by Charles
This may no longer be an issue in the present situation because so many civilians have fled southern Lebanon. But if not there, the topic remains relevant because it is likely that one party or another will use human shields in future engagements. In the Israel-Hezbollah War, Hezbollah has been clearly violating Article 28 of the Geneva Conventions for protecting civilians:
The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
If Hezbollah does not allow civilians to leave, they are committing a war crime because it is illegal to take hostages. There also provisions under Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions, although Israel (and the United States) is not a signatory. However, the U.S. and Israel have accepted many of its provisions under customary international law. When Hezbollah launches rockets from an apartment building into Israeli territory, that building has become a base for military operations. Same principles apply for mosques, hospitals, schools, etc. Each time Hezbollah launches a rocket, they are committing a terrorist act because their target is a zip code, not a military target. So far, over 3,000 terrorist rocket attacks have occurred. It is a legitimate act of self-defense to take out those launchers and rockets before militant Islamists launch again. If civilians die in those counterstrikes, the fault lies with Hezbollah for putting their own people in peril. Former professor of human rights Yoram Dinstein:
Customary international law is certainly more rigorous than the [Geneva] Protocol on this point. It has traditionally been perceived that, should civilian casualties ensue from an attempt to shield combatants or a military objective, the ultimate responsibility lies with the belligerent [party] placing innocent civilians at risk. A belligerent...is not vested by the laws of international armed conflict with the power to block an otherwise legitimate attack against combatants (or military objectives) by deliberately placing civilians in harm's way.
The above is cited from his 2004 book The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict. Admittedly, Dinstein have may a bias toward Israel since he was a professor at Tel Aviv University.
Israel doesn't have a spotless record in the matter of human shields either. Just a month ago, the IDF used Palestinians as human shields for an incursion into Gaza:
After seizing control of the buildings, the soldiers held six residents, two of them minors, on the staircases of the two buildings, at the entrance to rooms in which the soldiers positioned themselves, for some twelve hours. During this time, there were intense exchanges of gunfire between the soldiers and armed Palestinians. The soldiers also demanded that one of the occupants walk in front of them during a search of all the apartments in one of the buildings, after which they released her.
IDF also illegally used Palestinian human shields in the Battle of Jenin. According to Louis Rene Beres, professor of international law at Purdue University, human shields also fall under the category of perfidy, which is not permissible under international law (but ruses are okay). So what is the proper response under international law when the enemy uses these perfidious acts? In a September 2004 issue of Military Review, Daniel Schoenekase defines the different types of human shields--proximity, involuntary and voluntary--and raises questions about other groups such as civilian workers at a munitions factory. Schoenekase puts forth "targeting principles" when the enemy uses human shields to prevent counterattacks: military necessity, discrimination (distinction), humanity and proportionality. Commanders must evaluate the following before giving the green light to striking a human-shielded target:
- The mission.
- Time available.
- Military advantage or purpose for destroying the target.
- Intelligence available.
- Assets available to attack the target.
- The political ramifications of striking the target.
- All likely collateral damage, including the human shields likely to be killed in the attack.
- Any alternative courses of action (COAs). (39)
"The standard of care a commander must employ is a reasonable one, and he will be judged by what is known at the time of the attack, not what is known in hindsight, and two questions will be asked regarding a commander's decision to attack. Did the commander reasonably gather information to determine whether the target was a military objective and that the incidental damage would not be disproportionate, and did the commander act reasonably based on available information?
"The commander and his staff assess and give a numerical value to individual criteria based on their relative significance. The end result is an empirical analysis to assist in the final decision whether or not to attack the target. The higher the overall score, the more confident a commander could be in his decision to attack the target. The model accounts for the principle of necessity in the mission and alternative COA categories. The principle of proportionality is analyzed by the collateral damage estimate and target composition categories compared with the mission. The target composition evaluation would also ensure that the commander and his staff take the principle of discrimination into account. The principle of humanity would be considered through discussion and assignment of assets available."
At the individual soldier level, the decision tree is simpler since situations often boil down to kill or be killed, and soldiers have a right to self-defense. If Israeli commanders are applying the above principles and using some form of scoring system, then they are not violating the rules of war or customary international law.
But the lesson to be taken from the Israel-Hezbollah War is that being on the right side of international law is not good enough. The Israelis are also fighting an information war, and Hezbollah is winning on this front. There are real victims, of course, and real pain and suffering. Hundreds of civilians have been killed and hundreds of thousands displaced. But in the arena of public opinion, Hezbollah has successfully shifted a good amount of blame and responsibility from itself to Israel. This is troubling because the incentive for using human shields is still in place, and I expect more civilians will suffer because Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations will continue to use this evil practice.
Switching gears a little. Eleven days ago this post was written, excerpting four news articles, and the only editorial comment was this:
And so the democratsunami washes back out to sea, leaving behind a ruined world.
This was directed at me because I was the person who used that term, more or less (here, and a few other places). I previously wrote that, at best, it was happening in some places but not in others. The implication I get from Hilzoy is that the wave of democratic reforms occurring over the last couple of years has made the world a worse place. Ruined it, to be exact. I take issue.
The Cedar Revolution was a positive event because the Lebanese were able to throw off the yolk of Syrian troops occupying their land and to lessen Syrian meddling in Lebanese affairs. The problem is that the revolution didn't go far enough because the Lebanese never gained full sovereignty over their own territory. The Hezbollah cancer never went away, and was made worse with the ascension of Ahmadinejad. In other places in the world, progress has been made, but it's been messy and there have been setbacks. Ukraine has had troubles, and so have other nations. But should it mean that the pursuit of these principles is not worth it? I don't think so.
The issue has less to do with the spread of democracy and freedom, and more to do with those oppressors who are working directly against freedom, democratic reform and rule of law. In Lebanon, those forces are the anti-democratic regimes of Syria and Iran (and Iran's sponsor, Hezbollah), each of whom seek either dictatorial or theocratic control, or both. Any ruin occurring is caused by those three elements, not those striving for freedom and democracy. Those same elements exist in Iraq in the form of al Qaeda and both Sunni and Shia rejectionists, and those same elements exist in Afghanistan in the form of al Qaeda and Taliban militants. In a sense, they are all part of the same war that Western civilization is presently engaged in.
Or look at it another way. In what fashion could Lebanon be better off under the boot of Assad? How could Syrian control lessen the chances of Hezbollah invading Israeli territory and killing and kidnapping IDF? In short, the way I see it, Hilzoy is blaming the treatment for the Islamist cancer, i.e., attempting to expand personal freedom and democratic reform, but not the Islamist cancer itself. In my view, she's exactly and dead wrong. Of course the Saudis want a "return to the old Middle East". They don't want their Wahhabist power structure threatened. But so what. The Saudis are in large part responsible for the War Against Militant Islamism because, after oil, their chief exports are terrorists and of neo-Salafist doctrine.
Of course Lebanese leaders are upset that a proxy Iranian army and Israel are having it out. But what palatable options does Israel have? Or Lebanon? Backing down won't stop terrorist rocket attacks, won't return kidnapped soldiers, won't stop the flow of Iranian money to Hezbollah, won't change Hezbollah leadership and won't end Hezbollah's mission. If Hezbollah won't disarm, and it looks like they won't, what good is a UN ceasefire? There are a thousand or more ways things can go wrong for both Israel and Lebanon, and only a handful of right ways. The only truly right way to peace that I can see is for Israel to negotiate a deal with a Lebanon in full control of its territory. Peace agreements worked with Egypt and with Jordan. A peace agreement can also work with Lebanon, provided that it can operate under Resolution 1559.
"CB's logic the UK government would have had every right to turn the catholic neighbourhoods of Belfast and elsewhere into rubble"
Is that ALL the neighborhoods of Belfast? Or is that buildings in Belfast associated with the IRA with possible additional damage to nearby buildings?
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | August 15, 2006 at 07:24 PM
Or is that buildings in Belfast associated with the IRA with possible additional damage to nearby buildings?
That would be the Catholic neighborhoods of Belfast, then? With possible additional damage to nearby Protestant neighborhoods?
To quote a Brit writing about Ireland and terrorism in 2001:
Posted by: The only way to respond to | August 15, 2006 at 07:40 PM
Oops. That was me.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 15, 2006 at 07:54 PM
"the IRA was a terrorist organisation that regularily blew up targets in the UK and it's a matter of interpretation if it hid out among a supportive civilian population or abused those civilians as human shields -"
This analogy fails very badly, however. A group that sets off an occasional domestic bomb isn't remotely accurately comparable to a group that launches thousands of missiles over a few weeks, up to 250 or so per day.
If, in fact, hundreds of launchers had been present in a single Belfast neighborhood, and hundreds of missiles were being launched from them every day, for weeks, I daresay that something resembling military action would have been taken by the British government.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 15, 2006 at 07:57 PM
A group that sets off an occasional domestic bomb isn't remotely accurately comparable to a group that launches thousands of missiles over a few weeks, up to 250 or so per day
and a country which didn't launch a full ground and air assault against its neighbor isn't remotely accurately comparable to one that did.
but, analogies aside, we do know which situation worked out better.
Posted by: cleek | August 15, 2006 at 08:17 PM
If, in fact, hundreds of launchers had been present in a single Belfast neighborhood, and hundreds of missiles were being launched from them every day, for weeks, I daresay that something resembling military action would have been taken by the British government.
when did Hezbollah start firing those hundreds of rockets? was it before or after Israel started bombing Lebanon ?
Posted by: cleek | August 15, 2006 at 08:20 PM
"...when did Hezbollah start firing those hundreds of rockets? was it before or after Israel started bombing Lebanon ?"
Before.
Starting on July 12th. Timeline.
Israel didn't counter-attack by air until July 13th. Thanks for asking.Prior to that:
I left out a few incidents that could be characterized as tit-for-tat.The usual response to this, of course, is that this is insufficient to respond to with a large attack, and should be responded to only with tit for tat.
On the other hand, the justification for Hezbollah firing untargeted anti-personnel weapons into civilian towns (and massacring more than a few Israeli Arabs and their children) seems to be that all is fair in love and war, and after all, they don't have a better means of response. I find it difficult to see how if this is a reasonable justification, it doesn't also apply in reverse.
I am, as it happens, not defending any and every Israeli attack in this war; I have plenty of questions about quite a few; clearly some were tragic mistakes, and it's entirely possible that some were war crimes, and that people should be punished for them; as I've said endlessly, if that's the case, I emphatically believed any guilty Israeli should be tried, and if guilty, punished appropriately (and not lightly). It would be nice if that would also happen on the Lebanese side, but I won't hold my breath on that.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 15, 2006 at 09:04 PM
when did Hezbollah start firing those hundreds of rockets? was it before or after Israel started bombing Lebanon ?
How many rockets is Hezbollah allowed before it's OK to retaliate?
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | August 15, 2006 at 09:06 PM
Farber:
when did Hezbollah start firing those hundreds of rockets? was it before or after Israel started bombing Lebanon?
You missed the qualifier "hundreds" -- the correct answer is AFTER. Of course, since they were launched in a barrage into civilian areas, they were war crimes. But the hundreds being fired was clearly in response to the declaration of war by Israel against Lebanon and the massive aerial bombing.
Without question, Hezbollah has been the aggressor with the stated aim to destroy Israel. You chronology documents the constant ongoing low grade warfare waged by them. Whether or not the crazy bombing campaign made sense as a means to deal with Hezbollah is the next question.
Stock your comments with loaded terms, one might almost think you were propagandizing, yourself. And have made up your mind (possibly made up your mind before the war started) who the Bad Guys are.
Well -- your stock response to my comments is that I "hate" Israel. Same thing here -- or are you actually trying to defend the report about Qana being staged by Hezbollah? Isn't it pretty clearly propoganda, for the reasons I gave (and which you ignore)? What's wrong with calling it that?
To make it simple, both sides stink, though Hezbollah much more. The problem is that glowing and false stories about Israeli behavior skew US policy, and only worsen the problems. The latest Israeli Lebanon adventure has been a disaster for US interests and about as likely to improve the security in the area as the Iraq war.
Posted by: dmbeaster | August 15, 2006 at 09:55 PM
Thanks for asking
that's really not what i asked.
i believe your words were "hundreds of missiles".
Posted by: cleek | August 15, 2006 at 10:06 PM
How many rockets is Hezbollah allowed before it's OK to retaliate?
1.
don't make the mistake of thinking i'm defending Hezbollah.
Posted by: cleek | August 15, 2006 at 10:08 PM
War is such a collossal evil, waste and horror, that the only possible justification for it is "We had no choice," and the only possible way to judge the outcome is "Did the war achieve its stated objectives?"
Gary, believe me, I sympathize with Israel. But bombing the sh*t out of Lebanon not only didn't achieve its stated objectives (to destroy Hezbollah) but was, SFAICT, completely counterproductive. Hezbollah is more popular than ever, having done what no Arab country has ever done: won a military victory against Israel. Lebanon's central government is weaker than it was, and less likely than ever to expel or contain Hezbollah. The Lebanese people are less favorably inclined towards Israel than they ever were.
What would have worked? I think I listed a few things on an earlier I/L topic. Targetted assassinations and a DMZ. Both would have caused Israel a lot of grief from the international community - but would also have achieved concrete goals. As it stands, Israel gets the international grief and outrage, with no results to show for it.
Posted by: CaseyL | August 15, 2006 at 10:36 PM
I think most of those conclusions are fairly premature at this point, CaseyL. They may turn out to be correct, but a) quite a few remain to be seen as to how they play out; b) some of them are simply impossible to judge, since all we have are competing propaganda statements (such as how much Hezbollah was or was not degraded militarily).
I've read plenty of articles, believe me, arguing a considerable variety of cases, as to all these conclusions, and the one thing that's clear to me is how unclear they are, and how much, as usual, people who are sure they know, clearly don't know.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 15, 2006 at 11:39 PM
Oh, and: "Targetted assassinations and a DMZ."
The first, of course, is one of the standard reasons that Israel is Evil Incarnate.
I have no idea what you have in mind as the second; that is, I understand you to be suggesting some sort of parallel to Korea (where, of course, numerous infiltrations from North Korea have taken place over the decades, firefights, North Koreans charging in with axes and commencing hacking at South Korean soldiers and whatnot, but never mind), which, of course, only exists because of the armistice negotiations; how would would generate a DMZ, well, that's pretty much the aim of the exercise that happened, and now supposedly the Lebanese Army (which barely exists, incidentally; it's a bunch of ill-trained infantry with a bunch of light personnel carriers, and that's it; no heavy weapons or tanks or planes or artillery; but they have flashy shoulder patches on their website!) and the international force disarms Hezbollah (which Hezbollah, as you probably know, has already announced they won't stand for, but instead they'll just not, you know, wave their weapons around flagrantly), so we'll have to see how that goes.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 15, 2006 at 11:47 PM
"Hezbollah is more popular than ever, having done what no Arab country has ever done: won a military victory against Israel."
Sorry for multiple responses. But looking back at this: how is it a victory, other than propaganda, when you don't invade the enemy in the slightest, or damage any of their strategic assets or warfighting ability, but instead get the sh*t pounded out of you, and merely survive, due to the war being called on account of cease-fire?
This is a wonderful triumph of propaganda, to be sure, but otherwise?
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 15, 2006 at 11:51 PM
Gary: I wish there weren't a good response to your question, but offhand two come to mind: (a) more recruits, and (b) more political influence within Lebanon.
Posted by: hilzoy | August 16, 2006 at 12:12 AM
I suppose "a" is likely to some degree, although that's an unusual criteria for a victory, and "b" is possible, but also remains to be seen. If Hezbollah is actually disarmed, or at least rendered less capable of military activity from the south (more likely than disarmed, I suspect, though certainly by no means a sure thing either, to put it mildly), then might significantly lessen Hezbollah's political influence, after the brave speeches stop.
But, as I said, it really all remains to be seen. I have no trouble believing that I may come to the conclusion that the war was a fiasco for Israel, as well as full of strategic mistakes; certainly there are good arguments for that case; but there are a lot of other arguments, as well. I'm by no means saying that the argument that Hezbollah came out better than it went in is necessarily wrong; I'm just saying that I think asserting conclusions on the same day of the ceasefire, based on superficial newspaper reports, and endless opinion, from bloggers, columnists, opinion writers, etc., seems a bit less than considered and wise to me. Our verifiable information is considerably incomplete just now.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 16, 2006 at 12:29 AM
This is a wonderful triumph of propaganda, to be sure, but otherwise?
What was that we were talking about above in re military successes?
Posted by: Anarch | August 16, 2006 at 12:42 AM
But, as I said, it really all remains to be seen. I have no trouble believing that I may come to the conclusion that the war was a fiasco for Israel, as well as full of strategic mistakes; certainly there are good arguments for that case; but there are a lot of other arguments, as well.
Wise words, but one thing is clear. The bombing of Lebanon was an unqualified disaster and will undermine whatever gains Israel may have achieved by direct military action against Hezbollah. My own opinion is that they did not achieve anything remotely worth the cost of the bombing of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure -- most of it was simply terror bombing with no meaningful purpose other than punishing the Lebanese people for "allowing" Hezbollah to exist.
Some have suggested (Sy Hersh and Juan Cole) that the massive bombing campaign was modeled on Kosovo on the assumption that air power can achieve dramatic strategic victories. Funny since we were just talking about that on Andrew's thread, but air power can achieve this kind of victory only when the other side does not really want to fight anyway. That point seems to be lost on the Israelis.
I see no meaningful evidence that Hezbollah's military capabilities were degraded to any significant degree in this war -- other than using a lot of munitions, which I imagine will be resupplied by one means or another.
My own predicition is that this is simply a calm before another storm -- as with all wars that don't resolve anything, they just set the stage for the next war as both sides are itching for a rematch.
Posted by: dmbeaster | August 16, 2006 at 01:08 AM
"but one thing is clear"
True, but you got the wrong one thing - it's that people are going to be arguing about this for years.
Posted by: rilkefan | August 16, 2006 at 01:28 AM
"...most of it was simply terror bombing with no meaningful purpose other than punishing the Lebanese people for 'allowing' Hezbollah to exist."
See, how you could possibly know that, without access to the intelligence Israel did or did not have, and knowledge of what they thought their targets were, I have no idea. And absent mindreading abilities, to be sure (though willingness to believe in the perfididy of Israelis makes up for that, apparently).
To put it another way, you couldn't possibly know, but are seemingly willing, perhaps eager, to believe this, and so you do believe, while not possibly having the actual facts to know the truth.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 16, 2006 at 01:31 AM
Gary, as usual I agree with your 1:31 AM almost entirely, but I think "perhaps eager" is a bit mindreaderish, esp. in context.
And I imagine it's "perfidy".
Posted by: rilkefan | August 16, 2006 at 01:48 AM
Depressing. Losing the peace is probably worse than losing the war...
Posted by: rilkefan | August 16, 2006 at 01:51 AM
It doesn't look like Israel and the US want to see "more freedoms for the Lebanese" either.
Or why would they advocate mass killings?
I don't see where Israel or the U.S. has advocating mass killings, Ted, so I don't see how your first sentence makes any sense at all.
Hil,
Re your 9:37pm comment, there is one point where I find myself in general agreement with you: You probably should have resisted the impulse, except that I would take out the "probably".
I should also commend you for being consistent. From what I've seen, you've consistently downtalked and downplayed the influence the Bush administration has had in advancing democratic reforms in the unfree world. We can go through the list of countries and their situations at the time I wrote my March 2005 post.
Afghanistan. The October 2004 election brought Karzai to power, and the parliamentary election was on schedule for September 2005. The Bush administration played a direct role in making this happen.
Iraq. The first election in January 2005 was a success, and two more elections were anticipated. The Bush administration played a direct role in making this happen (and the too many missteps).
Ukraine. The Orange Revolution got a boost from Colin Powell when he questioned the results of the October 2004 election. The Guardian, in disapproving tones, went as far as calling the Orange Revolution an American creation.
Kuwait. Women were demonstrating, pushing for the right to vote. In the adjacent country to the north, women did vote. Other countries at the time were making minor democratic inroads.
Lebanon. The above events didn't happen in a vacuum. The Cedar Revolution may not have happened at all if the Orange Revolution had been quashed. Hariri was assassinated in February 2004, protests happened, and Syrian troops left two months later. Ahmadinejad had not yet been declared president, and Hezbollah was a blip on the horizon. The Bush administration gets a nod for working with France to pass Resolution 1559, and then after Hariri was assassinated, demanding that Syria comply with the resolution by ending its occupation. Whether the Cedar Revolution was an "offshoot" of Bush foreign policy, I doubt, but I believe Bush & Co. get credit for moving it along.
As for poor follow-up, I don't know. The question is, what could the Bush administration have done differently in the last sixteen months? Send more aid? Send advisors? More arms? The goal of the Cedar Revolution was to rid Syria of its military presence, and Hezbollah was not a pressing issue even though the UNSC resolution applied also to them. The Lebanese had most of the world on its side, and the U.S. was on the forefront of support. Other than France perhaps, I'd be surprised if any other country provided more financial support to Lebanon.
But the wild card since March 2005 has been the growing belligerence of Iran and Hezbollah. I don't know of anyone--seventeen months ago--who predicted that Iran would hold a joke election, then have its president make crackpot statements about Israel, and then tacitly start a war against Israel using its proxy army. I also don't know of anyone--seventeen months ago--who urged the fledging Lebanese government to go into southern Lebanon and disarm Hezbollah, risking civil war. Such a suggestion would have been laughable at that time.
I do agree that $1.5 million is a paltry amount for the Lebanese military, but even one hundred times that sum would do no good if the LAF is unwilling to go to war against its own people. At $150 million or more, it's doubtful that the LAF would be successful if they tried, given the arms and training provided by the Iranian mullahcrats.
I don't--and never did--blame the Lebanese government for having Hezbollah control part of its country. The government never had a fair chance to deal with the problem, and that's why I have a serious issue with the notion that Hezbollah and the Lebanese government must both be punished for the sins of Hezbollah.
As for "triumphalism", what happened in the above countries were triumphs, and they happened in relatively rapid fashion. Some were significant, but many others were more modest, in retrospect. The tone of my post was a bit triumphant, but I also tempered it by recognizing that there are plenty of failed states out there.
In hindsight, the one factor I didn't give enough consideration to was the counterforces. In practically every one of these countries, the counterforces proved to be more resistant to change and more difficult to dislodge than I expected. As I wrote then, the democracy movement is a process, and democratic governance is messy and tough to maintain. It's messy enough in the U.S., the most successful democracy on earth, but at least the opposing parties (in their own way) believe in the American experiment and are committed to upholding the Constitution. In these other places, many of the opponents aren't just against the current regime, but they're against the very idea of representative government and the Bill of Rights. Whether the "triumphalist" tone was "thoughtless" is, of course, your opinion. But I would suggest that it was no less thoughtless than what you wrote on August 3rd, but I do appreciate your explanation.
Posted by: Charles Bird | August 16, 2006 at 03:09 AM
It's hard to imagine what information not now available to us, including anything the IDF might say about what they thought their targets were, could change the impression created by what the IDF did in fact bomb (apart from south Lebanon, where rocket launchers provided the rationale):
apartment buildings, factories, power stations (the one in Beirut unleashing a huge oil spill), a Lebanese Army base, carfuls of people fleeing to the north, the vehicles of rescue workers. The Israeli military conducted airstrikes on almost every area of Lebanon with the exception of central Beirut. Swaths of the southern suburbs were literally leveled.
This impression, of an effort to punish the Lebanese people for the actions of Hezbollah, is reinforced by the large number of civilians killed, many in areas far from any rocket launcher. It is further strengthened by the statements of cabinet ministers and senior IDF officers and cabinet ministers equating all Lebanese Shiites with Hezbollah fighters and calling for ten city buildings to be destroyed for every building in Israel hit by a HA rocket.
Posted by: Nell | August 16, 2006 at 03:12 AM
Gary Farber wrote:
To put it another way, you couldn't possibly know, but are seemingly willing, perhaps eager, to believe this, and so you do believe, while not possibly having the actual facts to know the truth.
The odds are greater, much greater, that Gary Farber has a pro-Israel bias than that dmbeaster has a pro-Hizbullah bias.
The facts on the ground strongly support dmbeaster's view of events: more than 6000 bombing raids, 1000 dead civilians, a million refugees, airports, roads, power plants and civilian infrastructure devastated - and only 300 Hizbullah fighters killed - by the IDF's own reckoning, nota bene.
De facto, Israel has bombed mainly civilian infrastructure and killed mainly civilians. The targetting of civilian infrastructure - runways, highways, powerplants - was deliberate. From the start. Explicit targetting of civilians may not initially have been IAF strategy, but it became quickly clear that the IAF was spectacularly unsuccesful in killing Hizbullah and that civilians (sorry, "collaborators" , "human shields" and "terrorist untermenschen") were bearing the brunt of the attacks. Once the IAF decided to continue with their strategy they shifted over from the defensive to the punitive.
Look at the pointless dropping of leaflets in areas about to be bombed - transparent PR bullsh*t for gullible US audiences. What, drop leaflets and expect all civilians to leave and Hizbullah fighters to hang around politely waiting to be bombed? What is the point, if not punitive, of bombing flat civilian areas in which all forewarned Hizbollah fighters have long since left, lugging along any valuable hardware along with them?
The surest sign of objectivity is to watch the reactions if the tables are turned. Should Lebanon be the one launching thousands of air raids over Israeli cities, killing thousands of civilians, forcing millions to flee, bombing fleeing Israelis, reducing Israeli infrastructure to rubble, and talking of a ground invasion, I think that dmbeaster would be here decrying that fact. I somehow doubt Sebastian, Gary, and Rilkefan would be here, hemming and hawing, talking about needing enough proof of Lebanese evil intent, arguing whether dead Israelis are actually civilians, and whether reporters in Israel filming the devastation are not actually being dupes of IDF propaganda.
Posted by: BP | August 16, 2006 at 03:47 AM
So of what concern is it of yours whether Hezbollah has lately violated the laws of war? Is Mankind your business?
To your second question, I guess so, Charley. Here's a thought. If the U.S. is to be included in a war crimes investigation for the Israel-Hezbollah War, then it stands to reason that Iran should be included as well.
For example, Charles has clearly suggested in the first few words o this post that Hezbollah is holding civilianshostage, yet wil not supply a source for this.
d+p+u, although biased (as is HRW), IDF relayed the following:
In this link, HRW acknowledges the following:Posted by: Charles Bird | August 16, 2006 at 05:52 AM
Someone for God's sake start the companion thread on HoCB, or I shall start quoting Monty Python again.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 16, 2006 at 07:02 AM
Charles:
HRW is biased how and towards whom? The idea that they "can't accept" that Hezbollah committed war crimes when they've been accusing them of war crimes constantly is silly.
I think their bias is to rely on their own researchers and firsthand observations rather than, e.g. "everyone knows that Hezbollah hides behind the civilian population." I think that in this case, what everyone knows about Hezbollah is actually true. And Peter Bouckaert & their other researchers may be underestimating Hezbollah's PR operation a bit--though they're on the ground and experienced in these things, and I'm not. But that's not properly described as bias towards Hezbollah, and to describe HRW as being as biased as the IDF is just silly.
And yes, I've seen the NGO Monitor "expose" that you're probably going to cite; I am distinctly underwhelmed. Here is NGO Monitor's mission statement:
They believe that every major human rights organization is biased against Israel. Some of them may be, but--this is an organization devoted to working the refs, not a neutral evaluator.
And I can't tell you how many times I've seen a variation of the headline "Country X rejects Human Rights Watch report, accuses organization of bias."
Also, your blockquote looks like it should have ended a paragraph sooner.
Posted by: Katherine | August 16, 2006 at 07:25 AM
d+p+u, although biased (as is HRW), IDF relayed the following: [...]
"Although biased"? Why don't you just go ahead and relay Hizbullah press releases verbatim as well? There are two sides with no interest whatsoever in releasing objective news reports and the IDF is very definitely one of them: barring independent verification IDF statements are as meaningless and fact free as Hizbullah statements. Given the PR implications of this war, both sides have plenty of incentive to lie. Not recognising this is pure partisanship.
Posted by: BP | August 16, 2006 at 07:54 AM
CB, I certainly wish that Iran could be held to account for its human rights record over the past 25 years. If I could do something to bring it about, I would. I am a citizen of a country that has also violated the laws of war, though, and as such I have the ability to ask my government to (a) stop doing so, and (b) lead the way on the accountability front. Self-interest on the part of the people who ordered the violations stands in the way, however. Maybe your tsunami will wash over in this direction . .
WRT Lebanon, the article Rilkefan linked to above is really the key, though. I think we can safely assume that nothing meaningful is going to happen as a result of the various violations of the laws of war in this late conflict (or in others currently under way in points East). Instead, what we'll get is an even greater role for Hezbollah in the south of Lebanon. As the President said, this little war presents an opportunity -- but maybe it's an opportunity for the people of South Lebanon to see the damage made by American smart bombs being repaired with Iranian money.
Maybe Sec. Rice should go to Teheran and find out what Iran's agenda is with respect to the former Soviet republics in its vicinity. Then we can try to figure out a policy that will accomplish Iran's goals in that sphere too.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | August 16, 2006 at 08:29 AM
Posted by: Charles Bird | August 16, 2006 at 03:09 AM
Charles,
According to your naïve belief concerning elections, your “democratic revolution” has been in existence in Syria and Iran, for decades.
Elections do not equal liberty and freedom.
A "conservative" would know better than that.
However, I still believe you are not a "conservative," but a right-winger at best and an authoritarian at worse.
Posted by: SomeOtherDude | August 16, 2006 at 10:11 AM
Speaking of opportunities:
Democratic Opportunities
Posted by: SomeOtherDude | August 16, 2006 at 10:21 AM
That was linked to a while back, SOD.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 16, 2006 at 10:26 AM
I apologize.
Posted by: SomeOtherDude | August 16, 2006 at 10:54 AM
So Charles Bird and Noam Chomsky both like Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie as an expert witness. The internet makes strange bedfellows. But whereas Noam likes him for making excuses for the Bosnian Serbs, Charles likes him for doing the same for the Israelis.
Charles, if you’re going to make a habit of knocking HRW for bias, you might be wise to ponder the impartiality of your own sources.
Posted by: Kevin Donoghue | August 16, 2006 at 11:18 AM
d+p+u, although biased (as is HRW), IDF relayed the following:
Thank you, Charles.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood | August 16, 2006 at 11:19 AM
Dmbeaster,
"You missed the qualifier "hundreds" -- the correct answer is AFTER. Of course, since they were launched in a barrage into civilian areas, they were war crimes. But the hundreds being fired was clearly in response to the declaration of war by Israel against Lebanon and the massive aerial bombing."
The fewer than hundreds were launched into civilian areas too. The rockets in question have a targeting radius of only slightly better than half a mile. They are designed for saturation bombing--thus no individual rocket can be well targeted.
"I see no meaningful evidence that Hezbollah's military capabilities were degraded to any significant degree in this war -- other than using a lot of munitions, which I imagine will be resupplied by one means or another."
What in the world does this statement mean? There is no handy database of Hezbollah's military capabilities with a vector analysis handily charted. What in the world would count as good evidence one way or another at this point? Hezbollah is a guerilla operation. You can't just point to a map and count the bases destroyed. Has the UN done inspections? You use "see no meaningful evidence" as if it implied "probably no damage done". That isn't a logical inference.
And we should be very clear in our thinking on your last phrase. You mean, "which I imagine will be resupplied by Iran and Syria". Whatever we can or cannot do about that fact, it does the discussion no good to try to hide from the explicit reality of who will be giving them weapons.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | August 16, 2006 at 11:37 AM
Sebastian, it's somewhat disconcerting to see you attack someone's argument on the basis of not having specific info on Hezbollah military capability followed with a denouncement that they weren't specific enough about Hezbollah's military suppliers.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood | August 16, 2006 at 12:15 PM
"Sebastian, it's somewhat disconcerting to see you attack someone's argument on the basis of not having specific info on Hezbollah military capability followed with a denouncement that they weren't specific enough about Hezbollah's military suppliers."
No one, with the possible thought not certain exception of Nasrallah, can be specific about Hezbollah's current military capability. Dmbeaster implied from that fact that it had not been degraded.
Nearly anyone can be specific about Hezbollah's military suppliers. There is no reason at all to hide that behind "by one means or another."
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | August 16, 2006 at 12:53 PM
Charles, your 3:09 was one of your better efforts, though needlessly marred by this silly exceptionalist claim: "It's messy enough in the U.S., the most successful democracy on earth,"
"One of the most" would have been perfectly defensible; "the most" is pretty much indefensible, and a completely pointless battle to get into, as well, and furthermore, needlessly insulting to the entire rest of the democratic community of nations on the planet.
You really should have learned, by now, to get out of this habit of writing comments/posts that can be, sometimes, largely agreeable, until you throw in that one inflamnatory phrase or claim, that utterly derails consideration of everything else you've said.
Nell: "It's hard to imagine what information not now available to us, including anything the IDF might say about what they thought their targets were, could change the impression created by what the IDF did in fact bomb (apart from south Lebanon, where rocket launchers provided the rationale):
apartment buildings, factories, power stations (the one in Beirut unleashing a huge oil spill), a Lebanese Army base, carfuls of people fleeing to the north, the vehicles of rescue workers. The Israeli military conducted airstrikes on almost every area of Lebanon with the exception of central Beirut. Swaths of the southern suburbs were literally leveled."
Although I've not seen any BDA reports, yes, the IDF bombed a handful of apartment buildings that were Hezbollah headquarters. They also bombed a handful of other buildings thought to be Hezbollah targets. They bombed a handful of bridges and a handful of villages. They bombed some roads, and fuel tanks, and other pieces of infrastructure.
I've not seen any good figures, so I can't speak to precise percentages, but so far as I know the percentage of structures in Lebanon that were untouched is somewhere between 95 and 99%.
If you have some actual figures, I'd certainly love to see them. I'd also like to see comparable figures for damage to Israeli infrastructure (and your continued non-mentions of, and apparent non-concern for, damage to Israel is noticeable, alas).
"This impression, of an effort to punish the Lebanese people for the actions of Hezbollah, is reinforced by the large number of civilians killed...."
The "large number of civilians" is, by any figure put forward, at most something on the order of 500, out of approximately 4,000,000 people.
This is an unusual definition of "large number."
"...many in areas far from any rocket launcher."
Fascinating claim. You know this how, precisely?
BP: "The odds are greater, much greater, that Gary Farber has a pro-Israel bias than that dmbeaster has a pro-Hizbullah bias."
The odds are precisely 100% that Gary Farber has something of a pro-Israel bias, but it only goes so far, such as up to the point of not automatically believing claims against Israel, and being prone to carefully examine where claims are based on fact, or not. Gary Farber has, after all, spent a lifetime advocating Israeli/Arab and Israeli/Palestinian peace, being on the side of the Israeli left, and supporting the work of Israeli human rights organizations such as B'Tselem. Gary Farber has endlessly stated that he has plenty of questions about specific targets and actions of Israel in Lebanon in this latest war, and that if Israelis are guilty of war crimes, they should be thoroughly punished. Period. Full stop.
"De facto, Israel has bombed mainly civilian infrastructure and killed mainly civilians."
How can you tell what is and isn't Hezbollah or civilian infrastructure? How do you know who and who isn't a civilian (absent, of course, children, whose deaths are horrible and tragic)?
"Should Lebanon be the one launching thousands of air raids over Israeli cities, killing thousands of civilians, forcing millions to flee, bombing fleeing Israelis, reducing Israeli infrastructure to rubble, and talking of a ground invasion, I think that dmbeaster would be here decrying that fact."
Given that Hezbollah launched thousands of missiles which exploded in Israel, forcing over a million people into shelters or to flee, reducing Israeli infrastructure to rubble, setting much of Northern Israel ablaze, and yet you seem unaware of this, as do a very great many people, as well as unconcerned, at least as evidenced from it going entirely unmentioned by those who choose to speak only of Lebanon, this seems a somewhat unsupported assertion.
"...and whether reporters in Israel filming the devastation are not actually being dupes of IDF propaganda."
Have you even looked at any pictures of Israeli devastation? Have you even seen any? Have the news sources you favor provided many?
"HRW is biased how and towards whom?"
I wouldn't speak particularly towards that, save to note two things: there's a widespread general sense that Israel is... well, rather than me summarizing, let me just point to the sorts of negative characterizations we've been seeing from many on this blog in the past month, and observe that such characterizations are widespread on the left. Would anyone argue that?
Then I'd note that honorable folks, concerned with human rights, may be prone to the same attitudes, and thus prone towards giving credence to accusations against Israel, just as many here and elsewhere are these days. That's all.
More importantly, my second point is that I'm not aware that HRW, or any other outside observers, were able to move freely as they wished in Lebanon. Absent that ability, they couldn't possibly accurately judge what was going on.
And lastly, as I previously pointed out, absent information as to what Israeli intelligence on a particular target was or was not, and how reliable it was or was not, it's impossible to judge what the Israeli targeters thought they were hitting, how good or bad their information was, how good or bad their judgement was, and thus, where they hit the wrong target, killing innocents, how culpable they were or were not.
That's just absolutely key information that has to be known to render clear or full judgment.
It's just that simple.
"Why don't you just go ahead and relay Hizbullah press releases verbatim as well? There are two sides with no interest whatsoever in releasing objective news reports...."
Aside from the fact that Israel is a democracy, with a free press, and human rights organizations that are thoroughly and emphatically vigilant, and that Hezbollah is and has none of these things, sure, they're exactly alike, and news reports from them should be treated equally. Sure.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 16, 2006 at 02:36 PM
By 'large number of civilians' I meant 'large in relation to military deaths' caused by Israeli attacks. Estimates of Hezbollah fighters killed range from 200-500. The Lebanese government says that over 1000 civilians were killed. Given that many bodies still remain to be pulled from rubble, I am inclined to think that that is not a wildly high estimate; it's improbable that it's double the actual number. It's true that we don't have precise numbers on either the Lebanese civilian or the Hezbollah military side, but throughout the fighting there seemed to be at least a 15:1 ratio between the number of Lebanese civilians and the number of Israeli civilians killed.
'far from rocket launchers': Rockets were not being launched from south Beirut, and there were substantial numbers of civilians killed there when large, residential buildings were bombed.
the IDF bombed a handful of apartment buildings that were Hezbollah headquarters. This satellite graphic of south Beirut, published in the NY Times, makes it appear that it was more than a handful. From the caption (showing changes between July 14 and July 27): At least 127 buildings in the area shown here have been leveled. One apartnment building in south Beirut was completely destroyed in a strike in the last hours before the ceasefire.
Given the limited range of the Katyushas that were the vast majority of rockets fired at Israel, it is possible to draw a line and to conclude that civilians killed in Israeli airstrikes well north of that line were far from rocket launchers when they were killed. (Somewhere I have links to maps of strikes from both the Israeli military and Hezbollah, but can't put my hands on them; there was one excellent interactive one in the NYTimes, that was updated througout the fighting. Will try to find later.)
The high percentage of children among the civilians killed (even if it is not as high as that in the HRW sample; 40-something) also inclines me to believe that the adults killed alongside them were not combatants.
Have the news sources you favor provided many [images of the destruction in Israel]?
I haven't spent much time looking at images of destruction on either side, routinely loading printable or text-only versions of most of the news pages I read. The exception is Qana, because of the scale of victim-blaming, denial, and minimization that that incident provoked, from Israeli Air Force generals to Michael Ignatieff to right-wing commenters and bloggers. There were images on Jon Schwartz's A Tiny Revolution of destruction in Israel and in Lebanon.
I did look at the images from Israeli bloggers you linked in this post, and I agree that everyone should read Lisa Goldman's dispatches from near the border. (Would you be willing to apply the term 'devastation' to both northern Israel and Lebanon? The damage to roads and bridges caused by IAF bombing is systematic and near-total in some areas. The destruction and fires caused by the Hezbollah rockets was extensive but far more random.)
This may not respond to all the points you raised, Gary, but I have to go out now. Will check back in late evening.
Posted by: Nell | August 16, 2006 at 05:12 PM
there seemed to be at least a 15:1 ratio between the number of Lebanese civilians and the number of Israeli civilians killed.
Is there an appropriate ratio you're thinking of here? If one side doesn't take civilian losses, does this mean they cannot be permitted to take any actions that might cause loss of civilian life on the other side? I'm not sure I see why the ratio of one side's civilian dead to the other's has any bearing here. If Israel was firing at legitimate targets, (and I realize this is disputed as well, but I'm strictly addressing the issue of civilian losses), then the Lebanese civilian deaths, while certainly tragic, are not war crimes and they do not have any bearing on how many civilian losses Israel may have taken. In war each side is expected to do whatever it can to protect its own personnel (military and civilian) and to do as much damage as possible to the other side's military infrastructure. Civilian losses in pursuit of military objectives are permissible under the laws of war.
I just don't understand why how many civilians Israel lost comes into the equation. If Hezbollah got lucky and hit a shelter and killed 1,000 Israelis, would Israel then have carte blanche to kill 1,000 Lebanese civilians? I think we can all agree the answer to that is no.
The question, which we cannot answer right now, is whether or not Israel was engaging legitimate targets. If not, then there is a case for war crimes. But, unless I am gravely mistaken, nobody in this forum has the data necessary to make the call.
Posted by: Andrew | August 16, 2006 at 05:37 PM
"Rockets were not being launched from south Beirut, and there were substantial numbers of civilians killed there when large, residential buildings were bombed.
the IDF bombed a handful of apartment buildings that were Hezbollah headquarters. This satellite graphic of south Beirut, published in the NY Times, makes it appear that it was more than a handful."
I want to point out a few things about that graphic.
First, it is ridiculous that the graphic doesn't use the same color depth in both photographs. Using the weight-loss ad technique of using a color photo vs. black-and-white photo is ridiculous.
Second, insofar as the photo is clear on anything, the damage appears to be limited to the area entitled "Main area of Hezbollah offices (before attacks, this area was fenced off and surrounded by guards) with conspicuous things like schools and mosques being unharmed.
With respect to your comment, which are they, "residential buildings" or "Hezbollah headquarters"? One of the whole problems is that Hezbollah intentionally avoids making that distinction easy.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | August 16, 2006 at 06:10 PM
Nell: "Estimates of Hezbollah fighters killed range from 200-500. The Lebanese government says that over 1000 civilians were killed."
I've largely seen claims from Lebanonese sources of ~1000 Lebanese dead, period, with estimates varying considerably as to what percentage is civilian (and I think it's clear we'll never really know what the actual percentage is), pretty much whether it's ~50% or 25%.
Regardless, it's an absolutely infinitesimal proportion of a population of a bit under 4,000,000. Such figures clearly obviate wild over-statements about "Lebanon has been razed" or "Lebanon has been destroyed" or "Lebanon has been flattened."
Basically, people are looking at pictures of a couple of blocks, and then speaking as if that was characteristic of the whole country, when in fact it's not even characteristic of two blocks away.
"...but throughout the fighting there seemed to be at least a 15:1 ratio between the number of Lebanese civilians and the number of Israeli civilians killed."
10:1 seems closer, but regardless, this cliche is trotted out countless times, and I utterly fail to understand the point. Israel has a nearly universal shelter system; every apartment has a safe room. Israelis are pretty good about going to the shelters. Plus, as we know, Hezbollah's missiles, quite destructive to the buildings they land on, or areas they set fire to, as they are, are completely untargetted.
What the ratio of civilian dead has to do with anything, I have no idea, and can't imagine. It seems to presuppose the insane idea that if Israelis stood around at traffic intersections in large numbers, waiting to be hit, that you and others would be more sympathetic.
In WWII, the American mainland was almost untouched by attacks, aside from a sporadic German submarine off-shore, and a handful of Japanese balloons, and the like. Did that make American infliction of vast losses on the Japanese and Germans and Italians and others immoral?
I totally don't get this point. It makes no sense whatever.
Other than, of course, that the world is far more sympathetic in the last half-decade or so to Jews when they're dead in large enough numbers, or are purely victims, than when the numbers are smaller.
Baffling point, otherwise.
"'far from rocket launchers': Rockets were not being launched from south Beirut, and there were substantial numbers of civilians killed there when large, residential buildings were bombed."
Possibly you are unaware that south Beirut is known as "Hezbollahland," and is where Hezbollah has total control, not letting anyone in or out without permission, and is where they rule from and have their ruling infrastructure from.
"At least 127 buildings in the area shown here have been leveled."
Yes; that's pure Hezbollah country.
"The high percentage of children among the civilians killed (even if it is not as high as that in the HRW sample; 40-something) also inclines me to believe that the adults killed alongside them were not combatants."
The deaths of children is terrible. But I'm quite sure that members of Hezbollah have children, and lots of them, so how the presence of children (which obvious can't be told from the sky, or while they're inside a building) says anything about who the adults were, I don't know.
"The exception is Qana,"
Where the number of dead even claimed by Lebanon dropped more than half, down to ~28, last I looked.
"Would you be willing to apply the term 'devastation' to both northern Israel and Lebanon?"
To areas of Lebanon, sure. The damage in Israel is, I think but am not sure, and am perfectly willing to be corrected by more accurate information, somewhat more widespread, due to the relative lack of targeting by Hezbollah. (I am not saying there is more damage in Israel; I have no idea what the actual figures, by any measure, square footage, or whathaveyou, are comparatively; I'm simply saying it's likely that it's more spread around in Israel, compared to the far more careful targeting done by Israel. And, as I said, I may be wrong in that guess.)
"The damage to roads and bridges caused by IAF bombing is systematic and near-total in some areas."
And yet according to articles appearing all over, the roads are all passable as of early this morning, thanks to yeoman work by the heros of Hezbollah (I'll provide cites as requested). This suggests quite limited damage, obviously. Also, I have no idea what "systematic" means in this context, other than that Israel, unlike Hezbollah, used a system; it seems to imply "comprehensive" or "widespread," which isn't the case, so far as I'm aware, though, again, if you have something resembling accurate estimates, I welcome the cites.
What bothers me is the way people are tossing around phrases like "Lebanon has been flattened," and yet this seems to be wildly in contradiction to the facts. It's a great triumph of propaganda, but I'd like to see actual facts and numbers cited, not wild claims based on "impressions" from newspapers or wherever.
Andrew: "The question, which we cannot answer right now, is whether or not Israel was engaging legitimate targets. If not, then there is a case for war crimes. But, unless I am gravely mistaken, nobody in this forum has the data necessary to make the call."
Right.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 16, 2006 at 06:50 PM
Andrew: The question, which we cannot answer right now, is whether or not Israel was engaging legitimate targets. If not, then there is a case for war crimes. But, unless I am gravely mistaken, nobody in this forum has the data necessary to make the call.
The data is freely available from the HRW website:
The use of cluster munitions, confirmed by both U.N. observers and HRW, is indefensible. Cluster munitions used in populated areas kill civilians: Israel had no legitimate reason to use them except as a terror tactic against Lebanese civilians. Nor is this the only evidence of war crimes committed by Israel:
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 16, 2006 at 08:16 PM
Let's look at the specifics of Jes's cite, which she curiously fails to mention.
So, in Lebanon, a land of 10,400 sq km, and 3,874,050 people, fourno one.The other site?
Clearly not a military target, and inhumane, given the lack of any casualties.The only other claim in Jes's cite?
So the authority here is a completely un-named "de-miner." Elsewhere we read that Hezbollah is putting forward all the aid and manpower in cleaning up the south. Odds that this man is Hezbollah versus odds that he's a random, perfectly objective, witness? You decide.And, again, this is the report covering the entire country of Lebanon (so far, to be sure, but, hey, it's Jes' "proof" of war crimes).
The possiblity that either of these hits were accidents? No, accidents never take place when it's perfidious Israel.
On the other hand, the possibility certainly exists that someone was criminally careless, or worse. All such possiblities should be investigated.
But proof of war crimes? The "the data necessary to make the call," as Jes claims?
Well, who wouldn't want to be judged in a court of law with such proof? (Wait, Gary, you're suggesting Israel should conceivably be considered innocent until proven guilty? What are you, some kind of crazy, insanely biased, Zionist fanatic? These are Israelis we're talking about! They must be guilty of deliberate murder, or at least criminal indifference!)
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 16, 2006 at 08:57 PM
"So, in Lebanon, a land of 10,400 sq km, and 3,874,050 people, fourno one."
Slight garble, due to a character typo; that should be: "So, in Lebanon, a land of 10,400 sq km, and 3,874,050 people, four, count them, four, dud submunitions were found, injuring no one."
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 16, 2006 at 09:01 PM
Gary, good stuff at 08:57 PM - would be stronger in my view though without the last parenthetical remark.
Posted by: rilkefan | August 16, 2006 at 09:03 PM
"...would be stronger in my view though without the last parenthetical remark."
Consider it in light of how non-sarcastic I've otherwise been in this thread, please. And that I directed it only at myself, so to speak.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 16, 2006 at 09:32 PM
"Consider it in light of how non-sarcastic I've otherwise been in this thread, please."
Already internally noted and appreciated.
"And that I directed it only at myself, so to speak."
I didn't read it that way even though you intended it as such - to me it has some of the preemptive flavor of the stuff you and I were arguing against at unfogged the other day (i.e., suggesting that that might be people's unfair reaction to your statement).
Posted by: rilkefan | August 16, 2006 at 09:38 PM
The question, which we cannot answer right now, is whether or not Israel was engaging legitimate targets. If not, then there is a case for war crimes. But, unless I am gravely mistaken, nobody in this forum has the data necessary to make the call.
Agreed. One way or the other.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | August 16, 2006 at 10:06 PM
I suppose this war has left me feeling more negative to Israel than I had since...oh, the Netanyahu era, because the sorts of arguments being made in Israel's defense have a familiar ring. The "we do these horrible things, yes, but we do them with an exquisite sense of sadness and regret because we have no choice, so it's okay" thing (I am thinking back to Golda Meir's remark about how Israel can forgive the Arabs for killing Jewish children but not forcing them to kill Arab children, which I once found moving and now despise). The "human rights organizations are biased against us and doing terrorist propaganda" thing (coming from the ADL as well as AIPAC). The "well, they have classified information--maybe it exonerates them--until we see the information that we know full well we will never see we should reserve judgment" thing.
I've encountered them, obviously, in the context of the debate over US interrogation and detention policies. Now, I think there's a better case that civilian deaths are a necessary evil than that torture is (though in this war I think it all did more harm than good); there's a better argument that these groups are unfair to Israel than to the US; there's much less evidence about Israeli targetting than we now have about the interrogation stuff. So they're a lot more defensible in this context. Even so, I don't like them all that much.
And there are a few things about the HRW reports I question--as I said, I'm not sure they're fully accounting for Hezbollah's PR operation; as you say, they probably shouldn't have said "targeting" without better evidence. But I trust them more to be accurate about this stuff than any government. Much, much more.
Posted by: Katherine | August 16, 2006 at 11:09 PM
"we do these horrible things, yes, but we do them with an exquisite sense of sadness and regret because we have no choice, so it's okay"
How about finishing with not "so it's okay," but with "which doesn't make it okay, but sometimes we may have to anyway, but we should never assume that we have no choice, and should always strive our hardest to truly make sure that we truly have no choice, and then we should question it again"?
I don't know that this was such a case. There are reasonable arguments that it was not. I may in the end agree with them. I'm certainly very sympathetic to some of those arguments. (The fact that others are making them here means that I don't have to.) Or I may not agree not. Dunno yet. Don't think I'll be making up my mind for sometime yet. Annoying, I know. But it's how I work. (I'm probably not a good candidate for Defense Minister, therefore.)
"Even so, I don't like them all that much."
No, I don't like them, either. I'd much rather live in a better world.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 16, 2006 at 11:18 PM
They believe that every major human rights organization is biased against Israel.
Katherine, your own blockquoted paragraph refutes what you just wrote. From what I've seen, HRW has a bias problem when it comes to Israel. NGO Monitor demonstrated that HRW covers Israel disportionately and is disproportionately critical, which is a bit odd because Israel is the only free nation in the Middle East. Those are the facts. HRW rushed to judgment in the Battle of Jenin. Another example of HRW's selective outrage here.
According to your naïve belief concerning elections, your “democratic revolution” has been in existence in Syria and Iran, for decades.
That is not my belief, SOD. That is your mistaken belief of what you think my belief is.
Elections do not equal liberty and freedom.
Well, duh. I've said since the beginning of my stay here that the real measure is freedom, and that the best vehicle toward achieving it is by democratic reforms. I've written over and over that elections and freedom do not go hand in hand. I can't control what you believe, but if you say that I'm not a conservative, then I will say that you're ignorant. Moderative conservative or Reagan conservative is how I describe myself.
Charles, if you’re going to make a habit of knocking HRW for bias, you might be wise to ponder the impartiality of your own sources.
Unlike HRW, Kevin, I don't hide my bias. But that said, I didn't know MacKenzie's history and will not use him as a source. However, the facts of the e-mail speak for themselves without MacKenzie's statements.
..."the most" is pretty much indefensible...
You're right that it may be a pointless argument, Gary, but we are the oldest democracy (which is one measure of success) and one of the freest by all measures that I've seen. Putting those two factors together, is how I based my opinion. I didn't intend to write outrageously, and I didn't think my statement was particularly "inflamnatory" or unduly controversial. I guess I thought wrong.
Posted by: Charles Bird | August 16, 2006 at 11:44 PM
Hmm, I think we're the most successful democracy, given the circumstances and all. Who's the competition? New Zealand? Sweden? Holland? Switzerland? Ok, I'd have to see the metric, which I'd likely quibble with.
Apropos, the Poincare conjecture has been proven and more, wow.
Posted by: rilkefan | August 16, 2006 at 11:52 PM
"I've said since the beginning of my stay here that the real measure is freedom, and that the best vehicle toward achieving it is by democratic reforms."
I think democratic institutions, and the non-governmental institutions of civil society are also vital and a necessity, as well, for there to be true democracy anywhere.
"we are the oldest democracy"
Sure, according to many measures. (Although Iceland has the oldest Parliament; and we did more or less stand on the shoulders of Britain, with a bit of Rome and Greece thrown in.)
"(which is one measure of success)"
Well, kinda, in the sense that we're still a democracy (I hope; hard to tell sometimes these days, what with the turnover rate in Congress, the President's claims, and such); that seems a rather odd measure, though.
"I guess I thought wrong."
Not a big deal; just kinda a pointless and challengeable brag, it seems to me.
Rilkefan: "Who's the competition? New Zealand? Sweden? Holland? Switzerland? Ok, I'd have to see the metric, which I'd likely quibble with."
Me, too. Which is why it seems a rather pointless argument to get into. There are a bunch of generally admirable (if always imperfect) democracies in the world.
"Apropos, the Poincare conjecture has been proven and more, wow."
Yeah, saw that Monday night. Cheering evidence that despite some counter-evidence, there are a lot of brilliant people (at least in their areas) around. (I'm reminded of the ST:NG episode that has Captain Picard discussing the "unproven" Last Theorem of Fermat.
Oops.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 17, 2006 at 12:14 AM
Gary, as far as I'm concerned, if the classified information is not going to be available for the foreseeable future, you don't assume that the authorities know what's best. You do the best with what you have. You don't make accusations you can't prove, but you also don't presume the existence of secret exculpatory evidence.
Which does not necessarily contradict anything you wrote.
Charles, whatever. I think you are quite sincere and this is a decent post but also think you frankly suck at evaluating sources' credibility and bias.
Posted by: Katherine | August 17, 2006 at 02:07 AM
"we are the oldest democracy"
Yes, as every black in Alabama is willing to attest. After all, they were voting long before New Zealand granted universal sufferage.
Don't get me wrong; America is a great country and all. And it has done great things for liberty. But this kind of stuff just makes you look stupid. A country where your skin colour is a bar to voting is not a democracy.
Posted by: Keir | August 17, 2006 at 02:35 AM
"A country where your skin colour is a bar to voting is not a democracy."
Y'know, actually, it is. A flawed one, but nonetheless.
The franchise, the vote, has always been limited; in Britain, the franchise slowly expanded, as reform movements increased pressure in what might be called a form of punctuated evolution, and periodically laws were passed lessening the amount of property that had to be owned, eventually giving the vote to women, and so on.
The franchise is still limited; you can't vote if you're under 18, and it was only expanded to those under 21 in my lifetime; you can't vote in some states if you're a felon, and in most states you can't vote while you're in prison. If you're below a certain IQ, you can't vote in some states. And, of course, you have to be a citizen, no matter how long you've lived here, to vote in a federal election (not necessarily a local one). And so on.
None of this means the country isn't a democracy. It means that the franchise isn't umlimited and doesn't go to every human as soon as they are born.
This is not a moral judgment. It's just a matter of how the word is defined.
It's perfectly fair, and appropriate, and apt, of course, to modify the word "democracy" descriptively. Such as with, prior to the Voting Rights Act of '65 and enforcement of it, "racist democracy." "White-only democracy." And so on.
I suspect, incidentally, that not everyone here is familiar with the history of the Maori and the vote in New Zealand. It's quite interesting, and like most histories, has some praiseworthy aspects, and some to be critical of.
Incidentally, I'm inclined to read this as sarcastic: "After all, they were voting long before New Zealand granted universal sufferage."
It's literally true, though. Former slaves were voting in large numbers in Alabama after the Civil war; it wasn't until Reconstruction collapsed, and Hayes pulled Federal troops out in 1876 (the previous fateful election where the winner of the popular vote didn't win the electoral college), that former slaves started losing the right to vote again. You may be aware of this, in which case my apologies, but it wasn't clear from what you wrote.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 17, 2006 at 03:11 AM
No, I don't think it is a democracy when there are bars on voting based on race.
I define democracy as universal suffferage for all adult citizens of sound mind.
Countries that fail to meet that standard? I don't know what I'd call them. But they aren't democracies.
(By the way, I didn't know that about the Alabamians. I was thinking more about the post-1880's situation. Thanks for the information, and sorry for being wrong.)
Posted by: Keir | August 17, 2006 at 03:30 AM
suffrage, not sufferage. The former is a word; the latter, while not being a word, is pretty close to a word that means something completely different than the right to vote.
Apologies if this is one of those British-esque spelling peculiarities. Or if you were really talking about this, which would be even further OT.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 17, 2006 at 07:34 AM
No, no British-esque differences, just ineptness at spelling.
Posted by: Keir | August 17, 2006 at 07:40 AM
Hard to tell, sometimes, so I try to accomodate. Plus, I'm not fluent in British.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 17, 2006 at 07:44 AM
Gary,
"Hayes pulled Federal troops out in 1876 (the previous fateful election where the winner of the popular vote didn't win the electoral college)"
Um, no, on two counts. First, Hayes was not inaugurated until 1877, so he could not have done so until that year. Second, the 1888 election also had the winner of the popular vote lose the electoral college.
However, 1876 was the only prior election where there was a dispute as to for whom the deciding votes were cast. In that case, a special commission of 5 Senators, 5 Representatives and 5 Supreme Court Justices were appointed to decide how to allocate the votes. The commission voted 8-7 to allocate all 20 disputed votes, 19 of which came from the states in which Federal troops were still stationed, to Hayes over Tilden, so Hayes won in the Electoral College 185-184. wiki article
Slarti,
As an actor, he's a ham,
His last name's Amsterdam,
That a Morey.
Posted by: Dantheman | August 17, 2006 at 08:50 AM
Nell: there seemed to be at least a 15:1 ratio between the number of Lebanese civilians and the number of Israeli civilians killed.
Andrew: Is there an appropriate ratio you're thinking of here?
I was not making any argument of that kind here. I wrote the quoted sentence in the context of estimating civilian deaths in Lebanon, since Gary posited a much lower number for that than does the Lebanese government. The number of Israeli civilian deaths from Hezbollah rockets is known more precisely; it is 39.
Gary, Andrew: I have not made sweeping or wild assertions. Nor I have not used the word 'war crimes', or said that 'Lebanon is flattened'. But both of you seem to be proceeding on the basis that the two combatant forces have inflicted similar kinds and amounts of damage on the other, and that to view the situation otherwise is evidence of bias against Israel.
But that's just not what happened over the last month, and to maintain that it is requires a kind of denial and nitpicking that flouts common sense.
Within two hours of Hezbollah's capture/kidnaping of the two Israeli soldiers, Ehud Olmert decided to launch an all-out war, against Hezbollah and Lebanon. It is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Israeli government sought to punish Lebanon for the acts committed by Hezbollah.
One way of avoiding that conclusion is to say that we don't have the Israeli intelligence information on which the targeting was based, so we have to assume that everything that was hit was indeed a legitimate military target. But that gives the Israeli Defense Forces, and Israeli intelligence, an enormous benefit of the doubt that they have not earned, and ignores the incidents of shelling and bombing of non-military that already have come out: the UNTSO post at Khiam, the cars of refugees heading north, rescue workers, Qana (the IDF admits that no rocket fire came from that area in the 24 hours preceding the bombing).
I'm particularly shocked by the reaction from Gary to the unarguably flattened neighborhood in South Beirut: "That's Hezbollah territory." It is, in the sense in which the northern Virginia suburbs are Pentagon territory. The presumption that a whole neighborhood is a legitimate military target is not one that I can accept.
If Syrian planes bombed and flattened a hundred houses in Haifa, would the word 'indiscriminate' be used? Or would we be urged to wait until we had access to the Syrian intelligence used to do the targeting?
All the deaths in this conflict are terrible losses, tragic because they were not only unnecessary but also because the month of fighting has moved further into the future the day when all sides recognize that there is not a military solution to the problems at issue.
Posted by: Nell | August 17, 2006 at 09:10 AM
"If Syrian planes bombed and flattened a hundred houses in Haifa, would the word 'indiscriminate' be used? Or would we be urged to wait until we had access to the Syrian intelligence used to do the targeting?"
Since Israel doesn't hide its headquarters in otherwise civilian apartment buildings, it would be much easier to tell. Since Israel doesn't shoot artillery from in between civilian houses or rockets from on top of civilian homes, it would be much easier to tell. Since Israel has a free press, it would be much easier to tell.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | August 17, 2006 at 11:08 AM
Seb: does Lebanon not have a free press?
(I mean: one of Lebanon's issues is precisely the lack of the kind of strong government that could enforce much of anything. Certainly the Daily Star of Beirut seems pretty free.)
Posted by: hilzoy | August 17, 2006 at 11:16 AM
I should have been clearer. In Hezbollah controlled areas (which for the most part are the areas in question--see especially Hezbollah-land in Beruit) press reporting is not free.
So for the purposes of the questions posed by Nell--"If Syrian planes bombed and flattened a hundred houses in Haifa, would the word 'indiscriminate' be used? Or would we be urged to wait until we had access to the Syrian intelligence used to do the targeting?"--the press in Lebanon is not free to investigate Hezbollah claims of civilian targeting.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | August 17, 2006 at 11:33 AM
"I mean: one of Lebanon's issues is precisely the lack of the kind of strong government that could enforce much of anything."
Also, I'm not at all convinced that a lack of a single strong government to enforce press restrictions equals a lack of press restrictions. As Hezbollah shows, you can enforce press restrictions in the limited areas that deeply concern you if you are willing to threaten journalists, bar journalists from investigating your claims, and stage propaganda tours.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | August 17, 2006 at 11:36 AM
If Syrian planes bombed and flattened a hundred houses in Haifa, the Syrians would probably claim that senior IDF personnel lived in the area. I don't think Israeli reporters who sought to check that claim would find the IDF very helpful. So we would have to form our own opinions by considering the plausibility of the claim.
If the Syrians flattened a large area, as the IAF did in Beirut, I would dismiss the claim out of hand. I don't know for sure how large the devastated area is. A reporter on TV said it's about one square kilometer. The pictures seemed consistent with that. That's an awful lot of apartments; far too many for HA HQ.
Posted by: Kevin Donoghue | August 17, 2006 at 11:51 AM
The only overhead pictures I have seen (from the NYT and linked above) seem consistent with targeting Hezbollah. There are three schools and a mosque right in the middle of the 'devastated' area which seem to have mysteriously avoided bombs.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | August 17, 2006 at 12:07 PM
There are three schools and a mosque right in the middle of the 'devastated' area which seem to have mysteriously avoided bombs.
Yes that's "consistent with targeting Hezbollah", but it's also consistent with targeting all commercial and residential property in the area. Given the scale of the destruction, that seems a lot more likely than any story that has the IAF conscientiously checking the last known address of HA members.
I'm not sure why you put 'devastated' in scare quotes. It's hardly hyperbole, unless a great deal of reporting was faked.
Posted by: Kevin Donoghue | August 17, 2006 at 12:47 PM
But [Gary and Andrew] seem to be proceeding on the basis that the two combatant forces have inflicted similar kinds and amounts of damage on the other, and that to view the situation otherwise is evidence of bias against Israel.
I think you have this wrong. Gary and Andrew have both been quite clear that Israel and Beirut have, in fact, taken different kinds and amounts of damage -- and that Israel is under no obligation to allow itself to take more damage, or to inflict less on its enemies, in some effort to be "fair" about the whole thing.
Posted by: Phil | August 17, 2006 at 12:57 PM
"Yes that's "consistent with targeting Hezbollah", but it's also consistent with targeting all commercial and residential property in the area."
No it isn't. There are a number of things that seem to be commercial property that seem unbombed (it is admittedly hard to tell on the post-bomb picture because the NYT chose not to put it in color). There are a large number of what look to be residential apartments that seem to be unbombed as well. Depending on how you count the blocks, there appears to be a 3 block by 3 block area where the buildings were destroyed. That area is specifically noted (by the New York Times) to be "Main area of Hezbollah offices (before attacks, this area was fenced off and surrounded by guards)". Immediately next to that area there appear to be some buildings and some roads damaged. There is also an unbombed mosque.
If you take a maximal view of that picture, you might get away with arguing that the 'devastated' area is 1,800 feet by 1,800 feet (the scale at 900 feet is included on the map). That gives you a square of about 600 yards on each side. (It is really narrower, but I'm going for the maximal look). That isn't nothing, but it doesn't justify the idea that seems to be floating around that Beruit as a whole was severely damaged. I suspect people who use terms like "Israel bombed Beruit" are picturing something like the Allied bombing of German cities. It isn't anything like that at all.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | August 17, 2006 at 03:04 PM
"I define democracy as universal suffferage for all adult citizens of sound mind."
Kewl, but that's not how it's actually defined. You're welcome to make up idiosyncratic definitions on your own, but I'd advise that you not be surprised when people instead use the standard definition, and continue to refer to "Athenian democracy," and so on. (Hey, it turns out the Greeks didn't invent democracy, after all! I wonder where the word came from, then?)
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 17, 2006 at 03:18 PM
If you take a maximal view of that picture, you might get away with arguing that the 'devastated' area is 1,800 feet by 1,800 feet (the scale at 900 feet is included on the map).
How recent is this map? AFAICR bombing went on almost up to the ceasefire deadline. The report I saw, claiming that a square kilometer was almost entirely destroyed, was recorded after the ceasefire. That's about 3,280 feet squared, versus your 1,800 feet squared.
Of course I'm not suggesting that Beirut "as a whole" was severely damaged.
Posted by: Kevin Donoghue | August 17, 2006 at 04:18 PM
Phil, point taken. I mischaracterized Gary and Andrew's take, which you summarize very well.
It's this paragraph that expresses the essence of the point I was making:
Fleshed out a bit by the paragraph that follows the one above in my comment. Also underlined by the fact that the air campaign was long-planned and approved in detail by Israel's most important supporter, the U.S. government and military. There are also the statements of Israeli cabinet members and senior military during the fighting that equated all Hezbollah supporters with combatants, and openly declared that the attacks north of the Litani were to punish Lebanon for not having neutralized Hezbollah's ability to strike Israel.
Gary's defense (in the 'Victory' thread) of the bombing of Lebanon's roads, factories, power plants, television stations, etc. as normal warfare requires a conception of the conflict as a state-state war, Israel vs. Lebanon. But Israel's claim to the world was that it was merely defending itself against Hezbollah and its rockets. The actual campaign reflects a very expansive conception of self-defense.
Posted by: Nell | August 17, 2006 at 09:56 PM
"....the air campaign was long-planned...."
There are several meanings to the word "plan."
Countries that are in danger of needing to use military force, for one reason or another, make contingency plans. They wargame them to see if they are good plans, or plans that stink. They update them. They put them on the shelf, and then take them out again, rewrite as necessary, wargame them under updated circumstances, and rinse and repeat.
This is different than "plan" as in "we intend to attack next June" or "we intend to attack with the next excuse."
As it worked out, it certainly looks as if Israel's plans weren't very good, insofar as their intelligence was very insufficient, and for a variety of other reasons, but that's not relevant at the moment.
But "long-planned" isn't the least sinister. The U.S. has "plans" to invade Canada. Canada doesn't have much reason to worry.
Israel and Lebanon, on the other hand, both have reason to worry so long as Hezbollah remains the threat that it is to both countries.
"...and openly declared that the attacks north of the Litani were to punish Lebanon for not having neutralized Hezbollah's ability to strike Israel."
There have been a smattering of remarks from Israelis; there is no such "openly declared" official statement from the government, and phrasing that assertion that way is severely misleading.
"...a conception of the conflict as a state-state war, Israel vs. Lebanon."
It's somewhat complicated by the complex relationship of Hezbollah in Lebanon, but more a conception of the war as against the mini-state of Hezbollahland with some overlap into Lebanon, given the degree to which Hezbollah assets are spread out, that they have supplies coming in from Syria, are part of the Lebanese government, and so on. I suspect that the Israeli conception of all this may not have been entirely coherent, nor necessarily the same from day to day. Nor am I claiming in the least, to repeat for the zillionth time, it's all necessarily defensible; as I've said endless times, investigations are needed.
I'm not actually all that much inclined to make "defenses," per se; I'm inclined to not automatically assume that the charges must be true, simply because they're being made.
I don't know what many of the relevant facts are; my main issue is only with those who have the self-assurance that they do, when they can't.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 17, 2006 at 10:10 PM
Gary wrote--
"...and openly declared that the attacks north of the Litani were to punish Lebanon for not having neutralized Hezbollah's ability to strike Israel."
There have been a smattering of remarks from Israelis; there is no such "openly declared" official statement from the government, and phrasing that assertion that way is severely misleading.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's poor form these days for a Western government to openly and officially declare its intent to commit war crimes. The significance of the statements from Israelis is that they reveal the existence of a mindset inclined to punish the Lebanese for the crimes of Hezbollah.
BTW, the fact that Israel is a democracy, which you keep bringing up, has zero relevance to the issue of whether they committed war crimes and lied about it, because democracies commonly commit war crimes and lie about it. Israel is known to have done this, beginning with the birth of the state. And you don't expect very much self-criticism from most people who are under Hezbollah attack--they're likely to rally around the flag and react heatedly to suggestions that their government is guilty of something. A lot of people (Americans, Israelis, every nationality) react this way under all circumstances, but it's worse during a war or after a terrorist attack. Wait several decades maybe some classified documents about decision-making processes will leak out. That's what's so great about democracies--you can sometimes find out the gory details if you live long enough.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | August 18, 2006 at 12:51 AM
"BTW, the fact that Israel is a democracy, which you keep bringing up, has zero relevance to the issue of whether they committed war crimes and lied about it, because democracies commonly commit war crimes and lie about it."
Of course. I'm quite sure I've never said otherwise.
"And you don't expect very much self-criticism from most people who are under Hezbollah attack"
What, in Israel? Are you kidding? Israel is one of the most self-critical nations on the planet, Jews being among the most self-criticizing people around; of course there's criticism, there's been criticism for weeks now.
There was an organized movement of prominent critics two weeks ago to stop the war; there's already been a commission appointed to investigate the war, and there are already plentiful critics criticizing that, saying it's not good enough for Peretz to appoint it, it has to be an outside commission, and so on and so forth.
Meanwhile, reservists have tried to protest, and are now protesting not being allowed to protest.
Haaretz is running a poll on "Who Do You Want To Resign?"All entirely predictable.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 18, 2006 at 01:11 AM
oh, the choices are:
Meanwhile, Peretz has called for negotiations with Syria, and is being attacked for it, and the West Bank withdrawal plan may be postponed.Posted by: Gary Farber | August 18, 2006 at 01:13 AM
I should have phrased that more carefully, Gary. I know there is a huge amount of dissent in Israel. Most of the bad things I know about Israel come from Israeli writers. But my impression is that the mainstream left lined up to support this war. I know some Israelis protested it--the usual leftist websites I read mention these things. Commondreams, for instance, though they are very prone to hype anything that agrees with their viewpoint. Democracy Now had a piece about Israeli pilots who refused to bomb what they considered to be civilian targets.
When I'm talking about Israel I'm usually criticizing their policies, but there's got to be something really great about a political culture that produces people like those pilots.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | August 18, 2006 at 01:31 AM
Incidentally, since I'm not sure which thread to mention it in, I'll stretch the relevance slightly, and ask if everyone has seen the trailer for Mel Gibson's upcoming Signs II.
If you haven't, you should trust me on this, and check it out. No, really, even if you think you won't be interested. Trust me.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 18, 2006 at 01:42 AM
Kinda amusing.
Posted by: rilkefan | August 18, 2006 at 02:08 AM
Good to have that cleared up, then. (I've added it, with credit, to my post.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 18, 2006 at 02:30 AM
With Guns Silent, Wartime Unity Unravels in Israel Amid Fierce Criticism of War Effort.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 18, 2006 at 03:43 AM
Sebastian Holsclaw: There are a number of things that seem to be commercial property that seem unbombed (it is admittedly hard to tell on the post-bomb picture because the NYT chose not to put it in color).
I've seen you mention this several times. Is there any evidence that the original picture was in color? There are still devices out there that capture images in black and white, and I'd be surprised if the two photographs were taken with the same camera.
Posted by: Gromit | August 18, 2006 at 06:36 AM
I forget if this is the thread, but one other thing that you've said Gary that I disagree with is the claim that Israel should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The logic behind the presumption of innocence, I think, is that we don't want an individual on trial to be forced to prove his innocence-the burden of proof should be on the state to prove he is guilty. But presumption of innocence is not a general epistemological principle. And in the case of wartime civilian casualties, the burden of proof should be on the government to show that it is taking all reasonable precautions to avoid the unnecessary loss of civilian life--if, on the contrary, there are Israeli officials who blurt out things that sound like justifications for reprisals on civilians and if the circumstances of many civilian deaths seem to imply indifference at the very least, then one is entitled to demand that the government prove it is innocent.
Individuals brought up on war crimes charges, of course, should get the presumption of innocence.
Applying this to America is easy. I think the US government does not deserve the presumption that it launched the war against Iraq in good faith. It should be required to answer all reasonable doubts about this. (I don't think it can.) But if there is ever a happy day when George Bush is brought before a court to answer charges that he launched a war of aggression, he should get the presumption of innocence. Just don't put me on the jury. (Actually, I think I might be able to be fair in judging whether the evidence presented in court met whatever legal standards were required to find him guilty. But it'd be best to get someone else.)
Posted by: Donald Johnson | August 18, 2006 at 09:20 AM
Thread is about to scroll off the front-page list, but just FYI, an excellent question-and-answer by Kenneth Roth, director of Human Rights Watch, on the obligations of warring parties with respect to civilians and civilian infrastructure. It's from the Forward, so you may need to register.
Posted by: Nell | August 19, 2006 at 07:00 PM