"Fog of War Is No Cover for Causing Civilian Deaths ", by Kenneth Roth

(published on August 4. I do not have a link for it, so I am posting the article in its entirety. And thanks to H. for sending it to me!)

Kenneth Roth is executive director of Human Rights Watch.

The awful bloodshed and intense emotions of war are not conducive to
careful moral reasoning. With Hezbollah rockets raining down on
northern Israel, an honest reckoning of the conduct of Israeli forces
in Lebanon is difficult.

Facile arguments and serious misconceptions, like those listed below,
are too easily accepted. But given the stakes, it is especially
important to cut through these misunderstandings. Here's one attempt
to do so.

"The Israeli military exercises great care to avoid harming Lebanese civilians."

Not always. Human Rights Watch investigators in Lebanon have recorded
an appalling number of incidents in which civilians and civilian
objects were hit with no apparent military justification: 12
civilians, including nine children, killed in Dweir; at least 16
civilians, including nine children, killed while fleeing Marwahin;
nine civilians, including four children, killed in Beflay; as many as
42 civilians, including many children, killed in Srifa; some 60% of
nine square blocks of southern Beirut, composed mostly of eight- to
10-story apartment buildings, destroyed; and now the tragedy of
civilians, many of them children, killed at Qana.

The list goes on. With hundreds of Lebanese civilians killed in three
weeks of bombing, Israel clearly isn't doing enough to avoid such loss
of life.

"But Israel should be given more latitude because it's responding to
an abusive and aggressive force like Hezbollah which wants to wipe
Israel off the face of the earth."

Wrong. Human Rights Watch has condemned Hezbollah for firing both
indiscriminately and intentionally at Israeli civilians, calling these
serious breaches of international humanitarian law and war crimes. But
that doesn't change the rules governing Israel. Nor does the question
of who started the conflict, or how nefarious an opponent's intentions
are.

The obligations to respect international humanitarian law, including
to refrain from deliberate or indiscriminate attacks on civilians and
to take all feasible precautions against civilian casualties, persist
regardless of the conduct of one's opponent. Grave breaches remain war
crimes. Otherwise, it would take just one side's charge of abuse, one
side's claim to have been the victim of aggression, to return to the
era of total war in which all civilians are fair game.

"The Israeli military issued repeated warnings asking Lebanese
civilians to evacuate. If any Lebanese are still around, they must be
Hezbollah combatants."

No. To begin with, many Lebanese civilians who want to leave, can't.
They might be old or infirm, unable to afford exorbitant taxi fares,
or terrified at the prospect of becoming one of the many roadside
victims of Israeli military attacks.

In any event, while international humanitarian law strongly encourages
warnings — and Israel should be commended for issuing them — the
failure to heed one does not create a free-fire zone. If it did,
Palestinian militant groups might "warn" all settlers to leave Israeli
settlements and then be justified in treating as legitimate targets
those who remained.

"Hezbollah should bear responsibility for civilian deaths because it
mixes its fighters and arms with the civilian population."

Not so quick. International humanitarian law does prohibit the
deliberate use of civilians to shield fighters and military assets,
and it requires all parties to do everything feasible to station their
forces away from civilians. Clearly Hezbollah sometimes is violating
these prohibitions, but despite the Israeli military's claims, that
doesn't begin to account for the high Lebanese death toll. In many
cases, Lebanese civilians who have survived air strikes on their homes
or vehicles have told Human Rights Watch that Hezbollah was nowhere
nearby when the attack took place.

In any event, even the use of civilian structures alone isn't enough
to justify an attack. They become legitimate military targets only if
Hezbollah troops or arms are present at the time, and the military
value of their destruction outweighs the civilian cost. Human Rights
Watch's research shows that repeatedly that wasn't the case.

"But Lebanese civilians deserve what they get because their government
tolerated the Hezbollah militia in its midst."

Hardly. Leaving aside the question of whether the Lebanese government
had the capacity to rein in Hezbollah, a government's misdeeds never
justify attacks on its people. Otherwise, Israeli civilians might
become legitimate objects of military attack for what many in the
region view as their government's repressive occupation.

"Even if it's wrong to deliberately target Lebanese civilians, the
Israeli military can certainly squeeze them by targeting their
infrastructure."

No, it can't. International humanitarian law permits attacks on
infrastructure only if it is making an effective military
contribution, and the military benefits of its destruction outweigh
the civilian costs. That case is difficult, if not impossible, to make
for the extensive attacks on electrical facilities, bridges and
roadways throughout the country.

"Why do these rules matter? No one enforces them anyway."

Don't be so sure. Anyone ordering or committing war crimes should be
prosecuted in Israeli courts. If they aren't, they could be pursued by
any national court exercising universal jurisdiction or, upon
Lebanon's invitation, by the International Criminal Court. The same
goes for Hezbollah's war crimes.

Moreover, enforcement aside, the many civilian victims of Israeli
bombing have been a political boon to Hezbollah, cementing loyalty
among its followers. Is Israel really better off fighting the war with
such reckless disregard for the fate of civilians?

Kenneth Roth is executive director of Human Rights Watch.

posted by Lazarus, 8:15 AM