Human Rights Group Accuses Israel of War Crimes

[kentuck]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0824-09.htm

<snip>
“During more than four weeks of ground and aerial bombardment by the Israeli armed forces, the country’s infrastructure suffered destruction on a catastrophic scale,” the report said, contending this was “an integral part of the military strategy.”

“Israeli forces pounded buildings into the ground,” the report went on, “reducing entire neighborhoods to rubble and turning villages and towns into ghost towns as their inhabitants fled the bombardments.

<snip>
Citing a variety of sources, the Amnesty International report said Israel’s air force had carried out more than 7,000 air attacks, while the navy had fired 2,500 shells. The human toll, according to Lebanese government statistics, was estimated at 1,183 deaths, mostly civilians, about a third of them children; 4,054 wounded; and 970,000 people displaced, out of a population of a little under four million.

<snip>
The United Nations Development Program said the attacks had obliterated most of the progress Lebanon had made in recovering from the devastation of the civil war years. “Fifteen years of work have been wiped out in a month,” Jean Fabre, a spokesman for the organization in Geneva, told reporters.

more...

[msmcghee]

1. Yes, perhaps they will think twice before they decide that . .

. . firing missiles across the border into Israel to kill her civilians is such a good idea. (Or allowing some militia to set up along her borders in violation of UN Resolutions to do it for them.)

War is shitty. That's why people should not start them.

[kentuck]

2. And it can cut both ways...

How many civilans were killed in Israel?

[msmcghee]

4. Let me ask you this . .

If the US had known about the 9/11 attack before it occurred - and we could have prevented it but knew it would cause the death of at least 1183 civilians in Afghanistan (or whichever Muslim country they were sent from) - and it would injure and displace many more than that - would you hesitate for a minute to prevent those airliners from hitting their targets?

And if we did that - would you then think that other nations were justified in condemning us as war criminals?

If you counter that not nearly 3000 Israelis were killed in this present conflict - then I would ask you just how many dead Jews it takes to avoid being a war criminal by defending their lives.

I would also ask just how either the US or Israel could reasonably guess how many dead civilians they would suffer from a pending attack - and thereby adjust their defense accordingly - or if you think that would even be wise

Added on edit: Finally, I would note that despite the protestations from many here that the Israelis are evil monsters for their actions - that there are now no bombs falling in Lebanon and no missiles falling in Israel - which was Israel's goal and I assume your's as well.

[kentuck]

6. It's obvious those "missiles" were not a threat to Israel...

they were obsolete and mostly useless.

As for your comparison, I think the US invasion of Iraq and the dead civilians there is a closer analogy.

Any nation has a right to defend itself. However, I'm not sure I buy your argument that Israel was "defending" itself.

Also, I am not sure that Israel did not invade Lebanon at the request of George W Bush. Regardless, it now looks like a stupid and unwise decision. Israel lost a lot in this little exercise in paranoia.

[msmcghee]

10. "As for your comparison, I think the US invasion of Iraq . .

. . and the dead civilians there is a closer analogy."

I see, the US was stationed along the border with Iraq to prevent Iraq from crossing that border and attacking its neighbors.

The Iraqis crossed the border, abducted US military and killed several. They then started firing missiles into Jordan and Iran - at which point we responded with "Shock and Awe".

Yeah, really good analogy.

The US invasion of Iraq is probably a criminal act and a war crime - to say nothing of the vast stupidity involved. It was unnecessary and unprovoked. It was a cynically political decision based on fabricated evidence. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should be tried in international war-crimes court.

Israel was defending her citizens from attack. That is plain and obvious from all evidence. See post #7.

I would ask you again just how many dead Jews it takes to avoid being a war criminal by defending their lives.

[Phx_Dem]

14. Of course the rockets were a threat

not only did they indiscriminately kill innocent civilians of all shapes and sizes, but when they started falling on Haifa, the summer tourist season was shot. This cost Israels economy millions if not billions of dollars. Granted this in not nearly as important as the human cost of the war (on both sides) but losing tourist dollars placed Israel in an unsustainable position, the country cannot function over the long term without this income, which IMO is partly why Hisbullah attacked.

[IndianaGreen]

5. Those katusha rockets were fired AFTER Israel began to bomb!

I think you got your sequence of events backwards!

[msmcghee]

7. I don't know how many times I have to post this . .

. . but once again for the ideologically afflicted . .


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. (then) 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...

[IndianaGreen]

8. Bizbollah targeted the IDF, while Israel targeted Beirut

Who is the real criminal here? Attacking the military of an occupation force is not terrorism. Collective punishment of a civilian population is a war crime.

The katushas were fired after Israel began to bomb Lebanon. None have been fired since the ceasefire, while Israel continues to bomb Lebanon!

Now, who are the real criminals in here?

[msmcghee]

9. Do you ever make any truthful statements?

"Bizbollah targeted the IDF, while Israel targeted Beirut"

"IDF" does not equal "towns south of the Blue Line". According to the UNIFIL report cited, "Hizbollah targeted IDF positions and Israeli towns south of the Blue Line. (then) Israel retaliated by ground, air and sea attacks."

The air attacks occurred after Hizbollah targeted IDF positions and Israeli towns south of the Blue Line (with missiles.) Can you read?

"None (Hizbullah missiles) have been fired since the ceasefire, while Israel continues to bomb Lebanon!"

If you are speaking of the single incident of a few days ago where a bridge was bombed in support of an Israeli mission in the Bekaa Valley - the accusation that Israel "continues to bomb Lebanon" hardly applies to that singular event.

However, the statement "Hizbullah continues to disregard the agreed-to terms of the cease fire to turn their weapons over" certainly does apply, since it was not a single disputed event - it was and is continuous and ongoing. No Hizbullah weapons have been turned in and Hizbullah says they don't intend to turn any in.

"Now, who are the real criminals in here?"

The same criminals that were there from the start. The ones who started the war. Hizbullah. Certainly not the Israelis who were defending their citizens and nation from an attack initiated by the criminals.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Whenever Israel begins to comply with UN Resolutions, beginning

with UN Security Council Resolution 242, and leaves all the land taken in 1967, then we can discuss whether Hizbollah should be disarmed (or whether it can be absorbed into the army, as we proposed to do with the Shia militias in Iraq).

[msmcghee]

12. Whether Israel is in violation of 242 . .

. . or not is a matter of interpretation. It was purposely written ambiguously. Otherwise it would not have been ratified.

You think that Israel is violating 242. That is your opinion. Many disagree. Have you even read it?

Added on edit: I would note that you are engaging in the tactic that Israel's enemies always use. You can't present an argument to support your position on any topic (like who started this current Lebanon conflict).

So, you pull up some event that happened many years ago and has no direct relationship to the question at hand - who is legally and morally responsible for starting this current conflict and for the deaths on both sides that have resulted from it.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Amnesty International's report on the war in Lebanon is enough evidence

"The pattern, scope and scale of the attacks makes Israel's claim that this was 'collateral damage', simply not credible," said Kate Gilmore, Executive Deputy Secretary General of Amnesty International.

The document details what it describes as "massive destruction by Israeli forces of whole civilian neighbourhoods and villages", together with attacks on bridges "in areas of no apparent strategic importance", on its list of supporting evidence.

It also says Israel targeted supermarkets, water pumping stations and water treatment plants, which may have broken a prohibition in humanitarian law against targeting objects crucial to civilian survival.

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

Full report here:

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/lbn-230806-feature-eng

[pelsar]

15. relevency?

seems to come up a lot: What has Hizballa, a milita in S. Lebanon who either is or isnt part of the lebanes govt (depending on their supporters), who started a war with israel on the N. intl border have to do with the 67 war?

the most interesting thing is that its does go to show, that the intl borders are NOT the answer, to many arabs militias, states etc and their supporters, the agenda is beyond that......

and it has become more and more obvious with the Gaza pullout (which has led to more violence) and the lebanon pull out, which led to 6 years of attacks upon israel.

[MrPrax]

3. Disgusting....

I hope stuff like this starts the process of investigation into these war crimes; indictments and lawsuits hopefully will follow and Israel and the US taxpayer can pick up the bill.

Even being wanted for questioning kept Sharon close to home...as well as Kissenger.