Is it just or right to kill Hizbollah members' children in retaliation?

[bigtree]

Israeli air attacks kill nine in Lebanon

By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Wednesday, August 09, 2006

by Jihad Siqlawi

TYRE, Lebanon, Aug 9, 2006 (AFP) - Israeli warplanes killed nine people, including five children, early on Wednesday in raids on Lebanon as the Jewish state showed no sign of easing its blistering air campaign in which over 1,000 people, mostly civilians, have died.

The Israeli military said its air force had carried out overnight over 100 raids around Beirut and the south of Lebanon targeting what it called "Hezbollah buildings", destroying four rocket launchers and targeting several launch sites.

Hassan Sader -- a political member of Lebanon's Shiite Hezbollah -- his wife and his five children died under the rubble when the four-storey building where they lived collapsed after a bombing raid by Israeli planes, police said.


http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=74600

[Rex]

1. Is it right to fire hundreds of rockets indiscriminately into civilian

populations? Retaliation is just another word for vengeance IMO. When will this blood vendetta end? Will it ever end?

[LeftCoast]

3. You're saying that Israel is justified in doing anything Hezbullah does?

Just looking for clarification...

[Rex]

5. It is war and both sides are justified and right in killing each

other as long as this blood vendetta goes on. At least it seems that is what both sides believe. Israel with it's bunker buster bombs and Hezbollah with it zillions of rockets. IMO, both sides are playing into a bigger agenda, Hezbollah for Iran and Israel for America. They both get fed millions and billions of dollars on both sides to kill each other by proxy what Iran and America would do to each other if the fanatics in charge had their way.

Do I think it is right or justified? No, to both. War is never a solution, only a problem.

[mtice]

11. Israel is certainly justified

in taking appropriate measures to put a stop to it. More than justified, it is the duty of the Israeli state to protect its citizens, Arab and Jew alike. Any idea why the only calls for restraint and cease fire are directed to Israel alone? Why doesn't anyone ask Hezbollah to stop its missile and mortar attacks and its kidnapping? Moreover, who gave Hezbollah the authority to declare war on Israel on behalf of Lebanon? Is it not the crux of the problem that Hezbollah wields the power of a state with none of the accountability?

[bigtree]

18. is it acceptable to bomb their children? If so,

where does that justification come from? Is bombing the homes of Hizbollah members an appropriate measure? What do you think will be the result?

I weep and grieve for all of the victims of the violence. I want to know what the justifications (if any) are for targeting the homes of Hizbollah members. Is it just or right if there is knowledge that such a strike will endanger children and other innocents?

If you look up the Condi interview Sunday on MTP you will find that she refused to say that the Lebanese government is responsible for the actions of Hizbollah. She declared twice that the Lebanese proper had NO knowledge of the intention to capture soldiers or launch rockets. That's why there is such an immediate atmosphere of cooperation with the Lebanese government which has one member of the Hizbollah political organization as a member. I must note that that same cabinet with the Hizbollah member voted to deploy some 15,000 troops as a buffer between would-be combatants and Israel as part of the 'peace' agreement. That's far from the complicity of the Lebanese that some would assert.

[FlavaKreemSnak]

22. If their parents fight back against Israel or America

then the children will get killed. We killed Saddam's sons and also his grandson. And neither America or Israel allows any fighting back, because that is terrorism.

[mtice]

30. What is unacceptable

Is that Hezbollah uses what should be places of safety for those children as rocket launching sites, purposely making those children targets. If Hezbollah fires at Israel from the roof of a school, and Israel bombs that position, the responsibility for those killed in the retaliation rests entirely on Hezbollah. To do otherwise is to encourage Hezbollah to continue with their war crimes. (In case you need elaboration on what is a war crime, conducting military operations without wearing uniforms is a war crime; so is conducting offensive military operations from civilian areas).

[bigtree]

38. that's not what the Geneva Protocol 1 says

Article 51: Protection of the Civilian Population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

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

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
1. those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
2. those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

3. 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.

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

1. 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

2. 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.

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

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, 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.

8. Any violation of these prohibitions (including #7) 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.


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:

1. those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:

1. 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;

2. 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;

3. 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;

2. an attack shall be canceled 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;

3. effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not pemmit.

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.

[mtice]

43. So what's the problem?

First off, the Geneva Conventions only apply between signatories. Hezbollah is not a signatory and cares nothing for the provisions of Geneva. If there's a single one of those provisions that Hezbollah hasn't violated, you'll need to hunt long and hard to find it.

Second, referring to 51.4.2/3, 51.5.x as bolded, when Hezbollah sets up their launching sites next to or on top of a civilian building, it becomes impossible to distinguish between the military and civilian, which is precisely the reason why civilian buildings and not empty fields are the location of choice for Hezbollah. It is the purpose of Hezbollah to make this distinction impossible, because they can then use the civilian deaths that stem from their own behavior as propaganda to further incite hate of Israel.

With regards to 51.7.x as quoted, Israel has taken quite extensive measures in compliance with those terms, even though they are not obligated to do so with regards to a non-treaty enemy.

The real object of the discussion is 51.7.6, which I'll repeat here for clarity:

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

The allegation that is being made over and over and over on these pages is that the Israeli attacks where they result in civilian deaths are done to delibertately punish the civilian population. This is obscene blood libel worthy of the worst Tsarist and Nazi propagandists. Israel bends over backwards to minimize the civilian casualty count, even at the cost of its own soldiers' lives.

The only thing that Israel can do to appease its critics is to fail to defend itself at all, to roll over and surrender in the face of those who wish to exterminate it and the Jewish people.

And any Democrat who sides with Israel's critics on this should be ashamed of themselves. Amos Oz, who has a more distinguished record as a peace activist than anyone posting on this board, is not confused in the slightest that Israel is perfectly justified in its actions and its quest to destroy Hezbollah once and for all. The Israeli left is not confused on this matter, either, and I'm sure that they are shocked at the betrayal of some here who are ready to throw them to fascist and genocidal wolves.

[bigtree]

47. silly me. I had noticed your own reference to war crimes

when you referred to Hizbollah's actions. Curious that you are using Hizbollah's actions as a standard from which to measure Israel's actions.


Indiscriminate attack (not distinguishing between civilian and military targets:


Justice Minister Haim Ramon, who is close to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said the Israeli air force must bomb villages before ground forces enter, suggesting this would help prevent Israeli casualties in the future.

Asked whether entire villages should be flattened, he said: ''These places are not villages. They are military bases in which Hezbollah people are hiding and from which they are operating.''

Ramon said Israel has given civilians in southern Lebanon sufficient warning to leave the area, and that those left behind should be considered Hezbollah sympathizers. ''All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah,'' he said.

However, it is believed that civilians remain in these communities. A Red Cross doctor who visited the town of Bint Jbail before the Israelis advanced on it this week said the majority of residents had fled, but a considerable number were taking cover in schools and other places.

http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=WORLD&ID=564776985533219789


retaliation:


Israel's leader offers up yet another excuse for attacking Lebanon that outraged even his own citizens with its inanity . . .

Olmert retreats from political firestorm after linking Lebanon to West Bank plan

August 3, 2006 11:01 AM

JERUSALEM (AP) - Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ignited a political firestorm by telling the Associated Press that Israel's Lebanon offensive will boost his proposal to withdraw from much of the West Bank.

In the interview Wednesday - his first since fighting broke out three weeks ago - Olmert said he believed the Lebanon conflict will lead to a ''new order that will provide more stability'' and ''create a new momentum between us and the Palestinians.''

Israeli settlers and right-wing politicians exploded in anger over what they called Olmert's manipulation of the Lebanon conflict for his political agenda.

http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=WORLD&ID=564781503838815666

[Solo_in_MD]

31. Indeed that is the key issue

When Hexbollah steps back and disarms, the bloodshed will cease. Until then, its open season.

However, one has to wonder if Israel is going about things the best way. While the IAF has clearly made significant efforts to minimize civilian casualties, the devastation of Lebanon will take a generation to repair.

[malaise]

36. What efforts? n/t

[bigtree]

41. open season?

can you tell me what 'significant efforts' the Israeli forces have undertaken to 'minimize civilian casualties'?

[LeftCoast]

35. I expect more from the state of Israel than I do from a bunch of thugs

like Hezbullah.

[mtice]

39. And because of that expectation

Hezbollah gets plenty of free shots at Israeli civilians, none of which anyone seems to care about, whereas when Israel does its duty as a nation and defends those very same civilians, suddenly a ceasefire becomes the only thing worth caring about. Your double standard is exactly what Hezbollah needs to continue their campaign ad infinitum.

[LeftCoast]

40. Look, Israel is a state. As such they have signed onto a number of

international agreements and laws. Simply because they are fighting against a stateless actor does not mean they can abdicate the obligation of those agreements.


If your neighbor came and burned down your garage, you would not be justified in burning his down. Now, perhaps you'd like to argue that in this age of asymetrical warfare all international laws should be set aside, but I don't think you'd like to live in that world.

[mtice]

44. They have signed nothing that ties their hands in this matter

And the statelessness of their enemy should not excuse the states that support and supply that enemy (Syria and Iran), nor does it excuse Lebanon which had an obligation to remove Hezbollah as an armed force.

If some crazed milita group in the US decides it hates Canadians, and fires rockets over the border at Toronto, and kidnaps and murders Canadian citizens, how long should they get their free shots before the US would be moraally responsible?

[aquart]

16. Well, on the subject of clarification

Do you believe that only Israel's justification is subject to clarification?

Do you believe that only Israel should sit on its hands while being attacked?

What is the appropriate response to having your cities targeted by a terrorist organization? You know what WE did. Should Israel do nothing and then be condemned by AMERICANS? A nation of hypocrites?

Wasn't it just the sweetest thing of Hezbullah to set up its rockets in Lebanon, instead of Gaza? Instead of the West Bank? Really caring of the Lebanese children, wasn't it?

Do you get that Hezbollah represents NO nation? That it is a parasite on Lebanese soil? That it is locked in a power struggle with other Palestinian organizations and the more it hits Israel the better it looks to other Palestinians? And that's worth the destruction of Lebanon (Oh, I forget, they're innocent of the destruction of Lebanon. Launching rockets from Lebanon was a perfectly innocent gesture.)to Hezbollah? No?

Just what IS clear to you?

[LeftCoast]

34. What I find interesting is that Hezbullah's actions are described as

'terrorist' and 'barbaric' and 'criminal' but then Israel's actions are justified because 'Hezbullah does it'. So it seems to me, that if the actions were 'terrorist' and 'barbaric' and 'criminal' when Hezbullah does it, then they must also be 'terrrorist' and 'barbaric' and 'criminal' when Israel does it.

[bigtree]

4. back and forth

Terrorists

Back and forth, the ascended,
Leaders hurl their followers,
Into the bloody abyss upended,
Neither of them can be bothered,

Save the ones who do the dying,
There's nothing left for the tyrants,
But to gather up more kindling,
To appease the smoldering silence,

Mourning melts grief into anger,
Brooding saviors rise to avenge,
Oblivious, now of the danger,
Their prideful posture does pretend,

Power maims to gain the ground,
Casts bold shadows across fear-ed's face,
Yet, reaps the bare Earth where death stands,
Disturbs dust which was laid to waste,

Shrouds the martyr's bloody veil,
Soils the tyrant's immaculate cloak,
Yet, Mesopotamia will prevail,
To spite the war its descendants spoke.

-- Fullwood

[Rex]

8. Exactly, like the Great Tree Wars

Oak and Pine fight tooth and nail, cutting eachothers branches off until neither can grow leaves. In the end they both wilt and die.

[Waya]

2. No, it isn't......

.....children, Israeli or Lebanese, have no choice, they don't have any control over what their parents do.

[Cleita]

6. It's never right to kill innocent children.

eom

[sui generis]

9. as opposed to guilty children

:P

just being a brat.

That's twofold issue. People willing to lob bombs at civilians are, at least in my estimation, worthy of greater contempt than people willing to hide behind children.

But it's a distinction without a difference for me at this point. The bomb throwers are each pretty much equally disgusting, have each worked very hard for this opportunity to kill people in the name of some stupid ideology that they can't compromise on.

I'm in favor of cutting down both oak and pine and planting a pecan tree, figuratively speaking. They're huge, robust, can live in a dry climate, can't kill those things and mine have bats and squirrels and redbirds and bluebirds and robins and swifts and at least one solitary owl that I know of all happily living together in them.

[Cleita]

24. Yeah, you are being a brat considering all children are

innocent. They didn't ask to be born into the cirumstances that they were born into. I like Pecan trees too, but I also like pine and oak as they give shade, shelter critters and provide them food as well.

I find shelled acorns and walnuts in my garden all the time from the nest of Acorn woodpeckers living in a telephone pole adjacent to our property.

[Double T]

7. Attacking and killing women and children that are NOT ENGAGED.....

in the fighting and attacks are cheap shots and the work of cowards.

[Karenina]

42. Don't you GET IT???

Nits grow into lice!! VIOLENCE is the only language "those people" understand. They're nothing more than 2-legged cockraoches and must be eradicated. THEY don't want what all of us want, to live in peace and watch their grandchildren playing in the sand. THEY are ANIMALS!!! Subhuman!!! WE have to kill them all to survive!!!

[aquart]

10. Hizbollah being that caring organization that made a target of Lebanon?

Oh, gosh, and now their own kids are getting killed? And you want me to cry?

No, it's not right that kids get killed. But they do. Why are these the only ones you mourn?

[bigtree]

12. you don't have to be so obtuse, you just choose to

I asked a specific question. Start your own post if you want to change the subject.

[mtice]

14. Dead Jews don't exist

In the minds of the Hezbollah justifiers. I haven't heard a single of of them mention any of the innocent Israelis. I guess like the girl who wore too short a skirt and drank a little too much on a night out, they "deserved it". Or maybe in their twisted minds no Israeli can be innocent since they are all evil colonialist occupiers of that 0.02% of the Middle East that's not "Arab land".

[PA Democrat]

19. Where are the "Hezbollah justifiers"?

It's not nice to put such vile words in people's mouths unless you can back them up with proof.

[bigtree]

20. only in your uninformed rants.

I'm not surprised that you don't know a wit about my views because you haven't donated and, thus, don't have a search capability to research my posts to satisfy your thirst to judge motives. I do have a journal. If you bother to scroll through, you will find that I am anti-war, period. I have wept openly at the reports of the Israelis who happened under Hizbollah's barbaric assault. NEVER have I defended ANY of their actions. Not one bit. Not here, not anywhere.

I think it's a weak defense to attack motives of those who pose the queries here. It reveals your own bias more than the ones you accuse. I've stated my objections to Hizbollah and their actions ad infinitum here, but, it's never enough for folks who will only go so far as Hizbollah's crimes as a measure from which to judge Israel.

[azurnoir]

21. Very good description

of the Israeli mind-set, I have not read one post here saying dead Israelis do not exist, in fact most posters mourn the dead on both sides. The fact is however the dead on the Lebanese side far outnumber the dead on the Israeli side. On another note the constant conflating of Jews and Israel is at best a cheap tactic, at worst one that puts Jew everywhere at risk. Israel does not speak or act for me or a number of other Jews here and else where. The forming at the mouth accusations of anti-Semites only will make real<\i> anti-Semites seem false when it does occur.

[mtice]

33. Been reading about this topic pretty thoroughly

And if anyone, other than those in full support of Israel, has expressed revulsion at dead Israeli civilians, I haven't seen it. Please provide some links that show that. All I have seen here from the equivicators is "poor Lebanese children, evil Israelis".

I salute those brave enough to weather the tide of this nonsense and support Israel even through the drivel.

[azurnoir]

37. Check some of the posts on DU n/t

[mtice]

46. I have

I need your superior powers of observation to help my lowly self find these posts of sympathy for innocent Israelis killed. I bet that every last one you find will be couched in equivocating "both sides" horse manure.

[azurnoir]

48. Because someone has sympathy for

the dead on both sides, it negates that sympathy?

[mtice]

50. When that is the case

The alleged sympathy looks very much like they doth protest too much and are only saying that to cover their true feelings. Because the rest of the time you hear only about the casualties on one side, and how one side is so terrible, and never about those on the other.

[TheMadMonk]

13. That the question is even asked...

To knowingly target children, just because those children stand between an agressor and their target is an abomination.

If a legitimate (however tenuously so) target is (or believed to be) deliberately using children and innocents as human shields then it should be considered a hostage situation and treated accordingly.


I wonder how Israel would have felt and reacted if Germany had simply blown up the Athlete's Village to eliminate the terrorists in '72.

[mtice]

15. How many thousand rockets

Were stockpiled in Athletes' Village, and how many more people did the wielders thereof promise to kill?

[bigtree]

23. stockpiles of rockets at the Hizbollah member's home?

link? proof?

You do know that there must be more than a guess about that if there is to be an assault which would endanger civilians? Adherence to those laws is what intends to separate Israel's actions from Hizbollah's.

[azurnoir]

28. We are not discussing

what happened 34 years ago. That you go back that far is not helping your case, bad intentions do not justify even worse reactions. Israel has been making killing Israeli's very pricey for quite some time now apparently the opposition is more than willing to pay, is Israel?

[TheMadMonk]

29. You are quibling over degree not kind.

Whether the target is material or human, it is an abomination to treat children/innocents/the helpless as irrelevancies.

And that in itself is largly an irrelevancy. I've seen very little evidence in the news that the Israelis are hitting what they are claiming to be aiming at. Looking at the images, I am seeing the damage consistent with thousand pound bombs and missiles hitting and destroying conventional fero-comcrete structures. I am not seeing damage consistent with thousand pound bombs exploding inside or on top of arsenals containing thousands of rockets.

If Hezbollah is hiding it's stockpile of missiles in the civilian infrastructure, it is almost certainly doing so by secreting them in dribs and drabs among hundreds of buildings, not in vulnerable centralised stockpiles. Further to this, any building that might be positively identified as being associated with a launch site has the same value, as a target, as an empty packing crate once the rockets have been fired. They are killing these children, not for any militarily legitimate reason (however tenuous), but simply to deny Hezbollah a piece of ground that they in all likely hood had no intention of using again.

[mtice]

32. They are not irrelevant

They are quite relevant because they are a major factor in Hezbollah's actions being war crimes. You cannot conduct military operations from civilian areas as Hezbollah does as its main method of operations. You also cannot conduct military operations without uniforms, that is another war crime.

[etherealtruth]

17. The slaughter of innocents ...

... by either side is never OK.

The world has gone mad.

[Philosoraptor]

25. as long as you express regret, oh and drop leaflets beforehand

[Tsiyu]

26. It is neither just nor right

There are a number of people on this earth I despise. Even if they were to kick my ass or kill one of my children, I would never kill one of their chidren in retaliation.

Normal people do not kill innocent children.

Decent people do all they can to avoid killing innocents.

IDF and hezbollah are made up of violent, rabid dogs, just like George Bush is a violent, rabid dog killing Iraqi children.

It's a sick world when we even have to ask this question.

[azurnoir]

27. No targeting children is not right

no matter who does it.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

45. Hezbolla straps bombs to their own children

and sends them gleefully into a crowd of innocents.

So I doubt they would mind if they are targets of Israel, since they use their own children as munitions

The morality of the whole region is quite lacking.

[bigtree]

49. It's rather abhorrent to use Hizbollah as a standard from which to judge

Israel's morality and exercise of that.

I would like to believe that Israel does not view Hizbollah's children as any more deserving of death from the air than their own.