Amnesty International on Hezbollah's war crimes

[dogbone]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5343188.stm

The topic of this thread I guess is inevitably going to be about the specious arguments of 'moral equivalence'. So let's cut to the chase and begin right there...

Yes, more Lebanese civillians died than Israelis but that is not for Hezbollah's lack of trying, as every single one of the 4,000 rockets were admitedly and deliberately meant to kill Isreali civillians. By definition there was no such a thing as collateral damage from Hezbollah's pov regarding its attacks on Israel.

With an arsenal of probably 10-15,000 katyushas being able to be fired from deep within civillian areas even from the balcony of a flat, it was inevitable that there would be civillian casualities and errors on the Lebanese population by Israeli responses.

Amnesty notes that the Israelis also have been accused of war crimes, these being the deliberate targeting of infrastructure, however it is a genuinely debatable point as Hezbollah also used civillian infrastructure. What is not debatable is that every Hezbollah rocket fired was an undeniable war crime before it even landed. It need not be proven either because Nasrallah has already admitted as much.

[miloblithe]

10-15,000 Katyusha's vrs. 1.2 million cluster bombs and phosphorus...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060913/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictisraellebanonweapons_060913143214

Human rights organizations have long advocated a ban on cluster bombs because of their disproportionate and indiscriminate nature and because their high dud rate creates vast minefields....

...In the first 15 days after the August 14 ceasefire in the Israel-Hezbollah war, 52 Lebanese civilians were killed by unexploded cluster bombs, according to the United Nations....

...The UN has found that Israel dropped 90 percent of all the cluster bombs it used in Lebanon in the three days immediately preceding the ceasefire.

[iGary]

10-15,000 Katyusha's vrs. 1.2 million cluster bombs and phosphorus...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060913/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictisraellebanonweapons_060913143214

Oooh, that's gonna sting. :D

*engage circular debate device*

[dogbone]

@miloblithe

1.2 million, that number cannot possibly be referring to individual cluster bombs but the sum total off all the 300 or so bomblets in each cluster bomb, which would make a number closer to 4,000. Nevertheless they obviously weren't targeting civillians because there was no increase in civillian deaths during the final three days. Further by the end of the war there would be better opportunities to drop these weapons on the Hezbollah fighters who were desperately trying to get as many of their missiles off as well. Missiles that Nasrallah admits were only to target civillians.

Which raises an interesting point. Seeing as Nasrallah admits to a war crime shouldn't he be formally charged?

[miloblithe]

Nevertheless they obviously weren't targeting civillians because there was no increase in civillian deaths during the final three days. Further by the end of the war there would be better opportunities to drop these weapons on the Hezbollah fighters who were desperately trying to get as many of their missiles off as well.

How is that obvious? Where is your source on the rate of civilian deaths over the course of the war and afterwards? Are you suggesting that Israeli commanders don't know that cluster bombs would leave behind unexploded ordinance that would kill civilians returning to their homes?

[dogbone]

@miloblithe

Do you have a source that shows any increase in the civillian death rate occured as a result of the cluster bombs? Hezbollah by their own admitance were using their missiles to target civillians deliberately, do you suggest that the Israelis do nothing?

[miloblithe]

@miloblithe

Do you have a source that shows any increase in the civillian death rate occured as a result of the cluster bombs?

Yes. That source was the articles quoted above and the United Nations.

And I think that both Hezbollah and Israel are guilty of war crimes. Don't you?

Oh, and nowhere in the article you pointed to did Nisrallah or Hezbollah admit to deliberately targeting civilians.

"It noted that although Hezbollah had said its policy was not to target civilians, its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said the policy was changed in reprisal for Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilian areas.

It quoted Sheikh Nasrallah as saying: "As long as the enemy undertakes its aggression without limits or red lines, we will also respond without limits or red lines."

[mactastic]

And I think that both Hezbollah and Israel are guilty of war crimes. Don't you?
It's obvious he doesn't.

If only everyone who deserved to be charged with war crimes was in the Hague right now...

[dogbone]

Yes. That source was the articles quoted above and the United Nations.

Please cut and paste from the article where it states how many civillians were killed by cluster bombs in the final 3 days.


Oh, and nowhere in the article you pointed to did Nisrallah or Hezbollah admit to deliberately targeting civilians.

From the article.
"Hezbollah had said its policy was not to target civilians, its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said the policy was changed"

When Nasrallah says the policy to not target civillians "was changed" what else can it mean but the policy *was* to target civillians. This does not require my or your opinion or an inquiry to establish any facts, it is a blatent admission of one of the most serious of war crimes.

[miloblithe]

Jebus.

I already quoted from an article (see post 2) about how many civilians died in the three days AFTER the ceasefire, which is all I ever claimed to have a number for. YOU claimed that the three days BEFORE the ceasefire, there was no increase in deaths--a claim you have not made any effort to substantiate.

As to Nisrallah's statement, look at the CONTEXT of his statement. He is essentially saying "we will respond in kind to Israel", which is what you are saying in reverse.

[dogbone]

@miloblithe

The thread is about Hezbollah's admittance of deliberately targeting civillians. You try some moral equivalence argument by posting an exaggerated number refering to cluster bombs. But using a cluster bomb per se is not in itself a war crime, in spite of the fact of their known failure rate, otherwise the US couldn't sell them.

If Israel had indeed dropped 4,000 cluster bombs in the final 3 days and there was no extra deaths from these there one must conclude that they were not used to target civillians.

Now you can ask for opinions and you can give your moral equivalence arguments but I'm just quoting Nasrallah himself who said he changed his policy not to target civillians. There's no spin there it's a clear cut statement.

Isn't it amazing that there are no calls to drag Nasrallah before The Hague on the strength of his own admissions?

[mactastic]

Isn't it amazing that there are no calls to drag Nasrallah before The Hague on the strength of his own admissions?
Isn't that what this thread is? Your call to drag Nasrallah before the Hague (despite your lack of interest in dragging anyone else before the Hague)?

[miloblithe]

You really are incapable of backing up your assertions aren't you. Please produce evidence that there was no rise in civilian casualties over the last three days before the ceasefire.

OK. My numbers were off. Instead of "10-15,000 Katyusha's vrs. 1.2 million cluster bombs and phosphorus..." I should have said "nearly 4000 Katyushas vrs. 1.2 million cluster bomblets from maybe 4000 cluster bombs plus phosphorus and other munitions." I see you didn't object to my inflation of the number of Katyushas launched by Hezbollah.

Can you admit that 50+ civilians were killed by unexploded cluster bomblets in the three days after the war, as references by the articles above?

You may want to take a look at this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5257128.stm

[zimv20]

If Israel had indeed dropped 4,000 cluster bombs in the final 3 days and there was no extra deaths from these there one must conclude that they were not used to target civillians.
or one could conclude that they missed. or that there were no civilians left in the area. or that the reporting was wrong. or that it was spun. or...

[dogbone]

@miloblithe

How can I provide evidence for something that didn't happen?. It is up to you to provide evidence if you disagree that the cluster bombs didn't cause any more fatalaties than were happening as a result of the war before they were used.


Can you admit that 50+ civilians were killed by unexploded cluster bomblets in the three days after the war, as references by the articles above?

Yeah I can accept that figure, I'm aware that cluster bombs do not detonate with 100% success rate. But this is a separate issue and not nearly as bad as the use of land mines. But cluster bombs per se are not illegal. And what you are doing is providing some kind of moral equivalence that goes... Nasrallah deliberately targeted civillians, he admitted as much. This *is* a bona fide war crime. And there need not be speculation or spin as to whether it happened. He admitted it. You seem to counter this by referring to some accidental deaths that occurred after the war by unexploded munitions.

Nasrallah should be brought before a war crimes tribunal as he has unequivically admitted that the army under his command was ordered to attack civillians. A public admission, a certified war crime. An open and shut case.

...or that there were no civilians left in the area...

That's the one I'd go for. I would guess that by the end of the war there were only Hezbollah fighters left in the areas that were heavily bombed with cluster weapons.

[Ugg]

Linky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1873002,00.html)

Gen Ya'alon rounded on the government for launching a costly ground invasion of Lebanon in the final days of the conflict. "It had no substantive security-political goal, only a spin goal," he said. "It was meant to supply the missing victory picture. You don't do that." Thirty-three soldiers were killed in the ground operation alone. Public pressure has mounted over shortcomings in the military action, not least the failure to score a comprehensive victory over Hizbullah or to retrieve the two soldiers whose capture on July 12 triggered the 34-day conflict.

The next challenge will come with findings of the inquiry into the war. Mr Olmert has shunned calls to hold a high-profile state commission of inquiry. Instead there will be an investigation led by a retired judge into the handling of the conflict.

Looks like the war with Lebanon was used in part to cover up corruption at the highest levels in the Israeli govt.

[miloblithe]

Nevertheless they obviously weren't targeting civillians because there was no increase in civillian deaths during the final three days.

It's a simple concept. If you make an assertion, you need to be able to back it up with something. If you are unable to do so, you should admit that there is no basis to your argument (that Israel was not targeting civilians).

[lord patton]

Linky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1873002,00.html)

Looks like the war with Lebanon was used in part to cover up corruption at the highest levels in the Israeli govt.

Ugg, the article you reference doesn't say the war was cooked-up for spin purposes, only that the ground movements of the final days were. And the commission that Olmert is trying to avoid isn't for general, "high-level" corruption, it's for why the war was prosecuted so poorly (for example, not sending in ground troops till the final days).

[dogbone]

@miloblithe

It's a simple concept. If you make an assertion, you need to be able to back it up with something. If you are unable to do so, you should admit that there is no basis to your argument (that Israel was not targeting civilians).


The 'evidence' for the event that did not happen, (civillians being killed by the 1.2 million bomlets dropped during the final 3 days) is that there was no reported increase in civillian casualties, not by they UN nor the Lebanese government, I can't very well give you a link to a report about an event that didn't happen can I. Dropping cluster weapons is not a war crime unless they target civillians, and if that's what the Israelis did then we would have seen a very sharp increase in civillian deaths. Seeing as civillian deaths were reported on a daily basis we would, would we not have been made aware of this.

Now if you want to suggest that the cluster bombing was a war crime then it is for you to show how. As is well known cluster bombs per se are not war crimes. In fact any war crimes alluded to in the UN report refer to civillian infrastructure.

But there were civillians deliberately targeted which *is* a war crime. These were the Israelis targeted by Hezbollah. Now the proof for that is that Nasrallah said thats what he did. Pretty conclusive I'd say.

So if you cannot provide a link to show that the final 3 days of cluster bombing was targeting civillians we can only assume that their use was legitimate.

[mactastic]

So if you cannot provide a link to show that the final 3 days of cluster bombing was targeting civillians we can only assume that their use was legitimate.
Again, another example of why your arguments cannot be taken seriously. You conflate lack of public proof with a lack of a crime.

You don't suppose Israel might want to keep that information hush-hush, do you? Unless and until there is an investigation, we won't know what Israel's real targets were.

And before you get all butt-hurt, I agree with you that Nasrallah has most likely committed at least one war crime and should face prosecution at the Hague. Of course, I also think there are other leaders in the world who deserve the same fate, who will most likely never be tried.

[miloblithe]

So if you cannot provide a link to show that the final 3 days of cluster bombing was targeting civillians we can only assume that their use was legitimate.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761910.html

"In Lebanon, we covered entire villages with cluster bombs, what we did there was crazy and monstrous," testifies a commander in the Israel Defense Forces' MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) unit. Quoting his battalion commander, he said the IDF fired some 1,800 cluster rockets on Lebanon during the war and they contained over 1.2 million cluster bombs. The IDF also used cluster shells fired by 155 mm artillery cannons, so the number of cluster bombs fired on Lebanon is even higher. At the same time, soldiers in the artillery corps testified that the IDF used phosphorous shells, which many experts say is prohibited by international law. According to the claims, the overwhelming majority of the weapons mentioned were fired during the last ten days of the war.

The commander asserted that there was massive use of MLRS rockets despite the fact that they are known to be very inaccurate - the rockets' deviation from the target reaches to around 1,200 meters - and that a substantial percentage do not explode and become mines. Due to these facts, most experts view cluster ammunitions as a "non-discerning" weapon that is prohibited for use in a civilian environment. The percentage of duds among the rockets fired by the U.S. army in Iraq reached 30 percent and the United Nations' land mine removal team in Lebanon claims that the percentage of duds among the rockets fired by the IDF reaches some 40 percent. In light of these figures, the number of duds left behind by the Israeli cluster rockets in Lebanon is likely to reach half a million.

According to the commander, in order to compensate for the rockets' imprecision, the order was to "flood" the area with them. "We have no option of striking an isolated target, and the commanders know this very well," he said. He also stated that the reserve soldiers were surprised by the use of MLRS rockets, because during their regular army service, they were told these are the IDF's "judgment day weapons" and intended for use in a full-scale war.

The commander also said that at least in one case, they were asked to fire cluster rockets toward "a village's outskirts" in the early morning: "They told us that this is a good time because people are coming out of the mosques and the rockets would deter them." In other cases, they fired the rockets at a range of less than 15 kilometers, even though the manufacturer's guidelines state that firing at this range considerably increases the number of duds. The commander further related that during IDF training exercises hardly any live rockets are fired, for fear that they would leave duds behind and fill the IDF's firing grounds with mines.

After being discharged from his reserve duty, the commander sent a letter to Defense Minister Amir Peretz and protested the number of cluster rockets fired in Lebanon, which "perhaps the generals forgot to mention." "As far as the duds are concerned," he wrote, "we have no control over who is hurt. Sooner or later they will explode in people's hands." He has yet to receive a response from the defense minister.

At the same time, soldiers are reporting that they fired phosphorous shells, which are supposed to be used by the IDF for marking or setting fire to areas, in order to start fires in Lebanon. The artillery commander says he saw trucks with phosphorous shells en route to artillery batteries in the North.

A direct hit from a phosphorous shell causes severe burns and a painful death. Around a year ago, there was an international scandal after a television crew presented harsh pictures of the charred bodies of Iraqis injured by phosphorous bombs during the course of the American attack on the city of Fallujah.

International law prohibits the use of weapons that cause "excessive damage and unnecessary suffering," and many experts feel that phosphorous is included in this category. The International Red Cross determined that international law prohibits the use of phosphorous against humans. The American "Book of War," published in 1999, which sets down the rules of war for the American army, states: "The ground war law prohibits the use of phosphorous against human targets." The pact on prohibiting or limiting flammable weapons bans the use of phosphorous against civilian targets and against military targets found amid large civil populations.

[miloblithe]

duplicate post.

[zimv20]

on pp 55-56 of the current (16 Sep 2006) and american print version of the Economist, in an article called "Hizbullah's new offensive", we have:

In the south Israel's scattering of hundreds of thousands of unexploded cluster bomblets has hampered reconstruction, as well as farmers' access to their fields. The deadly ordnance has killed 12 people since the conflict ended.

btw, the article is about hizbullah's increased political standing in the light of the lebanese, many of whom didn't support hizbullah before the conflict. part of the reason is the manner in which hizbullah is already -- and pretty much by itself -- doing the reconstruction.

[dogbone]

@mactastic

You conflate lack of public proof with a lack of a crime.


Why the word 'public', Do you have special access to non public proof?

You don't suppose Israel might want to keep that information hush-hush

How would Israel keep the inevitable large number of casualties caused by a million cluster bombs targeting civilians, "hush-hush"?


I agree with you that Nasrallah has most likely committed at least one war crime and should face prosecution at the Hague. Of course, I also think there are other leaders in the world who deserve the same fate, who will most likely never be tried.

Of course anyone convicted of war crimes should be charged. I'm intrigued by you use of "most likely". This is the point I'm making with this thread. It isn't a matter of proof or likelyness at all is it? Nasrallah has publicly admitted his crime. Yet you only think it likely. Oh wait, that's right according to your previous argument he's a terrorist liar isn't he, that means when he says he deliberately targets civillians, we must not believe him.

[mactastic]

@mactastic

You conflate lack of public proof with a lack of a crime.


Why the word 'public', Do you have special access to non public proof?
No, what I'm saying is that Israeli higer-ups wouldn't be so stupid as to admit publicly that they had ordered attacks on civilian targets. But just because they deny the charge doesn't mean that it can't be true at the same time. That's why we have investigations after the fact. It's why we have police who's job it is to sniff out someone who is hiding something.

Most criminals don't admit what they've done, wouldn't you agree? By your logic, there would have been no need to investigate Duke Cunningham or Bob Ney, since they claimed innocence of all wrongdoing. Of course, both later were found to have been lying through their teeth to the press and the public, and both are now facing jail time.

You claimed that because there is no proof right now, that that is a guarantee that there was no crime. This is false logic of the highest order, and similar to much of your other arguments.

You don't suppose Israel might want to keep that information hush-hush

How would Israel keep the inevitable large number of casualties caused by a million cluster bombs targeting civilians, "hush-hush"?

That's not what I'm talking about. The ORDERS as to where those cluster bombs were dropped would be the proof of potential crime, not the bombs themselves. And those orders are likely to be much more difficult to ferret out. I'm sorry things like this are so hard for you to understand, but actually reading what I post, as opposed to reading what you want into my posts, would go a long way towards clearing these things up.

I agree with you that Nasrallah has most likely committed at least one war crime and should face prosecution at the Hague. Of course, I also think there are other leaders in the world who deserve the same fate, who will most likely never be tried.

Of course anyone convicted of war crimes should be charged. I'm intrigued by you use of "most likely". This is the point I'm making with this thread. It isn't a matter of proof or likelyness at all is it? Nasrallah has publicly admitted his crime. Yet you only think it likely. Oh wait, that's right according to your previous argument he's a terrorist liar isn't he, that means when he says he deliberately targets civillians, we must not believe him.
What are you talking about in that bolded part of your quote? Anyone convicted of war crimes should be charged? WTF is that all about?

Mark Karr publicly admitted his crime too, didn't he? And how did that turn out?

What I haven't yet seen is proof that Nasrallah actually gave the orders he says he did. That's why I say "likely". I know that word freaks you black-and-white thinkers out, but in terms of a court of law, more than just Nasrallahs TV statement is needed to actually convict him. The Hague isn't some Gitmo tribunal, or a dogbone post, where guilt is a foregone conclusion. Prosecutors would need corroborating evidence from other sources to actually build a case.

How about this -- There is DEFINITELY enough evidence to bring charges against Nasrallah, and it is LIKELY that he could be convicted of those charges based on what we now know. But from what you've posted I haven't seen what a prosecutor would like to have to actually convict. That doesn't mean it's not there either. An investigation into Hizbollah's actions would be justified, as would one into Israeli actions.

[Sayhey]

Haven't had a chance to sit down and read the latest report (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE020252006) by Amnesty that is referenced in the BBC article, but I don't have any problems putting Nasrallah, or the leadership of Hizbullah, on trial for war crimes given the tactics of rocket attacks against civilians.

Of course, the original poster, dogbone, can't leave it there. If he did, all we would have is a series of post saying "yes, put him on trial." Instead, we are to agree, not only that Hizbullah committed war crimes, but absolve Israel of the same charge. Israel could not be guilty of war crimes in dogbone's world, even given the abundant evidence that they were. For those interested, here is a link Amnesty's report on Israel's attacks on civilian infrastructure (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE180072006) and here is the introduction of the report that sets out Amnesty's view on this one aspect of Israel's war crimes.

Deliberate destruction or ‘collateral damage’?
During more than four weeks of ground and aerial bombardment of Lebanon by the Israeli armed forces, the country’s infrastructure suffered destruction on a catastrophic scale. Israeli forces pounded buildings into the ground, reducing entire neighbourhoods to rubble and turning villages and towns into ghost towns, as their inhabitants fled the bombardments. Main roads, bridges and petrol stations were blown to bits. Entire families were killed in air strikes on their homes or in their vehicles while fleeing the aerial assaults on their villages. Scores lay buried beneath the rubble of their houses for weeks, as the Red Cross and other rescue workers were prevented from accessing the areas by continuing Israeli strikes. The hundreds of thousands of Lebanese who fled the bombardment now face the danger of unexploded munitions as they head home.

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

In a country of fewer than four million inhabitants, more than 25 per cent of them took to the roads as displaced persons. An estimated 500,000 people sought shelter in Beirut alone, many of them in parks and public spaces, without water or washing facilities.

Amnesty International delegates in south Lebanon reported that in village after village the pattern was similar: the streets, especially main streets, were scarred with artillery craters along their length. In some cases cluster bomb impacts were identified. Houses were singled out for precision-guided missile attack and were destroyed, totally or partially, as a result. Business premises such as supermarkets or food stores and auto service stations and petrol stations were targeted, often with precision-guided munitions and artillery that started fires and destroyed their contents. With the electricity cut off and food and other supplies not coming into the villages, the destruction of supermarkets and petrol stations played a crucial role in forcing local residents to leave. The lack of fuel also stopped residents from getting water, as water pumps require electricity or fuel-fed generators.

Israeli government spokespeople have insisted that they were targeting Hizbullah positions and support facilities, and that damage to civilian infrastructure was incidental or resulted from Hizbullah using the civilian population as a "human shield". However, the pattern and scope of the attacks, as well as the number of civilian casualties and the amount of damage sustained, makes the justification ring hollow. The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of public works, power systems, civilian homes and industry was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather than "collateral damage" – incidental damage to civilians or civilian property resulting from targeting military objectives....emphasis added

If I endorse the conclusion of both reports does that mean that I fall into the dreaded trap of "moral equivalence?" If that loaded phrase means that I view Lebanese civilian deaths by the IDF as just as worthy of condemnation as the deaths of Israeli civilians by the hands of Hizbullah, then, yes, I endorse moral equivalence. Both Nasrallah and Ehud Olmert should face trial in the Hague, along with George Bush, Tony Blair, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Ladin and dozens of other "leaders" in the world today. I'm not holding my breath for any of it to happen.