Art. 48. Basic rule
In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.
Art. 52. General Protection of civilian objects
1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.
2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.
Art. 54. Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population
1. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.
2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.
Art. 59. Non-defended localities
1. It is prohibited for the Parties to the conflict to attack, by any means whatsoever, non-defended localities. 2. The appropriate authorities of a Party to the conflict may declare as a non-defended locality any inhabited place near or in a zone where armed forces are in contact which is open for occupation by an adverse Party. Such a locality shall fulfil the following conditions: (a) all combatants, as well as mobile weapons and mobile military equipment must have been evacuated; (b) no hostile use shall be made of fixed military installations or establishments; (c) no acts of hostility shall be committed by the authorities or by the population; and (d) no activities in support of military operations shall be undertaken.
Israel ratified in 1951. Helena Cobban has made some good arguments on the need for a single set of standards, under international law, to resolve the conflict. I should stress again that, no matter whether you are “pro-Arab” or “pro-Israeli” the underlying issue here is that Israel is using collective punishment and targeting civilians who have nothing to do with Hizbullah. This humanitarian issue needs to trump all other considerations.
Facilities:
When Hellbollah uses civilian facilities for storing ammo these facilities are no longer considered civilian.
Protecting civilians:
Israeli air force distributed flyers ordering all civilians to stay away from any army\hezzbollah facility
Destoying facilities essential to survival:
Notice that hospitals, food storages etc are not being attacked.
Fuel is not essential to survival
I suggest you compare the other side’s acts to these “relevant bits” and tell us what you find…
Eran – can you cite civilian facilities used by Hezbollah to store weapons? Are any of them located in South Beirut, which is being targetted by Israel? Are you arguing a civilian electric supply is a legitimate target? Bombing civilians trying to flee Southern Lebanon?
The leaflets dropped in Beirut told people to clear out of South Beirut, as far as I know, not to “stay away from Hezbollah or army facilities” – I don’t think there are Hezbollah military depots in Beirut.
Israel and its supporters should be honest about their decision to set aside Geneva convention provisions – they have regularly resorted to collective punishment, destroying the houses of extended families of suspected (note: not tried in a court of law) combatants and so on. Rationalize it if you must, insist that it’s the nature of the conflict, argue that collective punishment works – but don’t think people are stupid enough to believe that Israel is following the Geneva conventions.
Having looked into the UN-brokered agreement governing the Israeli-Lebanese border, it appears that all in all Israel’s action is illegal – even when it targets Hezbollah. For the agreement governing the ceasefire stipluates that neither side will target civilians. As far as I know, Hezbollah kidnapped soldiers. The brutality and overall illegitimacy of Israel’s stance extends far beyond the humanitarian catastrophe we are witnessing today. Then again Hezbollah probably knew that, as we all did the minute we heard about the kidnappings. It’s funny, how we’ve come to pre-empt illegality, how we’ve come to accept the unacceptable, even before it happens.
It has been a strategy of the arab countries to keep their civilian and military facilities close to each other. I am not going to speak about Lebanon yet, but I am gonna use the Egypt example. The ministry of defence across the street from Ain Shams University. An airforce field, and military college, between residential areas of heliopolois and almaza.
So when you think of Lebanon, HA political and military HQ are in southern beirut. The army is in southern lebanon and weapons get smugled fromt he border. So to isolate HA, they needed to control those areas.
There are two ways Israel could have minimized the civilian injuries further. A ground attack but that is more costly and risky. and no attack.
Issandr, thanks for the efforts over the past few days.
Eran – I presume that you support Israel. I also presume that you’re aware that the United States lists Hizbullah as a terrorist organization and I presume you agree with their assessment. If so, is this really the standard against which you’d like Israel to hold itself?
I dunno Assem if your argument holds all that much water. Egypt’s real military assets tend to be out in desert bases, it’s not like you see vacant lots filled with tanks all over the city. And yes, some military related buildings are in the capital — like many government buildings. How far is the Pentagon from residential neighborhoods, or Andrews Air Force base for that matter? How about the French Ministry of Defense? Out in the sticks? nope.
Its an interesting excercise in distraction to dicuss the Geneva conventions in such a way. Since these have been written warfare has changed dramatically and many militias now take advantage of these principles and deliberately base themselves in civilian areas, specifically target civilians and dont belong to a recognized military or national boundary.
Quoting a UN-agreement and equating it with legality in this situation is absurd. One must acknowledge that Israel and Lebanon have been in a legal state of war for 58 years. A lot has changed since then but Lebanon has refused peace treaties and so is at war.
Lets first accept the fact that Hezbollah is, regardless of the propoganda, randomly targetting civilians through its use of rockets. The initial attack was preceeded by dozens of missiles on civilian areas to distract from the true operation. About 1000 missiles have been shot toward populated areas with no logical hope of hitting military targets. The strike on the ship was an exception. So Hezbollah is not a signatory to any international agreements but lebanon is and as its self proclaimed representative it is acting “illegally”. Hezbollah is a member of the Lebanese governenment and acting outside of its authority so it is acting ‘illegally’.
But its naive to discuss legality in this situation. Issandr asks a good question about what standard Israel should hold itself. This is the true judgement of moral character. Israel has flown over 2000 sorties over lebanon with bombs that could kill hundreds on each flight. They have killed about 100 people. That means 1 person is killed in every 20 bombings. Thats pretty impressive standard compared to any other military. Im not saying its right, Im not saying its fair, Im not even saying its legal. But there is something to be said for that metric.
We are seeing a lot more wars of this type around the world. Sadly the Israelis have the HIGHEST standard in preventing civilian deaths and are still so bad at it. Maybe its the wrong standard to have in the long run but these numbers do show an effort and war is still war.
-Ajaii
Ajaii, you are right that a greater percentage of Israeli casualties of Hezbollah attacks have been civilians than the reverse, but while Israel may be better equipped to carry out precision strikes, these have still killed an alarming number of civilians. These are the figures from the Guardian today:
“Israeli attacks in Lebanon have killed 203 people, all but 13 of them civilians, while 24 Israelis have died, including 12 civilians hit in rocket attacks.”
Your points about Lebanon’s refusal of peace treaties (not true, btw) and the absurdity of using UN agreements as a measure of legality suggest that you don’t believe in international law. If the UN is irrelevant, then it is irrelevant that Hezbollah violated a UN armistice to attack Israeli soldiers. Is that what you’re suggesting?
190 civilians killed is alarming and disturbing but it is ‘open war’ I still stand by the observation that it is sad but true that this is an impressively low number for the level and number of the attacks. Killing any civilians is terrible, especially when many of them may not support Hezbullah. Im just saying to look at other conflicts of this size to compare and it does show an effort to minimize these atrocities.
Im not sure why the Lebanese havent made a peace deal with the Israelis. I mean I do but I dont want to argue if you think they havent refused please explain.
I honestly dont believe in international law. Law much be enforceable and be applied equally. We have not evolved that far yet, its all experimental. I think the UN is different from international law but similarly immature. Its not irrelevant that Hezboollah violated a UN armistice but its not going to change anything if there was none. Neither side really respects the UN, Israel has gotten more attention than it ever should and its ignored it with relative impunity. Hezbollah could care less and doesnt even believe in an “international community” if you listen to Nasrallah.
It does make a big difference that the UN concluded israel had pulled out of all of lebanon. This gets israel a lot more credibility. Less so in Gaza but the same idea applies. This keeps the international pressure off of them which is not ‘law’ but does have great influence.
Do you all believe in International Law? Do you believe that the Arabs follow it or any country on anyone does who has international conflict? Law comes from God or Man. Since obviously these sides dont agree on the same laws of God and they dont agree on any mutually enforceable laws of man then they will just use these things to their advantage.
Maybe the UN will be allowed to come into Southern Lebanon and help the Lebanese governement take control of its own land. Maybe Hezbollah will agree to be joined into the army and be abide by the rule of their countries law. That would be an impressive example for us all.