Is there a single set of standards that we apply to the behavior of all actors in the Middle East? I would certainly hope so, since the concept of a single set of standards is a cornerstone of the two important principles of (1) human equality and (2) the rule of law.
In the west, a loud chorus of voices has criticized Hizbullah for having undertaken Wednesday’s operation to capture (presumably) as many Israeli soldiers as possible. I completely agree that that operation constituted (1) something of an infraction of international law, and also (2), in the circumstances, an act of escalation.
In the operation, the Hizbullah leadership did the following:
- — It sent a squad of its paramilitaries across an international armistice line (presumptively, an international border– though the two states have never made peace and only a 57-year-old armistice agreement governs relations between them.)
— The Hizbullah squad attacked a squad of serving Israeli soldiers, killing three and taking two captive. This was an act of war– and as PM Olmert correctly pointed out, not an act of terrorism (since the victims were not civilians.) This act did not, however, initiate a state of war between the two sides. Rather, it was an infraction of the longstanding armistice agreement between them. The armistice agreement has, of course, been subject to numerous infractions over the past 57 years. The vast majority of these have been perpetrated by Israel, including numerous incursions of longer or shorter duration, and repeated assaults by land, sea, and air, resulting in extremely heavy casualties among (primarily) civilians in Lebanon.
As I noted here yesterday, the government of Israel had numerous options available regarding how it chose to respond to Hizbullah’s infraction. One of those, as stipulated in Art. VII-7 of the 1949 armistice agreement between them, was to submit a formal complaint to the UN’s armistice monitoring commission. (I believe the functions of ILMAC were subsequently taken over by the equally longstanding UN Truce Supervision Organization, which still, I think, has a post along the armistice line, at Naqqura.) Or, Israel could have taken a strong complaint to the UN Security Council.
It chose not to respond in such a de-escalatory, problem-solving way. Instead, it responded in a way that was (1) itself a huge infraction of many aspects of international law and also (2) massively escalatory.
Israel’s response broke international law at both the jus ad bellum level and the jus in bello level. Like Hizbullah, it also ordered its forces to transgress the armistice line and the ceasefire undertakings ensconced in the armistice; and it did so, as we saw, in a very large-scale way. In addition, it did not– as Hizbullah had done up till then– limit its attacks to targets of clearly military status. Rather, as so often in the past, Israeli forces massively targeted civilian infrastructure in an explicit attempt to try to turn the political climate inside Lebanon against Hizbullah. And along the way, of course many tens of Lebanese civilians have lost their lives.
In its follow-up actions, Hizbullah has also launched attacks that have killed Israeli civilians.
In neither of these cases were the civilians in question being directly targeted. But in both cases, the parties have not taken due care to protect the lives of noncombatants. In both cases, too, the parties have targeted civilian infrastructure. (Though “targeting” is a generous term for what most of the Hizbullah rocketeers are actually capable of doing.)
Since the means of attack at Israel’s disposal are– thanks in good part to the aid of my own government– so many times more lethally powerful than those at Hizbullah’s disposal, and since Israel has shown little if any compunction about restricting its use of these weapons to military targets, the number of civilians actually harmed by Israel’s actions has been many times the number actually harmed by Hizbullah.
So indeed, does the world have a single standard by which it judges the actions of these two parties?
A subsidiary question might well arise over the question of “who started it”. We could say that Hizbullah started this particular round. But we should also be aware that Israel has been adamantly refusing to respond to Lebanese demands that it release the three Lebanese nationals whom it has been holding for many years. One of these is Samir Qantar. This Y-net article tells you a little about him.
The article also reminds us that,
- In 2004, Hizbullah and Israel exchanged the bodies of three Israeli soldiers kidnapped in 2000 and an abducted Israeli businessman for the release of 400 Palestinian and 23 Lebanese and Arab prisoners in a German-negotiated deal.
That hostage/bodies exchange was, of course, agreed to by then-PM Ariel Sharon, who was Olmert’s mentor at the time. But now, Olmert says he’s adamantly opposed to any such exchange. (Though there have been many unconfirmed reports of Israeli agents being engaged in indirect negotiations over a possible release.)
Two of the most famous of the Lebanese hostages whom Israel released in that 2004 swap were religious leader Sheikh `Abd al-Karim Obeid and militia leader Mustafa al-Dirani. They had both been gratuitously captured from their homes in Lebanon by the Israeli forces back in the 1980s, in a blatant act of international hostage-taking– and for use simply as “bargaining chips.”
Obeid, we should note, was by no means a combatant. I don’t know if he received anything like the ill-treatment meted out to Dirani. Here is Human Rights Watch’s translation of the complaint Dirani’s lawyers submitted to the Tel Aviv District Court concerning his treatment while in detention. Here are some excerpts from his affidavit:
- 4. In addition to being shaken, humiliations, beatings, sleep deprivation and being tied in a crouching position for many hours to the point of his limbs becoming paralyzed – a cruel rape and an act of sodomy were perpetrated against the Plaintiff by a soldier whom the interrogators brought especially for this purpose.
5. In addition, several days after the Plaintiff was raped by a soldier, the interrogator who was responsible for the rape once again committed a horrifying act of sodomy against the Plaintiff, by inserting a wooden club into the Plaintiff’s anus, causing hemorrhages in his buttocks. The pseudonym of that interrogator was “George”…
7. In order to humiliate the Plaintiff, the interrogators caused him to remain completely naked for almost the entire duration of the interrogations that they conducted. In order to compound the humiliation of the Plaintiff and to the delight of his interrogators – they also photographed him in this humiliating situation.
8. At a later stage of the interrogation the Plaintiff was forced to drink large amounts of water and paraffin oil. At that point a diaper was placed around the Plaintiff’s loins in which his bodily wastes collected for several days. There was no response to the pleas of the Plaintiff, who was covered with his discharges, to be allowed to clean himself, and only when the interrogators themselves could no longer stand the stench, only then was the Plaintiff allowed to change the diaper.
(American readers: does this account of how Dirani was reportedly treated back in the 1980s remind you of anything?)
Anyway, my main point here is to note that the Lebanon-Israel cross-border hostage-taking question is by no means a “new” issue that Hizbullah suddenly dreamed up, in order to justify an otherwise unjustifiable cross-border raid. It was part of a very longstanding and still “live” concern in Lebanon.
Would Hizbullah, too, have done better to take this concern to the “proper channels” and tried to get Qantar and his two fellow prisoners released through Security Council action or the force of world public opinion? Absolutely, yes.
But the bigger question here, in my mind, is that all these conflicts have now gone on so long, and have so many very tangled sub-themes and potential triggers for escalation by either side, that surely it is time to get the whole darned conflict between Israel and neighbors finally resolved. That means the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the Syrian-Israeli conflict, and the Lebanese-Israeli conflict.
This is indeed do-able. If it is done, basically, on the basis of international law, then nearly all the parties to the conflict know what this is and are ready to go ahead and do such a deal. On the Arab side, all the Arab governments have signed onto the Beirut Declaration of 2002– and the most recent Hamas-Fateh agreement then endorsed all its main points.
The only party that is not basically ready to resolve the conflict on the basis of international law– that is, with Israel withdrawing from just about all of the land it captured in the 1967 war– is that portion of the Israeli public that still clings to the chauvinistic dream of a Jewish Greater Jerusalem that stretches from the Old City just about right down to the Jordan River… an outcome that would be unacceptable to the Palestinians in two major ways: it denies any meaningful Palestinian role or presence in Jerusalem, and it slices a huge wedge out of the West Bank, dividing what remains potentially for use by a Palestinian state into two.
How big is the portion of the Jewish-Israeli public that’s prepared to see their country (and its region) locked forever into cycles of war and violence– simply to indulge the holders of that Jewish Greater Jerusalem dream? I don’t know.
What I do know is that the international community as a whole also has a huge stake in all this. We have a stake in seeing a fair and sustainable outcome to all the remaining dimensions of the Israeli-Arab dispute. But we also have a stake in seeing the principles of international law implemented and strengthened at all levels. That includes in the content of the eventual comprehensive Israeli-Arab peace, which should certainly uphold rather than transgress international law.
It also includes in the application of a single standard of judgment to all the acts of violence unleashed in the continuing storm(s) between Israel and its neighbors.
There is another very simple and very important principle at stake here, too. Every single life snuffed out by the violence is equally dear, equally sacred. The lives of civilians, in particular, should all equally receive the concern of the international community
Helena wrote: Would Hizbullah, too, have done better to take this concern to the “proper channels” and tried to get Qantar and his two fellow prisoners released through Security Council action or the force of world public opinion? Absolutely, yes.
Quite unfortunately, the answer is simple no. In the 1990-ies, Arafat did he best to use the UNSC to resolve Palestinian problems with Israel within the Oslo process – and we know how all this ended. Quite a lot was done by the neocons to prevent the UN from acting this way, the Oil-for-Food-gate being just one example. Another is still pending Haririgate where the UN isd turned against Syria.
The third, less known way to marginalize the UNSC, is using G8 rather than UNSC to engage Russia. G8 was introduced in the 1990-ies in parallel to the UNSC, but without any UN structure starting from its Charter. It is taken more as a privileged club, even some sort of quasi-World Government.
Now, just on the height of the ME crisis, Russians host the G8 summit, and I have a sad impression that, rather than helping to make things better, it is used as a trap, just to put more pressure on the Russians. The end goal appears to be same as usual – to give Israel a blank check and distract attention from what is going on in Palestine, in Lebanon, in Iraq and around Iran.
Helena wrote: Would Hizbullah, too, have done better to take this concern to the “proper channels” and tried to get Qantar and his two fellow prisoners released through Security Council action or the force of world public opinion? Absolutely, yes.
Quite unfortunately, the answer is negative. In the 1990-ies, Arafat did his best to resolve Palestinian problems with Israel within the UNSC and the Oslo process – we know how all this ended. Quite a lot was done by the neocons to prevent the UN from acting this way, the Oil-for-Food-gate being just one example. Another is still pending Haririgate where the UN isd turned against Syria.
The third, less known way to marginalize the UNSC, is using G8 rather than UNSC to engage Russia. G8 was introduced in the 1990-ies in parallel to the UNSC, but without any UN structure starting from its Charter. It is taken more as a privileged club, even some sort of quasi-World Government.
Now, just on the height of the ME crisis, Russians host the G8 summit, and I have a sad impression that, rather than helping to make things better, it is used as a trap, just to put more pressure on the Russians. The end goal appears to be same as usual – to give Israel a blank check and distract attention from what is going on in Palestine, in Lebanon, in Iraq and around Iran.
Helena, I agree with your post’s main points. However, there is one thing I am uncomforable with. According to the article on Samir Qantar to which you linked, he was responsible for killing a four year old Israeli child during an attack in Israel. Perhaps that was accidental – I don’t know. But based on the facts presented, I don’t see why he should be let go, despite the fact that he has a sister who loves him.
Hizbullah is like the Taliban disease in Afghanistan, that in the end it results in misery for the host country. The removal of the Hizbullah militia is the answer as per the Security Councill resolution, and even Fouad Siniora’s statement today:
“We call for an immediate cease-fire backed by the United Nations,” said Siniora in an address to the nation. “We call to broaden the state’s control over all of its territory, in cooperation with United Nations forces, in southern Lebanon.”
Yes, No Pref, from what I know– which is no more than is in that article–I don’t advocate Samir Qantar as a poster-child for any big campaign for prisoner exchanges. I think the cause of the 7,000-some Palestinians held captive by Israel with no trial procedure at all is far more compelling.
I don’t know anything about the other two Lebanese whose release is being demanded.
Is there a single standard? Clearly not. The international community rarely issues any statement or takes any action against Israelis and instead limits its (meaningless) condemnations for Israeli actions in defense of itself. Any credible propent of human equality or the rule of law would object to this.
Bombing the railways in Germany and Poland during WW II would haev been justified, even if it prevented innocent civilians from travelling to work or visit friends and family in towns such as Auschwitz, Dachau and Treblinka. Israel has in fact acted with restraint. It has targeted infrastructure which Hezbollah uses to carry out its campaigns, and yes that includes roads and airports. Bombing the runway to temporarily disable the use of an airport to ship arms is legitimate. If Israel was targeting civilian infrastructure to make the lives of Lebanese miserable, it would have taken out the airport terminal along with the runways.
Israel is better equipped than Hezbollah. But the laws of war and Geneva Conventions are not an “even-upper.” If Israel could take out each and every Hezbollah military position with pinpoint precision, it would gladly do so. But those daring, inventive and feisty Hezbollah fighters do a good job concealing themselves and using civilian centers to carry out their work. The consequences for that decision fall on Hezbollah, not Israel.
[The international community rarely issues any statement or takes any action against Israelis and instead limits its (meaningless) condemnations for Israeli actions in defense of itself. Any credible propent of human equality or the rule of law would object to this.]
Everybody to whom it concerns know that Islamist radicals are isolatinists, they simply don’t care about the reaction of international community. From this point of view, international condemantion of Israeli actions has very clear purpose: it simply slows down escalation of the ME crisis, prevents mortal enemies from fighting with each other. Remove this barrier – and you get war, as simple as this.
[Bombing the railways in Germany and Poland during WW II would haev been justified, even if it prevented innocent civilians from travelling to work or visit friends and family in towns such as Auschwitz, Dachau and Treblinka.]
Hasbara aside, military operations of WW2 including bombings had nothing to do with Jewish question, just nothing at all. Well, except for the Nazis who took anti-Nazi struggle as “Jewish conspiracy”, and the Zionists who took them as “Jewish hope”.
According to the article on Samir Qantar to which you linked, he was responsible for killing a four year old Israeli child during an attack in Israel. Perhaps that was accidental – I don’t know.
No, it was deliberate. Among other details not mentioned in the Ynet article, he killed the four-year-old girl by smashing her skull.
Helena, a prisoner exchange generally involves trading one side’s prisoners of war for the other’s. Samir Quntar is not a prisoner of war. He was not captured while fighting for Lebanon. He is under sentence of court for crimes committed on Israeli territory, and Lebanon (or HA) has no more claim to use force to release him than Israel would have for one of its citizens sentenced for crimes committed in the United States or Europe.
I have no idea who the other two detainees are, and if they’re prisoners of war, then Israel should negotiate for an exchange. Quntar is another story.
he killed the four-year-old girl by smashing her skull
Of course then he is a criminals, I value your info and your memory of this man.
Wonder how many criminals from other side that your memory can tell us about them and their crimes, or you had info about, can you tell us and enrich our discussion here Jonathan Edelstein?
Are these assaults crimes? It speaks loudly and perfectly who are the criminals, targeting innocents and millions of people just because of some madness and sick leaders from a state that believes of its superiority without any respect whatsoever of any national/international laws.
[According to the article on Samir Qantar to which you linked, he was responsible for killing a four year old Israeli child during an attack in Israel. Perhaps that was accidental – I don’t know. – No, it was deliberate. Among other details not mentioned in the Ynet article, he killed the four-year-old girl by smashing her skull.]
This is generic Hasbara technique – individualization. Its goal is to get engaged in pointless docussions of individual cases instead of considering actual situation on the ground in proper military and political terms.
Come on, Henry, aren’t “individual cases” precisely what Nasrallah is emphasizing by turning Quntar into a national cause? Nasrallah has demanded that the person of Quntar be released. The previous commenter asked who Quntar was, and whether there was any reason why his release in a POW exchange might be inappropriate. I’d say that discussion of the individual case is quite appropriate in this context.
[Come on, Henry, aren’t “individual cases” precisely what Nasrallah is emphasizing by turning Quntar into a national cause?]
Aljazeera does not show Nasrallah as an idiot, although he certainly uses lots of populist rhetorics.
I’d say that discussion of the individual case is quite appropriate in this context.
There are cases of prisoner’s exchanges between countries, Quntar case it is possible that Israel asked same thing here without taking this as deadlock point, however there are thousands of prisoners locked up inside Israel without any convictions and also Hamas asking for there release Israelis not responding.
So in either cases the reaction of Israelis negative which not really to the point of ending this assaults.
So you seamier fishy by highlights Quntar case as he is criminal serving life sentences in Israel and ignoring the real problem of the demands that asking for with the outrages response from Israelis…
Martin van Creveld, professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem:
“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.” I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.'”
But the laws of war and Geneva Conventions are not an “even-upper.” Oh, I see. So their purpose is to perpetuate a “might makes right” regime? Thanks so much for elucidating that! (Irony alert.)
As for the Hizbullah fighters do[ing] a good job concealing themselves and using civilian centers to carry out their work, that is probably the case. But two further points: (1) On what possible “military” basis has Israel targeted power stations, gas stations, and other underpinnings of the civilian infrastructure. Did they have any solid info that Hizbullah fighters were hiding out there? (2) Israel remains under an obligation to take active steps to protect the lives of all noncombatants. This certainly includes foregoing actions that have a good chance of harming civilians unless overwhelming military necessity overrides that. In its current actions in Lebanon, Israel has no “military” necessity at all: its goal is entirely political.
But tell us, Joshua– how do you feel about the 120-some Lebanese, most of them civilians who have been killed by Israel these past four days? Do you feel that was “military necessity”? Do you feel maybe they somehow “deserved it”? Or do you equally mourn the loss of each civilian life, regardless of nationality, and seek a negotiated end to the entire conflict between Israel and its neighbors? Sometimes you claim to seek a peace negotiation– but how do you think Israel’s current actions in Gaza and Lebanon help build the climate for that– or for longterm coexistence in the region? Bombing other peoples into political submission is no more a recipe for peace, it seems to me, than suicide bombings or the other acts of violence undertaklen by the Arab militants. Perhaps you disagree.
In any rational western stage this crisis would have a trivial solution: A judge would issue an order to the police to approach citizen Nasrallah, stating that there is evidence that Nasrallah may be holding two persons, that private citizens cannot deprive a person of freedom, happens to be against the national interest, and demand taking possesion of said persons. End of story.
“Putin:”We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq, quite honestly.”
“Oh, I see. So their purpose is to perpetuate a “might makes right” regime?”
Not at all. Your response is a non-sequitur. But again, the laws of war are not designed to ensure that two sides to a conflict are evenly matched in terms of military strength.
There’s a lot of talk about “collective punishment.” To the extent a military action is designed simply to inflict maximum (or any) misery on a general population, the term fits. To the extent a military action disables the capabilities of the other military force (which is the case when you take out an area’s roads, power stations, etc) it is not collective punishment, even if it harms civilians as well.
You simply assert that Israel’s actions are designed to punish civilians, which simply isn’t the case.
How do I feel about the 120 dead Lebanese civilians? Not good at all. Unlike some Hezbollah supporters who are shooting off fireworks in the street celebrating their resistance, or some columnists who appear titillated by the “daring” and “inventive” actions of Hezbollah, I don’t enjoy war at all.
This is generic Hasbara technique – individualization.
You’re right. But what’s the general principle involved with Qantar?
[You’re right. But what’s the general principle involved with Qantar?]
Two words: guerilla war, there is guerilla war in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq. Main goal of Hasbara is to reframe the discussion in such a way that people should forget about this. We are supposed either to discuss details of individual cases or sink in pointless “moral” generalizations.
Helena this the new standards set by William Kristol “It’s Our War”
Bush should go to Jerusalem–and the U.S. should confront Iran.
by William Kristol
“What’s happening in the Middle East, then, isn’t just another chapter in the Arab-Israeli conflict. What’s happening is an Islamist-Israeli war. You might even say this is part of the Islamist war on the West–but is India part of the West? Better to say that what’s under attack is liberal democratic civilization, whose leading representative right now happens to be the United States.”
Two words: guerilla war, there is guerilla war in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq. Main goal of Hasbara is to reframe the discussion in such a way that people should forget about this.
No one’s forgotten about it. The daring & inventive guerrilla techniques used by HAMAS and Hezbollah are war crimes, per Hague (1907) and Geneva (1947) conventions. You probably should re-read the rules of war laid out in those two documents, and understand they’re designed to save civilian life, NOT to even the playing field. The nonexistent “rules of guerrilla war” guarantee drawn out conflict and disproportionate civilian death.
Hezbollah furthermore has no right to arms according to the Taif agreement:
1. Declaration of the disbanding of the Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias and the transfer of weapons in their possession to the Lebanese government within six months of the rectification of the document of national reconciliation the election of a president the establishment of a national accord government and the constitutional ratification of the political reforms.
The job of defending Lebanon’s southern border belongs to its national security forces, not an independent militia.
[You probably should re-read the rules of war laid out in those two documents, and understand they’re designed to save civilian life, NOT to even the playing field. The nonexistent “rules of guerrilla war” guarantee drawn out conflict and disproportionate civilian death.]
Main goal of the rules of REGULAR war is to prevent its degenaration to GUERILLA war. Once it has already happened, regular forces have a choice:
— Fight according to the rules against the enemy which does not recognize these rules, or
— Fight more or less total war without rules.
Israel allways chose the 2nd way, so they get what they get.
salah
You quoted Professor von Crevald from a 2003 Guardian article. Admittedly, his expressed point of view is quite pessimistic – even apocalyptic. But it must be understood in the context of the “Samson Complex” of many Israelis. Their long history is replete with disasters, including the destruction of two temples, the forced exile to Babylon (an early form of ethnic cleansing) and, of course, the Holocaust, where helpless horror gave rise to the slogan “Never Again”!
It shouldn’t come as a surprise to you that there exists a strain in the Israeli zeitgeist that would consider taking many others with them if the “Zionist project” were ever in mortal danger.
Truesdell, perhaps those Zionists who continue to dwell on events, the most recent of which took place so many decades ago, should take the advice they themselves cruelly keep giving the Palestinians and “just get over it” and move on. After all, if they think the Palestinians should “just get over” the ongoing catastrophe they continue to suffer at Zionist hands, how can they justify continuing to use their own catastrophes, which have been over for more than 6 decades, as an excuse for every atrocity they commit?
Shirin, the Zionists DID get over it. They rose from the ashes of the Holocaust and created a thriving society. That was the whole point of Zionism, the most successful national liberation movement of the 20th century.
Truesdell,
I did know this in 2003, but what the west believing is it built on talk buy those Israelis who control massive media to degree make the west blindly believing that they should support Israel all the time otherwise they will suffer from the consequences!!!
Is it same case those Israelis chewing the statement of Jamal Abdul Nasser before 1967 of thrown Israel in Mediterranean Sea, they still using it in all media and posts to claims they threatened by neighbouring states to fake you to gain your support and cover their crimes and madness.
I met a guy from US in 2000 and I asked him one question what makes US, or the west in general supporting Israeli in time they have their friends in ME from Arab like Saudis and gulf countries and others?
He replay to me it’s a religious believe “if we did not support Israeli we will suffer, and he point to me two cases that US hits by weather crises.
It’s a fake and lies spreads buy those liars no nation better that other we are all human.
Enough its enough of these lies those use Babylonians crises which is as same as any old age war but the using its as excuses to fake you and lets make you blind what happen its happen as a king he re-control him kingdom from some group whom is disobeys his orders and rules like what we see now by US and Israeli its same as its threaten and force and killing no differences.
shirin
I wasn’t trying to justify Professor von Crevald’s viewpoint…or suggest that their history gives the Israelis a blank check in responding to provocations…merely suggesting the mindset that gives rise to such a mournful worldview on his part.
the Zionists DID get over it
Yah, they graduates from terrorists groups and gangs as it was under UN charter before to a “successful national liberation movement of the 20th century”
Truesdell,
Yes, I understood what you were and were not suggesting. Sorry if that was not clear. I was merely adding my few cents’ worth.
Is aril using Napalm/WPhosphors used in Lebanon, Lebanon’s President said today….
More crime and more broken the international laws, this Israel the Only Democracy in ME Peace Loving Nation, Halleluiah
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev
“The idea that Hezbollah is some sort of rag-tag militia with AK-47s and a few RPGs is simply ridiculous,” Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Mark Regev said on Sunday.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1761934.cms
So with all UN, US, UK and other foreign courtiers who be very silent about this Israeli invasion of another country land more over they give here excuses of “here right to defend herself” what if another country do same say like N. Korea invade South of Japan what will happened to UN and others?
Just come to me 3H, “Hitler, Holocaust, and Hezbollah” is coincident or it’s just 3H
HJ: “[Israel] fight[s] more or less total war without rules.”
Sorry, this claim isn’t based in reality. Israel killed more Arab soldiers in a single day in 1967 than the total # of Palestinian victims of the recent intifada. Obviously, Israel is capable of killing many times more civilians than it already does, and for some reason elects not to. ‘Total war’ also generally doesn’t involve turning over tax revenue, exporting electricity and water, etc. to one’s opponent (who nonetheless does engage in ‘total war’ and adheres to none of the Hague ‘rules of war’ at all, most important of which is a clear chain of authority, without which negotiated cease fires are impossible.)
Israel is capable of killing many times more civilians than it already does, and for some reason elects not to
So pathetic and Ironic mind and attitude. It’s not because they are Bravary, Smart and Genius give same type of weapons to otherside then will be the prove to your claims then.
This one incident in 1991 one US pilots his rank General his fighters shoot down in west Iraq and when he get to the ground he was shaken were urine and sh* in his dress when he caught by the local Iraqis not by military……
Israelis keep destroying hand in hand with US most the Arab nations and protecting those regimes like Saudis whom spends billions of dollars on weaponry non a single F14, F16 was used or any US Made Tanks used against Israel in all wars, same as the rest of Gulf countries whom their weapon spending by billions but only used against us as we saw in Iraq, all that to preventing them to gain the technology on excuses of terrorist and other claims and lies spades for years and years around the world by Israelis liars.
So pathetic and Ironic mind and attitude. It’s not because they are Bravary, Smart and Genius give same type of weapons to otherside then will be the prove to your claims then.
This is only semi-comprehensible. As usual it misses the point of my post and the one it answered, which had nothing to do with bravery — but compared Israel to its enemies on a point of distinct savagery: the ability and willingness to kill in great numbers.
I’d add that a culture capable of developing algebra should be able to design and build its own f-16.
I’d add that a culture capable of developing algebra should be able to design and build its own f-16.http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.4/rose.htm
distinct savagery
Go and read what your folks gangs did in early 1900 in Palestine land with Arab, who is the more ugly and savage its will tells you..,I think you fool just yourself by stating this….
The daring & inventive guerrilla techniques used by HAMAS and Hezbollah are war crimes, per Hague (1907) and Geneva (1947) conventions.
I don’t think this is true. IIRC guerrilla war is permissible if the occupying power has itself committed war crimes against the civilian population, as Israel has done in Lebanon and the Occupied Territories.
I don’t think that Hezbollah’s actions here were justified, however. Nasrullah sounds like a megalomaniac.
IIRC guerrilla war is permissible if the occupying power has itself committed war crimes against the civilian population, as Israel has done in Lebanon and the Occupied Territories.
Where do you get this?
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm
In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden –
To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. Geneva IV, Sec 2, art 23
IIRC guerrilla war is permissible if the occupying power has itself committed war crimes against the civilian population, as Israel has done in Lebanon and the Occupied Territories.
Geneva (1977):
Article 4.-Legal status of the Parties to the conflict
The application of the Conventions and of this Protocol, as well as the conclusion of the agreements provided for therein, shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict. Neither the occupation of a territory nor the application of the Conventions and this Protocol shall affect the legal status of the territory in question.
http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/icc/statute/part-a.htm
Article 8: War crimes
Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
…
(xxiii) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;
Sorry for multiple posts but this is an important point of fact that doesn’t seem to be well understood by some here.
Helena
Three comments:
1) Regarding the three Lebenese prisoners whos release you seem to support, one of them Israel denies holding, and another (Kuntar) has been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of four Israeli civilians (two of them children)*
2) It’s incorrect to say Hizbullah restricted itself to military targets in its initial attack:
Today’s fighting erupted around 9 a.m. when Hezbollah attacked several northwestern Israeli towns with rocket fire, injuring several civilians, the Israeli military said. Israeli civilians rushed into their bomb shelters and many remained there throughout the day.
Link
Nor is it true to say Hizbullah did not subsequently target civilians. With the exception of Haifa and Tzfat, none of the towns hit have any military facilities or strategic infrastructure.
3) While you’re correct that Israel did make a deal with Hizbullah two years ago, rather than saying it provides precedent for such negotiations, it can also be argued that if Israel had responded harshly to that kidnapping, the current round of violence wouldn’t have happened.
*I couldn’t find any details on the third one
eyal
you raise an interesting point…In 2004, Israel released 429 prisoners in exchange for an Israeli civilian as well as the bodies of three dead Israeli soldiers Hezbollah had been holding.
if you are Nasrallah, would that prisoner exchange encourage or discourage you from seizing more Israelis.
After reading so many articles and listening to public opinion, seems like the Palestinian plight is gathering momentum once again, the same momentum that was building during the second Intifada and the massacre in Jenin, just before the big bang 911.
Hope no big bangs this time around .
After reading so many articles and listening to public opinion, seems like the Palestinian plight is gathering momentum once again, the same momentum that was building during the second Intifada and the massacre in Jenin, just before the big bang 911.
Hope no big bangs this time around .