.

6. Airports

All of Lebanon’s airports have been attacked, some repeatedly, including Beirut’s international airport. The Beirut airport was one of the first targets to be struck; a first aerial attack turned the airport’s fuel tanks into fireballs, while a second wave left craters in the three main runways. While the central facilities, including the control tower, were spared, the airport was rendered inoperative.

Wow... so they disrupted the enemy's ability to resupply by air, but didn't take out the control tower and did it with 0 casualties? Those bastards! IMO the airport is the one part of this campaign they did right.

7. Ports

Israeli forces attacked seaports along the coast, including three of the country’s main ones – in Beirut, Tripoli and Sidon. A missile from an Israeli combat helicopter put out of use Beirut’s modern lighthouse on 15 July, and an antenna vital for maritime operations was hit in Tripoli on 18 July. The old lighthouse was also hit. It is difficult to see what legitimate purpose these attacks could have had, given that the Israeli Navy was blockading the port anyway.

No blockade is 100% effective, and I think you have to admit the claim that a port has no legitimate military significance is kind of laughable.

8. Hospitals

Hospitals in many parts of the country have sustained shelling damage, particularly in the south, but the main threat to their continued operation came from fuel shortages

OK, so they didn't deliberately attack hospitals though some sustained shelling damage, and the disruption to the fuel supply has effected hospitals' ability to operate. Remind me what part of that is illegal?

9. Communications

Israeli air raids on 22 July hit several transmission stations used by Lebanese television and radio stations. These included Future TV, New TV, and the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (LBCI), none of which had any links with Hizbullah, as well as the Hizbullah-backed al-Manar TV. They were also used by mobile phone networks. One LBCI official, Suleyman Shidiac, Chief Engineer at the relay station at Fatqa in the Kesrwan mountains north-east of Beirut, was killed and two others were injured.

Communications networks are obviously of extreme military significance. Orders were being passed down over TV and mobile phones.

10. Economic infrastructure

Privately owned factories and businesses across the country – economic entities whose destruction could not be seen to offer a military advantage outweighing the damage to civilians – have also been subjected to a series of debilitating air strikes, dealing a further crippling blow to the shattered economy.

OK, the report can gratuitously assert that these economic entities don't offer a military advantage outweighing the damaging civilians, but that can be just as gratuitously denied. I personally don't know what the factories and businesses did, so I can't say.

11. Blockades

Israel incapacitated Beirut’s airports, bombarded most of the country’s bridges and arterial roads, and imposed a naval and air blockade. Access to the south of the country even for humanitarian agencies, was severely disrupted. With land routes cut, the naval blockade made bringing aid shipments in by sea impossible without military approval, which proved extremely difficult to secure.

Blockades have for centuries been a recognized and legal practice in warfare. Israel was not fast enough in establishing a humanitarian corridor, and I definitely fault them for that, but there's nothing illegal about a blockade.

Look. I hate war. I hate war because this is what war is. War is towns and businesses and people and animals and plants being destroyed. War is widows and orphans and maimed people. War is acres of olive groves turning into toxic mud that smells like fire and death. The Israelis and Lebanese who wanted war and worked so hard to get it have the blood of thousands on their hands. But the laws of war are not what a lot of people imagine them to be, and the legal discretion a belligerent has in choosing targets is very broad. There's not a way to make war nice. There's not a way to have war where civilians aren't killed. I wish Israel showed more regard for civilian casualties and had limited some of their operations. I wish Hezbollah had shown any regard for civilian casualties other than the two Arab kids their rockets hit. But their legal obligations are pretty clear, and except for some incidents (the ambulance, the UN post) as far as I've seen they didn't break them, even if they didn't seem very enthusiastic about them.

[Solly Mack]

52. I saw the post already, as well as the report

[bluestateguy]

19. While I don't doubt that this might be true

Hardly any country escapes Amnesty International scrutiny. They are very fastidious.

[Benhurst]

20. If it looks like a goose, honks like a goose

and steps like a goose, well then ... .

[goforit]

21. This is a given.

[Selatius]

23. We all know Israel targeted civilian infrastructure like power plants

The oil spill on the Lebanese coast is a testament to that.

[Recursion]

31. But legally almost no infrastructure is "civilian" in that sense

power plants, roads, bridges, airports, etc. are all military targets.

If we want to pretend there's such a thing as war in which roads and bridges aren't destroyed, we can pretend that, but militaries have recognized them as targets for as long as there have been militaries, and I would be surprised if any military force didn't target them in a war.

[The Stranger]

33. Can you provide a source for that?

Re "infrstructure" -- constructed by civlians and used exclusively by civilians (who, effectively, do not have a military) -- not being "civilian." Thanks.

[Recursion]

38. Sure

Here is an about.com summary of the laws of armed combat as implemented by the US DoD. To quote some relevant parts:

"Distinction means discriminating between lawful combatant targets and noncombatant targets such as civilians, civilian property, POWs, and wounded personnel who are out of combat. The central idea of distinction is to only engage valid military targets. An indiscriminate attack is one that strikes military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. Distinction requires defenders to separate military objects from civilian objects to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to locate a hospital or POW camp next to an ammunition factory."

"The principle of military necessity limits aerial attacks to lawful military targets. Military targets are those that by their own nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to an enemy’s military capability and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances existing at the time of an attack enhance legitimate military objectives"

(I can't see how a bridge or airport doesn't fall under that definition of "military target")

"The LOAC specifically describes objects that shall not be the targets of a direct attack. Reflecting the rule that military operations must be directed at military objectives, objects normally dedicated to peaceful purposes enjoy a general immunity from direct attack. Specific protection applies to medical units or establishments; transports of wounded and sick personnel; military and civilian hospital ships; safety zones established under the Geneva Conventions; and religious, cultural, and charitable buildings, monuments, and POW camps. However, if these objects are used for military purposes, they lose their immunity. If these protected objects are located near lawful military objectives (which LOAC prohibits), they may suffer collateral damage when the nearby military objectives are lawfully engaged."

So, essentially, hospitals, monuments, etc. are protected and that seems to be about it. Now, I know that ambulance got hit, and if that was deliberate whoever gave the order needs to go to jail. But I certainly didn't see anything about hospitals or mosques getting bombed. Also note again that if a belligerent places military objectives close enough to civilians to expose them to fire, it is the party being attacked who bears the legal responsibility for that.

This next paragraph doesn't directly apply but it's the best summary I've seen in this article of how much responsibility the side being attacked has and how much lattitude the side attacking has (I think a lot of people greatly overstate belligerents' legal responsibilities under Geneva, etc.):

"Enemy military medical aircraft is generally not subject to attack under the LOAC. However, at least six instances may lead to a lawful attack. Enemy military medical aircraft could be lawfully attacked and destroyed if it:

* Initiates an attack.
* Is not exclusively employed as a medical aircraft.
* Does not bear a clearly marked Red Cross, Red Crescent, or other recognized symbol and is not otherwise known to be an exclusively medical aircraft.
* Does not fly at heights, at times, and on routes specifically agreed to by the parties to the conflict and is not otherwise known to be an exclusively medical aircraft.
* Flies over enemy territory or enemy-occupied territory (unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties).
* Approaches its enemy’s territory or a combat zone and disregards a summons to land."

That is, it's legal to target even medical aircraft if they aren't where they are supposed to be.

And finally, since both sides view this as a "reprisal" on their part, here is a paragraph on reprisals:

"Moreover, the LOAC permits combatants to engage in acts of reprisal to enforce an enemy force’s compliance with LOAC rules. Reprisals are acts in response to LOAC violations. The act of reprisal would be otherwise forbidden if it was not for the prior unlawful act of the enemy. A lawful act of reprisal cannot be the basis for a counter-reprisal. Reprisals are always prohibited if directed against POWs; wounded, sick, or shipwrecked persons at sea; civilian persons and their property; or religious or cultural property."

Now, if you want to say that the laws of armed combat aren't strong enough, I'll be the first to sign on with that. But as it is, a belligerent signatory has very, very wide legal discretion on its choices of targets.

[Spazito]

39. That is the DOD, not International law

Given the DOD no longer follows the Geneva Conventions, US Code, Title 18, Sec. 2441 on the issue of treaties, quoting DOD is rather a moot point, imo.

[Recursion]

41. That was from 1998

And it was an example of one country's implementation of the laws of armed combat.

Our (illegal) breaks with the geneva conventions were on the treatment of POWs and other detained personnel, not on the laws of armed combat.

[Spazito]

48. To use the DOD from 1998, then, makes your post moot given the

discussion is about actions in 2006.

[Recursion]

51. WTF are you talking about?

I listed it as one example of an implementation of the abstract principles of the laws of armed combat. Why do you care so much that it's from the US from 1998? The US wasn't even a belligerent here. It was an example of a concrete implementation of the laws and I chose it because it's the first one that came up on Google.

The principles of the law of armed combat haven't changed since 1998; why does it matter that this implementation was made in 1998?

[Spazito]

56. Well, if, in your estimation, the US wasn't even a belligerent in this

why quote the DOD at all? I find your argument very confusing. First, you post the DOD material in response to a request for a source Re "infrstructure" -- constructed by civlians and used exclusively by civilians (who, effectively, do not have a military) -- not being "civilian."

When I question the use of DOD as your source, you then respond with a confusing, albeit technically correct, point that the US wasn't even a belligerent in this yet you cite from the US DOD.

I think the statement by Louise Arbour on this would be a better source than anything by the US DOD given she is the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights:

http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/specialsession/Special%20Session%20ME%20August%2010%202006%20draft%20LA.pdf

[Recursion]

57. You're really confusing me

When I question the use of DOD as your source, you then respond with a confusing, albeit technically correct, point that the US wasn't even a belligerent in this yet you cite from the US DOD

I would have quoted Zambia's law if that was what came up on google; it's frankly irrelevant which country I chose since it's a convention most countries follow. Why do you care so much that I picked the US's implementation? It has the advantage of having a large and (I've found) accurate website dedicated to it (usmilitary.about.com). The principles of the LOAC bind all signatories, and one country's implementation isn't going to be substantially different from another's.

in response to a request for a source Re "infrstructure" -- constructed by civlians and used exclusively by civilians (who, effectively, do not have a military) -- not being "civilian."

A) I'm missing the "infrstructure" typo upthread; where is it?
B) A bridge or airport could be used 99% of the time by civilians, but if the 1% of its use that is military has a compelling effect on the enemy's ability to fight a war, it's a valid target.

[Spazito]

60. LOL, seeing as you have totally overlooked commenting on

the link to the High Commissioner's statement and seem to find a typo of more import, the "typo" can be found in the original post #33 requesting a source. I merely cut and pasted the post as to ensure I didn't make an error.

You continue to argue your opinion as is your right but opinion does not mean it is based on facts.

It is your opinion that DOD info is accurate and based on international law, I differ in that opinion. Both opinions are equally valid given they are ONLY opinions.

It seems difficult for some to believe war crimes were committed by Israel yet those same individuals have less difficulty finding the same actions committed by others to be war crimes. Do you believe Hezbollah has committed war crimes during this latest crisis?

Have you read the statement by the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights and, if so, what are your thoughts on it? Do you believe the statement from the UN High Commissioner to be of equal or greater value than the info from your DOD post?

[Recursion]

62. I agree with her

There should be an investigation of the campaign; from the news I have seen my guess is that the IDF would be largely cleared of any systemic war crimes, but there would be some cases that would merit punishment.

Do you believe Hezbollah has committed war crimes during this latest crisis?

Not being a state, I don't think Hezbollah has a controlling international legal instrument over it; if we pretend they were a state I would say that they have committed some war crimes, but that like the Israeli case it seems to be some individual incidents, not that the campaign itself was illegal. I mentioned the example above of the raid on the hospital; Hezbollah probably was using that as a military facility (a war crime) and Israel probably did use disproportionate force to dislodge them (a war crime). But I haven't myself seen any reports of violations on either side severe enough to override a commander's prerogative to protect his own troops.

At any rate, the UNHCHR says there should be an investigation of this campaign and I agree that there should. She is very worried about the need for humanitarian aid to the Lebanese civilian population, and I agree. But you're making it sound like she is saying that the condition of the civilians is the result of an Israeli war crime, which I don't at all see in her document. She lists as requiring investigation the allegations that the Israeli military deliberately targeted civilians in Qana, that Israeli attacks did not sufficiently protect civilian populations, that Hezbollah's rocketing of northern Israel indiscriminately targeted civilians, and that Hezbollah conducted military operations in civilian areas. I fully agree that those should be investigated, and would add to that list the attack on the ambulance, and the incident at the hospital (at least one war crime must have occured there, since either Hezbollah was using it as a military base, or Israel attacked a hospital with no military activity going on).

But I don't see her say anywhere that the destruction of the Lebanese infrastructure was a war crime; she says it is a humanitarian disaster (and she's right). So as far as I can see, she agrees with my understanding of the law: bridges, roads, power plants, etc. are legal targets and hospitals, civilians, etc. are not.

[Spazito]

64. There is International humanitarian law as per the UN

and that may be where we are at cross purposes. It is under those laws that the question of Israeli and Hezbollah war crimes has arisen:

Fact Sheet No.13, International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights
Introduction

snip

Three main currents have contributed to the making of international humanitarian law. They are the "law of Geneva", represented by the international Conventions and Protocols established under the aegis of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) with the protection of the victims of conflict as their central concern; the "law of The Hague", based on the results of the Peace Conferences in the capital of the Netherlands in 1899 and 1907, which dealt principally with the permissible means and methods of war; and the efforts of the United Nations to ensure that human rights are respected in armed conflicts and to limit the use of certain weapons.

Increasingly, these three currents have merged to form one stream of action.

snip

Certain aspects of the Protocols, as the most recent development in the "law of Geneva", merit a wider description. Protocol I (international conflicts) develops the rules concerning the role of Protecting Powers designated by each party to a conflict, to supervise the application of the Conventions and Protocols. It has provisions to improve the condition of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, and provides for the collection and providing of information concerning the missing and dead.

In prohibiting the use of methods and means of warfare which may cause superfluous injury, unnecessary suffering and widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment, Protocol I marks the end of the separation between the "law of Geneva" and the "law of The Hague".

snip

With the adoption of resolution 2444, the General Assembly declared as unacceptable the idea of waging war against the entire population in an attempt to force the adversary to give up. The resolution also marked the acceleration of the movement to bring the three currents of international humanitarian law-Geneva, The Hague, and the United Nations-into one main stream. It recognized the interaction between rules to protect the victims of war, to establish rules of combat, and to protect human rights in armed conflicts.

Link to the above document which I have found to be informative:

http://www.ohchr.org/english/about/publications/docs/fs13.htm

I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful response to my questions and am in agreement, an investigation MUST take place regarding any and all allegations of possible war crimes whether committed by Israel or Hezbollah.

[MrPrax]

36. Even though....

...even if there is evidence that exists that the attack and occupation of Lebanon was planned well in advance of the pre-text (kidnapping) with some disagreement over whether the US directed it or Israel did for the larger strategy of neutralizing Iranian support.

...even if Israel had done the same thing in Gaza even though Israel effectively controls access to it

...even though the ACTUAL weapons used by the enemy remained untouched by Israel's bombing and Israel has provided no direct evidence as how much of the bombing relates to Hezbullah's actions including the attacks on clearly marked emergency vehicles, UN posts, killing of foreign nationals, migrant farmworkers, children, etc

...even though Israel has used prohibited weapons like clusterbombs and potentially chemical weapons that have NO other purpose but to indiscrimiantely kill civillians

...even though there are clearly defined avenues for redress on the Lebanese government's inability to follow UN resolutions, Israel is at fault at claiming it's scorched earth solution of collective punishment of the entire Lebanese population is sanctioned under either the resolution or by international law

...even though clearly Israel has been equally at fault at violating said resolutions, they fail continually to acknowledge their violations, their illegal '5 mile safety' zone and as such can not then make a genuine claim of self defense.

...even though Israel illegaly holds thousands of Lebanese prisoners without pretext, trial or extradition

...even though Israel illegally occupied Lebanese territory for nearly 20 years under the same weak pretext

etc etc etc...

It becomes a little dull listening to fanatics as they stand on the bodies of children decrying a brutal enemy...

[Recursion]

43. sigh

even if there is evidence that exists that the attack and occupation of Lebanon was planned well in advance of the pre-text (kidnapping) with some disagreement over whether the US directed it or Israel did for the larger strategy of neutralizing Iranian support.

We have war plans to invade Norway. Come to think of it we have war plans to invade every country on earth. Is it immoral? yes. Does it make it a violation of the laws of war? no.

even if Israel had done the same thing in Gaza even though Israel effectively controls access to it

I think legally Gaza is a much different kettle of fish because Israel has much greater responsibilities as a de facto occupying and administering power.

even though the ACTUAL weapons used by the enemy remained untouched by Israel's bombing and Israel has provided no direct evidence as how much of the bombing relates to Hezbullah's actions including the attacks on clearly marked emergency vehicles, UN posts, killing of foreign nationals, migrant farmworkers, children, etc

A) I've never said Israel's campaign was effective or wise
B) As I mentioned in another post, targeting the ambulance and the UN post were clearly illegal acts; if those were deliberately chosen targets whoever gave that order should go to jail
C) I don't know of any additional legal protection that foreign nationals, migrant farmworkers, or children receive above other civilians

even though Israel has used prohibited weapons like clusterbombs and potentially chemical weapons that have NO other purpose but to indiscrimiantely kill civillians

A) Clustered munitions are not currently controlled by any international legal instrument
B) I have seen 0 evidence of any use of chemical weapons by Israel, and the pictures of the victims that I have seen associated with those claims look, to me, exactly like the victims of US bombs and insurgent IEDs I saw in Iraq

even though there are clearly defined avenues for redress on the Lebanese government's inability to follow UN resolutions, Israel is at fault at claiming it's scorched earth solution of collective punishment of the entire Lebanese population is sanctioned under either the resolution or by international law

Really? What avenue of redress would you have suggested? Getting the UN to ask Hezbollah to disarm again? Telling UNFIL to do something when they see rockets being launched from southern Lebanon?

even though Israel illegally occupied Lebanese territory for nearly 20 years under the same weak pretext


And justly paid a heavy price for it, and withdrew 6 years ago, and still gets attacked.

Almost everything Israel has done here has been stupid. Almost everything Hezbollah has done here has been stupid. Neither side is an effective partner for peace, and neither will be until they realize that no one can unilaterally impose a solution here.

[MrPrax]

59. Usual rhetoric

designed to evade, and never discuss...

We have war plans to invade Norway....
Amnesty is talking about Lebanon, not 'make believe' scenarios where Norway or Canada are attacking Sweden or the US...it's irrelevent.

I think legally Gaza is a much different kettle of fish
Only in asmuch as Amnesty didn't comment on it, but I did and it's the same kettle of fish vis a vis Israel as it is illegally occupied terroitories of which there are several UN resolutions that regarding this matter, none of which Israel has bothered to address in much the same way as Lebanon has no bothered to address it's violations.

A) I've never said Israel's campaign was effective or wise
irrelevent...the effectiveness or not of Nazi Germany's attempts to murder a race was never judged a consideration by anyone, nor is it germaine to questions of war crimes...

B) As I mentioned in another post, targeting the ambulance and the UN post were clearly illegal acts; if those were deliberately chosen targets whoever gave that order should go to jail
If that was illegal, then the possibility exists that there are others as well which should be thoroughly investigated for charges.

C) I don't know of any additional legal protection that foreign nationals, migrant farmworkers, or children receive above other civilians
I do...it's called international law...if Israel contends that it's actions were to 'get' Hezbullah and defend Israel then the burden of proof lies on the aggressor to prove that these innocents are directly involved in the initial claim. No evidence has been provided that the IDF murdering these people has anything to do with the command or actions of the said terrorists that Israel declared it's actions towards.

A) Clustered munitions are not currently controlled by any international legal instrument
Yes they are restricted in their use and evidence suggest Israel has violated this...

B) I have seen 0 evidence of any use of chemical weapons by Israel, and the pictures of the victims that I have seen associated with those claims look, to me, exactly like the victims of US bombs and insurgent IEDs I saw in Iraq
That is something that should be investigated by groups like AI to ensure that this is the case.

Really? What avenue of redress would you have suggested? Getting the UN to ask Hezbollah to disarm again? Telling UNFIL to do something when they see rockets being launched from southern Lebanon?
It's called the secuirty council...Israel can petition it at anytime. Israel leaves itself open to accusations of war crimes when it ignores resolutions on the one hand, but then cites them for rationale of their own excessive actions.

And justly paid a heavy price for it, and withdrew 6 years ago, and still gets attacked.
If Israel has a claim, then Israel can apply to the UN for action; not simply bomb the shit out of countries arbirarily simply for internal political gains or in reference to a larger regional 'war' strategy that might be directed by agents outside of the region itself, namely the United States of America, it's ally.

[Recursion]

66. One thing

Dmesg: A) Clustered munitions are not currently controlled by any international legal instrument
MrPrax: Yes they are restricted in their use and evidence suggest Israel has violated this...

Do you have any reference for that claim? I call BS. I have never seen nor heard of a legal restriction on the use of clustered munitions in war.

[Recursion]

67. Diving back in

>>>>I think legally Gaza is a much different kettle of fish

>>Only in asmuch as Amnesty didn't comment on it, but I did and it's the same kettle of fish vis a vis Israel as it is illegally occupied terroitories of which there are several UN resolutions that regarding this matter, none of which Israel has bothered to address in much the same way as Lebanon has no bothered to address it's violations.

Israel was judged to be in full compliance with the UN resolutions regarding Lebanon, and has been since 2000. Israel has not been in compliance with the UN resolutions regarding Gaza and the West Bank; as such, it has additional responsibilities as an occupying power.

>>>>A) I've never said Israel's campaign was effective or wise
>>irrelevent...the effectiveness or not of Nazi Germany's attempts to murder a race was never judged a consideration by anyone, nor is it germaine to questions of war crimes...

And knee-jerk comparisons of current situations to Naziism rarely illuminate anything. I said it was not effective or wise because you seemed to be trying to judge Israel's "true" intent by the fact that the rocket launchers had not been destroyed. I was pointing out that incompetence is for the most part not criminal.

>>>>It's called the secuirty council...Israel can petition it at anytime. Israel leaves itself open to accusations of war crimes when it ignores resolutions on the one hand, but then cites them for rationale of their own excessive actions.

OK, I'll bite: Israel goes to the security council and says Hezbollah has not disarmed yet and is still launching rockets into Golan and northern Israel... what do you imagine would happen?

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. Israel was not at war with Lebanon

It was attacking Hizbollah. The infrastructure did not belong to Hizbollah - it belonged to the country of Lebanon. Hence it was a war crime to attack it - it was not related to the military objectives of self-defence. Attacking the infrastructure made the civilian population suffer, rather than Hizbollah.

[Recursion]

40. OK

The infrastructure did not belong to Hizbollah - it belonged to the country of Lebanon.

From a legal standpoint that distinction is meaningless. If the target "by its own nature, location, purpose, or use makes an effective contribution to an enemy’s military capability" and its "total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances existing at the time of an attack enhance legitimate military objectives", it's a valid target. Certainly roads, power plants, bridges, and airports fall under that definition.

At least from the reporting I've seen, the actions on Israel's part that I can recall that seem to fit the definition of unlawful targets were:
* That ambulance that got hit early on
* Qana, if they knew the refugees were still there
* The UN building

Whoever was responsible for those attacks I would say committed a war crime (assuming the facts are roughly as reported). OTOH, the overall pattern of the campaign as far as I saw was that Israel was targeting roads, bridges, airports, power plants, and multi-use buildings. Those are all legitimate targets (that's why the US, for the most part, doesn't put military bases in the middle of cities -- legitimate targets need to be kept away from population centers).

Now, a lot of people are going to assume that I think Israel's decisions were the right ones, or that they are justified in a moral sense, etc., which is ridiculous and is not what I'm saying. But I do think popular culture vastly overstates the legal responsibilities of an attacking belligerant and vastly understates the legal responsibilities of the attacked belligerant.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. They also targetted

a port in the far north of Lebanon
a milk processing plant
the Lebanese Air Force airfield
residential buildings in Beirut
the refugee convoy when it was in eastern Lebanon, not the south
bridges on the road going north from Beirut (one with a civilian jogging on it, incidentally)
people loading fruit, again in eastern Lebanon

All these hurt civilians, but the targets would not enhance Hizbollah's military capability.

[Recursion]

46. OK

"Military targets are those that by their own nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to an enemy’s military capability and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances existing at the time of an attack enhance legitimate military objectives."

a port in the far north of Lebanon

And? A port makes an effective contribution to the enemy's military capability.

a milk processing plant

OK. I'm trying to think of a military that doesn't make use of milk.

the Lebanese Air Force airfield

You mean they attacked the air force of the country they were invading? You're kidding.

residential buildings in Beirut

I've seen pictures of buildings in Beiruit that had been bombed. I have heard that they were entirely residential, and I have heard they were not. If someone can demonstrate that they were only residential buildings, and that they were known to be only residential buildings, and that they were deliberately targeted, I'll sign on to the "war crime" movement.

the refugee convoy when it was in eastern Lebanon, not the south

I'll look into that; I'm not familiar with it.

bridges on the road going north from Beirut (one with a civilian jogging on it, incidentally)

You're kidding, right? Is there any more famous valid military target than a bridge?

people loading fruit, again in eastern Lebanon

Again, haven't heard of that one but will google for it. If they were known to be farmers and were deliberately targeted, I agree that's a crime.

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. Again, Israel was not at war with Lebanon

so targets that were not associated with Hizbollah are not military targets. Hence the bridges, airfield and port, in an area nothing to do with Hizbollah, are not valid targets. Bombing the suburbs of Beirut where the people voted for Hizbollah in the elections doesn't count either.

References:

the convoy

fruit warehouse

You're saying a milk plant is a valid military target? Well then, better kill the entire population of Lebanon, just in case, because they might hold a door open for someone from Hizbollah. For fuck's sake, get a sense of proportion. You might as well suggest poisoning the water supply in Lebanon, because Hizbollah might drink from it. Or bomb the Coca-Cola headquarters in Atlanta, in case they buy a Coke.

[Recursion]

65. What a great idea

Hence the bridges, airfield and port, in an area nothing to do with Hizbollah, are not valid targets.

That's a great idea; it's the solution to all wars. Just get somebody else to technically own the bridge or building you use, and the enemy can't attack it. I love it.

But seriously, if supplies were coming to Hezbollah over a bridge, that bridge is a legal target according to the law. Even if 99% of the traffic was civilian.

You're saying a milk plant is a valid military target?

Yes. Why wouldn't it be? You can disrupt every part of the enemy's supply train except for milk? What makes milk so special?

[Double T]

24. The 'right to exist' is universal for ALL peoples, nations, groups,......

religions, races, etc., NOT just the one's with the BIGGEST weapons. The visible truth is undeniable regardless of how YOU spin it or attempt to excuse it.

[msmcghee]

42. In this particular context Israel had every right . . .

.. to attack Lebanon's infrastructure.

1) Lebanon is the state from which attacks were launched against Israel with the full knowledge of Lebanese leaders.

2) Lebanon is the state through which weapons that were being used to attack Israel were being transported with Lebanon's knowledge.

3) The bridges, airports, seaports in Lebanon were being used to re-supply the Hizbullah who were attacking Israel.

4) Over the previous six years Israel made many pleas to the UN to point out the ongoing violations of UN resolutions regarding the disarming of militias in S. Lebanon. Those pleas fell on deaf ears.

5) Lebanon made no appeal to any international body like the UN for help in making Hizbullah stop the attacks - instead the president of Lebanon made statements encouraging the attacks and supporting Hizbullah.

6) Lebanon made no attempt over the last six years since Israel left Lebanon to prevent Hizbullah from virtually taking over S. Lebanon to the Litani River and turning into a armed fortress with deep underground bunkers and thousands of tons of offensive weapons - as well as establishing support infrastructure in much of the rest of Lebanon including large areas of S. Beirut where Hizbullah headquarters are located.

As long as Israel was attacking those targets or suspected targets in those areas then Israel was defending the lives of its citizens and its borders from on ongoing attack by a foreign power according to all international laws regarding warfare.

Note that Hizbullah admits to firing at least 4000 missiles into Israel - all of which, by their nature, were inteneded to kill and terrorize civilians. That was 4000 de-facto war crimes.

Now, if anyone has evidence that even one Israeli bomb or artillery shell was fired purposely at civilians or infrastructure that had no military connection - then make your case.

Otherwise, you're just taking a moral position in support of terrorists and international war criminals - Hizbullah and the Lebanese minarets that colluded with them. You are a partisan in the conflict making false accusations from behind the safety of your keyboard. IMO you have no moral standing or credibility in this issue.

[Double T]

55. Excuse me, but I said ALL people, nations, groups, etc.........

have the 'right to exist'. Perhaps we should scrutinize the morals and intentions of those that would kill innocent people, destroy their property and destroy their country over the abduction of two (2) Israeli soldiers; Israel having engaged in abductions of Israel's neighboring countrymen, in the past and present. When your position is that ALL opposition to YOUR beliefs are terrorists or supporting terrorists, I would suggest that the pictures of the dead innocents and their destroyed property and country in Lebanon LOOKS like the work of a terrorist organization. Those who are objective and neutral will evaluate such behavior and destruction, then decide.

[msmcghee]

61. I would disagree with your assertion that . .

. . ALL people, nations, groups, etc. have the 'right to exist'.

Those who believe their particular grievance justifies attacking others and using military force to kill them - as Hizbullah did in this instance with the assistance of the state of Lebanon - lose their right to exist.

Wars are shitty. That's why people should not start them.

People like you who see no difference between those who start wars and those who defend their citizens from attack - and who are ready to call the defenders "war criminals" - are why we have wars to start with.

[Double T]

63. Then there is the question of 'WHO' started the war..........

Israel began the military attacks and invasion in response to an abduction of their soldiers. Despite YOUR stated position, Israel should NOT lose its right to exist.

[msmcghee]

69. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and . .

. . assuming you are trying to be objective.

If you are going to discuss weighty matter like who is morally and legally responsible for starting wars where many people are killed, you have the responsibility to inform yourself with good information.

This is the UNIFIL report to the UN describing the start of this war:

***********************************

New Crisis Erupts

New hostilities on the Israeli-Lebanese border started on 12 July 2006 when Hizbollah launched several rockets from Lebanese territory across the Blue Line toward IDF positions near the coast and in the area of the Israeli town of Zarit. In parallel, Hizbollah fighters crossed the Blue Line into Israel, attacked an Israeli patrol and captured two Israeli soldiers, killed three others and wounded two more. The captured soldiers were taken into Lebanon.

Subsequent to the attack on the patrol, a heavy exchange of fire ensued across the Blue Line between Hizbollah and the IDF. While the exchange of fire stretched over the entire length of the Line, it was heaviest in the areas west of Bint Jubayl and in the Shabaa farms area. Hizbollah targeted IDF positions and Israeli towns south of the Blue Line. Israel retaliated by ground, air and sea attacks. In addition to air strikes on Hizbollah positions, the IDF targeted numerous roads and bridges in southern Lebanon, within and outside the UNIFIL area of operations.

(snip)
********************

Link: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/background.html

For you to say that Israel started the war by retaliating is disingenuous at the least. By your logic, Israel should be free to attack anyone at any time and if they retaliate they would be guilty of starting a war. How can you possibly say such a thing . . unless of course, you are unable to make a statement that doesn't confirm your bias that Israel must be guilty.

The attack described above by UNIFIL is considered an act of war by all possible interpretations of international law. We should condemn those who start wars.

[Spazito]

25. Sadly, committing war crimes is now "acceptable" if it is the

right country doing it, Israel/USA. There will be NO repercussions for this, it will simply be filed away along with so many other reports on war crimes.

[Stockholm]

34. Link to full report

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE180072006