Tag: military

International Humanitarian Law, Gaza, Lebanon, Israel

The Geneva Conventions often get brought up in the discussions of what Israel is doing in Gaza or Lebanon, so I think it’s worth looking at them in detail so we know what we’re talking about. Here are the relevant bits, from the fourth convention:

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.

Gaza in the dark

Interesting article in CounterPunch on the impact of the destruction of Gaza’s power plant on its future economic growth:

By bombing the plant, the Israelis cut power to 65 percent of the Gaza Strip, a region that is one of the most impoverished in the Middle East. By destroying the plant, the Israelis also decimated one of Palestine’s most valuable companies, the Palestine Electric Company, whose shares are traded on the Palestine Stock Exchange. Further, the Israelis have destroyed any chance for industry in Gaza to grow.

It is axiomatic among the world’s economies: as electricity consumption increase, so does wealth. Gazans are impoverished, in large part, because they don’t have enough electricity. Residents in Gaza consume just 654 kilowatt hours of electricity per year or about one-tenth of what Israelis consume. The average Israeli consumes about 6,183 kilowatt hours of power per year, a rate that places Israel 27th among the world’s countries in terms of power use. By comparison the residents of Gaza rank number 136 among the world’s countries in per capita power use, a status that places them behind residents of Peru.

Not to mention, of course, the costs to businesses, students, traders, etc. Incidentally, kudos to Egypt for pledging to give Gaza free electricity.

Also check out MERIP’s new online piece, Gaza in the Vise, for a detailed look at the humanitarian impact of Israel’s war, especially on children.

The nuances of embeds

There’s been quite a fuss in the past few days over this article by Newsweek hack Rod Nordland, in which he criticizes the practices of “embeds” with US troops. Other journalists have come out and said the same, some describing themselves as mouthpieces for the US military.

I asked a friend working in Iraq who’s done several embeds what he thought of the whole debacle. Not only did he send his comments, reproduced below, but also provided the standard military form for “Embed Requests” journalists have to fill in to apply for an embed position. The questions it asks, such as links to previous articles, intent and angle of embed coverage, etc. make it clear the military media relations people want to know who they’re dealing with, but that doesn’t really seem unreasonable either — it’s more how they react to that info, and whether journalists feel pressured to be positive in order to keep their access to embeds.

Here’s what he had to say:

Embedding with the US military gets a pretty bad rap, with lots of armchair analysts sitting back and criticizing journalists for going “in bed” with the US military and reporting nothing but propaganda, as opposed to all the courageous journalists elsewhere in Baghdad who navigate the streets on their own and report the “true” story.

I would say that even in 2003 and 2004, when independent, street reporting was a little more possible and common, embeds still had their place. I think in an ideal world they are two very complimentary halves of the story. A good portion of the Iraq story is what the US military is doing, and the best way to cover that, is to embed with them.

Unfortunately, since Iraq became extremely unpleasant starting mid-2004, getting around the country or even around Baghdad without the US military has become rather difficult. It means that it’s harder to report the non-US military side of the story, though most agencies, using their Iraqi staff do a pretty good job.

Continue reading The nuances of embeds

Most foreign Jihadis in Iraq are Egyptians, US military says

A journalist friend of mine sent me an AFP report, including allegations by the US military that most foreign jihadis in Iraq come from Egypt.
I’ve been a bit interested in that issue since early 2003. In interviews prior and during the war, experts in Cairo were warning then of the prospects of Iraq breeding a new generation of Islamist militants, or “Iraqi Arabs� (a la Afghan Arabs).
President Mubarak himself expressed his concern over the war in 2003 saying it would produce “100 Bin Ladens.”
(Mubarak expressed privately more urging concerns. In the rather long and extremely boring memoirs of General Tommy Franks, the former head of US army CENTCOM recalls his visit to Cairo on January 23, 2003:

Hosni Mubarak was as friendly as always. But he was clearly concerned with our military buildup and the tension in Iraq.
He leaned close and spoke to me in an accented but readily comprehensible English. “General Franks,� he said, choosing his words carefully, as (Jordanian King) Abdullah had done. “You must be very, very careful. We have spoken with Saddam Hussein. He is a madman. He has WMD—biologicals, actually—and he will use them on your troops.�
An hour later, in the Embassy communications room, I passed this message to Don Rumsfeld.

This is mentioned in Tommy’s–again, rather long and extremely boring–memoirs, American Soldier, on pages 418-9)
Since the start of the war, the US has inflated the Arab volunteers’ importance and involvement in attacks. I myself admit I was guilty of the same mistake. I was following the Iraqi scene from my comfortable place in Cairo. Media reports and Islamist sources in Egypt and Europe were my sources of information. And I think it suited everybody in the beginning to blame the attacks on the “foreign terrorists.â€� The US then U-turned after the first all out assault on Fallouja, and I recall coming across reports saying it was “discoveredâ€� the foreign fighters constituted actually a minority of the Islamist jihadis caught.
The cycle of exaggerating or underestimating the contribution of foreign jihadis has been ebbing and flowing… and always the question of which country has the lion share of volunteers, comes up.
There have been conflicting reports. A former colleague of mine at the LA Times told me once she obtained some study claiming Algerians constituted the majority. And if I’m not mistaken, I recall coming across reports that talked about either the Saudis, Syrians, or Jordanians constituting the majority.
I don’t honestly buy the reports about “Zarqawi’s networks� in Europe and about how he was exporting fighters there. I think these reports are trumped up by the European security agencies. Still, the threat of “Iraqi Arabs� or “returnees from Iraq� is present. Up till now, the militancy has spilled over to Jordan, with the suicide bombings that targeted the tourist hotels, and the attacks on Eilat and US warships in 3aqaba Gulf.
(I am not monitoring the situation in Saudi, but if any of you dear readers are, please inform us if the recent spate of attacks in the kingdom involved an “Iraqi link.�)
This new report on Egyptian jihadis in Iraq, as well as the presence of an Egyptian on top of Iraq’s Al-Qa3da now, means there will be more “cooperation” between the US and our Egyptian Mukhabarrat… i.e., it’s an additional incentive to forget “democracy” issues when it comes to bilateral relations, since “counterterrorism” (a terrorism produced ironically by the lack of democracy in the first place) tops everybody’s agendas. Continue reading Most foreign Jihadis in Iraq are Egyptians, US military says

Russia to open ports in Syria?

This kind of takes you back to history class, Russia’s perennial search for a warm-water port, the Crimean War and all that:

In early June, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported Moscow’s decision to establish naval bases in the Syrian ports of Tartus and Latakia. The Russian Defense Ministry officially denied the report, even though more than one source confirmed it.

As part of the plan, the port of Tartus would be transformed into a naval base for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet when it is away from the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol. The Russian plan involves the installation of an air defense system with S-300PMU-2 Favorit ballistic missiles. The missiles have a range of 200 kilometers (124 miles), allow a larger warhead and are equipped with a better guidance system than the previous version. The air defense system would be operated by Russia for the defense of the Tartus base and would provide potential protection for a large part of Syria. Through these initiatives, it is clear that Russia wants to strengthen its position in the Middle East.

Read the rest here.

Continue reading Russia to open ports in Syria?

Gitmo military trials rejected by Supreme Court

The US supreme court directed a blow to Bush’s “war on terror,� ruling today against the administration’s plans to prosecute Gitmo detainees in military courts. Already, the US president is in terrible unease about the island’s gulag, which has been denounced by virtually all rights groups across the globe as well as well as America’s own allies. He expressed in Vienna this month his desire to close it down during a summit with EU states. Continue reading Gitmo military trials rejected by Supreme Court

Gaza beach deaths

Jumping back in to the blogging game from Gaza… Rumors have it Palestinian factions will announce agreement tonight, but for now with regards to the beach deaths, Hossam mentioned Saturday’s Guardian report. In fact all three British tabloids, Guardian, Telegraph and her majesty’s Times took the Israeli army’s account to task on Friday and Saturday, but it was the Times that had the more damning account, including an internal UN radio call contradicting the crucial Israeli timeline of events: Continue reading Gaza beach deaths