Ola Ali, 1, sits on her hospital bed at the Rafik Hariri hospital in Beirut,
Lebanon Tuesday, July 25, 2006 accompanied by her mother Ekram Ibrahim. Ola
Ali, 1, and her sister Aya, 4, were injured with other family members when
Israeli warplanes targeted the southern village of Blida last week. (AP
Photo/Ben Curtis)
Israeli Cluster Munitions Hit Civilians in Lebanon Israel Must Not Use
Indiscriminate Weapons (Beirut, July 24, 2006) Israel has used
artillery-fired cluster munitions in populated areas of Lebanon, Human Rights
Watch said today. Researchers on the ground in Lebanon confirmed that a cluster
munitions attack on the village of Blida on July 19 killed one and wounded at
least 12 civilians, including seven children. Human Rights Watch researchers
also photographed cluster munitions in the arsenal of Israeli artillery teams
on the Israel-Lebanon border.
Cluster munitions are unacceptably inaccurate and
unreliable weapons when used around civilians. They should never be used in
populated areas.
Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch
"Cluster munitions are unacceptably inaccurate and unreliable weapons when
used around civilians, said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights
Watch. They should never be used in populated areas.
According to eyewitnesses and survivors of the attack interviewed by Human
Rights Watch, Israel fired several artillery-fired cluster munitions at Blida
around 3 p.m. on July 19. The witnesses described how the artillery shells
dropped hundreds of cluster submunitions on the village. They clearly described
the submunitions as smaller projectiles that emerged from their larger shells.
The cluster attack killed 60-year-old Maryam Ibrahim inside her home. At least
two submunitions from the attack entered the basement that the Ali family was
using as a shelter, wounding 12 persons, including seven children. Ahmed Ali, a
45-year-old taxi driver and head of the family, lost both legs from injuries
caused by the cluster munitions. Five of his children were wounded: Mira, 16;
Fatima, 12; Ali, 10; Aya, 3; and `Ola, 1. His wife Akram Ibrahim, 35, and his
mother-in-law `Ola Musa, 80, were also wounded. Four relatives, all
German-Lebanese dual nationals sheltering with the family, were wounded as
well: Mohammed Ibrahim, 45; his wife Fatima, 40; and their children Ali, 16,
and Rula, 13.
Human Rights Watch researchers photographed artillery-delivered cluster
munitions among the arsenal of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) artillery teams
stationed on the Israeli-Lebanese border during a research visit on July 23.
The photographs show M483A1 Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions, which
are U.S.-produced and -supplied, artillery-delivered cluster munitions. The
photographs contain the distinctive marks of such cluster munitions, including
a diamond-shaped stamp, and a shape that is longer than ordinary artillery,
according to a retired IDF commander who asked not to be identified.
Pallets of 155mm artillery projectiles including DPICM cluster munitions
(center and right with yellow diamonds) in the arsenal of an IDF artillery unit
on July 23 in northern Israel. Each DPICM shell contains 88 sub-munitions,
which have a dud rate of up to 14 percent. © Human Rights Watch 2006
Close-up of a M483A1 DPICM artillery-delivered cluster munition present in the
arsenal of an IDF unit in northern Israel. © Human Rights Watch 2006
The M483A1 artillery shells deliver 88 cluster submunitions per shell, and have
an unacceptably high failure rate (dud rate) of 14 percent, leaving behind a
serious unexploded ordnance problem that will further endanger civilians. The
commander said that the IDFs operations manual warns soldiers that the use of
such cluster munitions creates dangerous minefields due to the high dud rate.
Lebanese security forces, who to date have not engaged in the fighting between
Israel and Hezbollah, also accused Israel of using cluster munitions in its
attacks on Blida and other Lebanese border villages. These sources also
indicated they have evidence that Israel used cluster munitions earlier this
year during fighting with Hezbollah around the contested Shebaa Farms area.
Human Rights Watch is continuing to investigate these additional allegations.
Human Rights Watch believes that the use of cluster munitions in populated
areas may violate the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks contained in
international humanitarian law. The wide dispersal pattern of their
submunitions makes it very difficult to avoid civilian casualties if civilians
are in the area. Moreover, because of their high failure rate, cluster
munitions leave large numbers of hazardous, explosive duds that injure and kill
civilians even after the attack is over. Human Rights Watch believes that
cluster munitions should never be used, even away from civilians, unless their
dud rate is less than 1 percent.
Human Rights Watch conducted detailed analyses of the U.S. militarys use of
cluster bombs in the 1999 Yugoslavia war, the 2001-2002 Afghanistan war, and
the 2003 Iraq war. Human Rights Watch research established that the use of
cluster munitions in populated areas in Iraq caused more civilian casualties
than any other factor in the U.S.-led coalitions conduct of major military
operations in March and April 2003, killing and wounding more than 1,000 Iraqi
civilians. Roughly a quarter of the 500 civilian deaths caused by NATO bombing
in the 1999 Yugoslavia war were also due to cluster munitions.
Our research in Iraq and Kosovo shows that cluster munitions cannot be used in
populated areas without huge loss of civilian life, Roth said. Israel must
stop using cluster bombs in Lebanon at once.
Human Rights Watch called upon the Israel Defense Forces to immediately cease
the use of indiscriminate weapons like cluster munitions in Lebanon.
Background
Israel used cluster munitions in Lebanon in 1978 and in the 1980s. At that
time, the United States placed restrictions on their use and then a moratorium
on the transfer of cluster munitions to Israel out of concern for civilian
casualties. Those weapons used more than two decades ago continue to affect
Lebanon.
Israel has in its arsenal cluster munitions delivered by aircraft, artillery
and rockets. Israel is a major producer and exporter of cluster munitions,
primarily artillery projectiles and rockets containing M85 DPICM (Dual Purpose
Improved Conventional Munition) submunitions. Israeli Military Industries, an
Israeli government-owned weapons manufacturer, has reportedly produced more
than 60 million M85 DPICM submunitions. Israel also produces at least six
different types of air-dropped cluster bombs, and has imported from the United
States M26 rockets for its Multiple Launch Rocket Systems.
There is growing international momentum to stop the use of cluster munitions.
Belgium became the first country to ban cluster munitions in February 2006, and
Norway announced a moratorium on the weapon in June 2006. Cluster munitions are
increasingly the focus of discussion at the meetings of the Convention on
Conventional Weapons, with ever more states calling for a new international
instrument dealing with cluster munitions.
Human Rights Watch is a founding member, and a steering committee member, of
the Cluster Munition Coalition: www.stopclustermunitions.org.
----------------------------
Questions and Answers on Hostilities Between Israel and Hezbollah (Beirut,
July 17, 2006) On July 12, Hezbollah launched an attack on Israeli positions
on the Israeli side of the Lebanese border, killing three Israeli soldiers and
capturing two. In response, Israel launched air and artillery attacks against
targets throughout Lebanon, including Beiruts international airport, bridges
and highways, and Hezbollah offices. It also instituted an air, sea, and land
blockade. According to media reports at the time of writing, Israeli attacks
have killed at least 110 civilians and wounded more than 235 in Lebanon.
Hezbollah forces have launched more than 800 rockets across the border into
northern Israel, as far south as Tiberias (35km/22 miles south of the border),
killing 12 civilians and injuring more than 100.
Printer Friendly Version
Also Available in
Related Material
Lebanon/Israel: Do Not Attack Civilians
Press Release, July 13, 2006
Free Email Newsletter
Contribute to Human Rights Watch
The following questions and answers set out some of the legal rules governing
the various actions taken by Israel and Hezbollah to date in this recent
conflict. Human Rights Watch sets out these rules before it has been able to
conduct extensive on-the-ground investigation. The purpose is to provide
analytic guidance for those who are examining the fighting as well as for the
parties to the conflict and those with the capacity to influence them.
This Q & A addresses only the rules of international humanitarian law, known as
jus in bello, which govern the way each party to the armed conflict must
conduct itself in the course of the hostilities. It does not address whether
Hezbollah was justified in attacking Israel, whether Israel was justified in
attacking Lebanon for the conduct of Hezbollah, or other matters concerning the
legitimacy of resorting to war. In accordance with its institutional mandate,
Human Rights Watch maintains a position of strict neutrality on these issues of
jus ad bellum because we find it the best way to promote our primary goal of
encouraging both sides in the course of the conflict to respect international
humanitarian law.
What international humanitarian law applies to the current conflict between
Israel and Hezbollah?
The current armed conflict between Hezbollah and Israel is governed by
international treaty as well as the rules of customary international
humanitarian law. The treaty, specifically, common Article 3 of the Geneva
Conventions of 1949 to which Israel is a party, sets forth minimum standards
for all parties to a conflict between a state party such as Israel and a
non-state party such as Hezbollah. The customary rules are based on established
state practice, and bind all parties to an armed conflict, whether state actors
or non-state armed groups.
International humanitarian law is designed mainly to protect civilians and
other noncombatants from the hazards of armed conflict. Among the customary
rules, parties that engage in hostilities must distinguish at all times between
combatants and noncombatants. As discussed below, warring parties are required
to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and civilian
objects and to refrain from attacks that would disproportionately harm the
civilian population or fail to discriminate between combatants and civilians.
Common Article 3 provides a number of fundamental protections for
noncombatants, which include those who are no longer taking part in
hostilities, such as captured combatants, and those who have surrendered or are
unable to fight because of wounds or illness. The article prohibits violence
against these noncombatants particularly murder, cruel treatment and torture
as well as outrages against their personal dignity and degrading or
humiliating treatment. It also prohibits the taking of hostages and the
passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions if basic judicial
guarantees have not been observed.
Israel has asserted on several occasions since hostilities began on July 12
that it considers itself to be responding to the actions of the sovereign state
of Lebanon, not just Hezbollah. If Israel considers itself to be at war with
another sovereign state that is, if it considers itself involved in an
interstate conflict then it must accept being bound by the full scope of the
Geneva Conventions with their far more extensive rules, not simply those of
common Article 3. To the extent that Lebanese forces were to join the
hostilities, they, too, would be bound by the full Geneva Conventions, to which
Lebanon is also a party. However, this Q & A limits itself to the more focused
requirements of customary law and common Article 3, since they have greatest
relevance to the conflict as it so far has been waged.
What is Hezbollahs status in relation to the conflict?
Hezbollah is an organized political Islamist group based in Lebanon, with a
military arm and a civilian arm, and is represented in the Lebanese parliament
and government. As such a group, and as a party to the conflict with Israel, it
is bound to conduct hostilities in compliance with customary international
humanitarian law and common Article 3, which as stated above applies to
conflicts that are not interstate but between a state and a non-state actor. As
is explicitly stated in common Article 3, and made clear by the commentaries of
the International Committee of the Red Cross, the application of the provisions
of common Article 3, as well as customary international law, to Hezbollah does
not affect its legal status.
Was Hezbollah's capture of Israeli soldiers lawful?
The targeting and capture of enemy soldiers is allowed under international
humanitarian law. However captured combatants must in all circumstances be
treated humanely.
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nassrallah has stated that the captured soldiers will
be used to negotiate the release of Palestinian, Lebanese and other Arab
prisoners from Israel. The use of captives who are no longer involved in the
conflict for this purpose constitutes hostage-taking. Hostage-taking as part of
an armed conflict is strictly forbidden under international law, by both common
Article 3 and customary international law, and is a war crime.
Which targets are Israel and Hezbollah entitled to attack under international
humanitarian law?
Two fundamental tenets of international humanitarian law are those of civilian
immunity and the principle of distinction. They impose a duty to distinguish
at all times in the conduct of hostilities between combatants and civilians,
and to target only the former. It is forbidden in any circumstance to direct
attacks against civilians; indeed, as noted, to do so intentionally amounts to
a war crime.
It is also generally forbidden to direct attacks against what are called
civilian objects, such as homes and apartments, places of worship, hospitals,
schools, or cultural monuments, unless they are being used for military
purposes. Military objects that are legitimately subject to attack are those
that make an effective contribution to military action and whose destruction,
capture or neutralization offers a definite military advantage. Where there
is doubt about the nature of an object, it must be presumed to be civilian.
The mere fact that an object has civilian uses does not necessarily render it
immune from attack. It, too, can be targeted if it makes an effective
contribution to the enemys military activities and its destruction, capture or
neutralization offers a definite military advantage to the attacking side in
the circumstances ruling at the time. However, such dual use objects might
also be protected by the principle of proportionality, described below.
Even when a target is serving a military purpose, precautions must always be
taken to protect civilians.
Is Hezbollahs firing of rockets into Israel lawful under international
humanitarian law?
As a party to the armed conflict, Hezbollah has a legal duty to protect the
life, health and safety of civilians and other non-combatants. The targeting of
military installations and other military objectives is permitted but Hezbollah
must take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm and is prohibited
from targeting civilians, launching indiscriminate attacks, or attacking
military objects if the anticipated harm to civilians and other noncombatants
will be disproportionate to the expected military advantage. Hezbollahs
commanders must choose the means of attack that can be directed at military
targets and will minimize incidental harm to civilians. If the weapons used are
so inaccurate that they cannot be directed at military targets without imposing
a substantial risk of civilian harm, then they should not be deployed.
Deliberately attacking civilians is in all circumstances prohibited and a war
crime.
While Human Rights Watch has not yet conducted a field examination to determine
whether any of these attacks aimed to target a military object, preliminary
information suggests that rockets fired by Hezbollah may be so inaccurate as to
be incapable of being targeted, but are rather used to target a generalized
area. As Human Rights Watch said in a 1997 report on Lebanon and Israel,
Katyushas are inaccurate weapons with an indiscriminate effect when fired into
areas where civilians are concentrated. The use of such weapons in this manner
is a blatant violation of international humanitarian law. That is, their use
in civilian areas violates the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks and would
be a war crime. Customary international law prohibits such bombardment near or
in any area containing a concentration of civilians, even if there are believed
to be military objectives in the area.
Does international humanitarian law permit Israel to bomb the Beirut airport?
Airports in certain circumstances may be dual-use targets, in that they might
be used both for military purposes such as military re-supply and to provide
transport and provisions for the civilian population. However, as primarily a
civilian object, the Beirut airport can become a military objective only if it
is in fact providing an effective contribution to the enemys military
activities and its destruction or neutralization provides a definite military
advantage. Its status as a legitimate military objective would exist only for
such time as it meets the foregoing criteria. International humanitarian law
requires everything feasible to be done to verify that targets are in fact
military objectives. Even if they are, the impact on civilians must be
carefully weighed under the principle of proportionality against the military
advantage served; all ways of minimizing the impact on civilians must be
considered; and attacks should not be undertaken if the civilian harm
outweighs the definite military advantage, or if a similar military advantage
could be secured with less civilian harm.
According to an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) statement, the justification for
targeting the Beirut airport is that it constitutes a station for the
transport of arms and infrastructure used by Hezbollah and as such represents
a serious threat. It has also been suggested that the airport could be used to
transport the captured Israeli soldiers out of the area. However, these
justifications are at best debatable. Israel has not claimed that the transport
of arms was current or underway. It is thus unclear why Israel could not have
waited to see whether such supply operations actually began and only then
targeted either particular flights or, if necessary, the airport at that time.
Instead, Israel has attacked Beirut airport on a number of occasions, without
any publicly available evidence that it has been used for any recent transport
of arms or troops. As for the possible use of the airport to transport the
captured Israeli soldiers out of Lebanon, the military advantage
of destroying the airport is negligible in comparison with the civilian cost,
given the many alternative routes out of Lebanon along its long border with
Syria. On the other hand, the civilian cost of targeting the airport is high,
since it impedes the ability of civilians in Lebanon to escape the fighting or
those who remain to receive provisions.
The real, unstated reason for Israels attack on the airport may be precisely
to impose a cost on Lebanese civilians to encourage them to press their
government to rein in Hezbollah. Leaving aside the question of whether the
Lebanese government is militarily capable of reining in Hezbollah, it is
illegal under international humanitarian law, as noted below, to use military
force to squeeze the civilian population, to enhance its suffering, or to
undermine its morale, regardless of the ultimate purpose. Under these
circumstances, the attack on the Beirut airport does not appear to have been
legitimate under the standards of international humanitarian law.
Is Israel entitled to target Lebanese infrastructure such as roads, bridges,
and power stations?
Like airports, roads and bridges may be dual-use targets if actually used for
military purposes. Even then, the same rule applies requiring the parties to
the conflict to weigh carefully the impact on civilians against the military
advantage served; they must consider all ways of minimizing the impact on
civilians; and they should not undertake attacks if the civilian harm outweighs
the definite military advantage. Human Rights Watch has not yet done the field
research that would enable the organization to assess the legitimacy of Israeli
attacks on Lebanese roads and bridges, but among the factors to be considered
are whether the destruction of particular roads or bridges serve in fact to
impede military transport in light of readily alternative routes that is,
whether the infrastructure attacked is making an effective contribution to
Hezbollahs military action and its destruction offers a definite military
advantage or whether its destruction seems aimed more at
inconveniencing the civilian population and even preventing it from fleeing
the fighting and seeking safety.
As for electrical facilities supplying the civilian population, they almost
never are legitimate military targets. On the one hand, they might be
considered dual-use targets, given that both civilians and armies use
electricity. On the other hand, the harm to civilians is often enormous,
affecting refrigeration, sanitation, hospitals, and other necessities of modern
life; in urban society, electricity is arguably indispensable to the survival
of the civilian population, meaning that it can be attacked only in extremely
narrow circumstances. Meanwhile, the military effect of targeting electrical
facilities serving the civilian population often can be achieved in more
focused ways, such as by attacking military facilities themselves or the
portion of an electrical grid directly serving a military facility. Although
final judgment must await a more detailed on-the-ground investigation, Israel
faces a very high burden to justify these attacks.
Is Israel entitled to use military force against the Lebanese population to
encourage it to press its government to stop Hezbollahs attacks and rescue
Israels soldiers?
Lawful attacks are only those where the targets by their nature, location,
purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose
total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances
ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage. As noted, attacks
directed at civilian morale do not meet this test since civilians, by
definition, are not contributing to military action. Indeed, attacks on
civilian morale are inimical to the very purpose of international humanitarian
law of protecting civilians. Military attacks on civilian morale undoubtedly
can exert pressure on a government to pursue a particular course of action, but
under international humanitarian law that is an inappropriate use of military
force. Indeed, the logic of attacking civilian morale opens the door to
deliberately attacking civilians and civilian objects themselves in short, to
terrorism. In addition, international humanitarian law explicitly
prohibits attacks of which the primary purpose is to intimidate or instill
terror in the civilian population.
International humanitarian law would not prohibit attacks on Lebanese
government military forces as a way of pressing the government to rein in
Hezbollah, but in making that point, Human Rights Watch takes no position on
whether the Lebanese government is capable of reining in Hezbollah or whether
it would be an appropriate use of force under jus ad bellum standards to target
the Lebanese government.
Is Israel entitled to bomb the Hezbollah leaders house and office?
International law allows the targeting of military commanders in the course of
armed conflict, provided that such attacks otherwise comply with the laws that
protect civilians. Normally, political leaders, as civilians, would not be
legitimate targets of attack. The only exception to this rule is if their role,
as commander of troops, or their direct participation in military hostilities
renders them effectively combatants. Civilians lose their protected status when
they are engaged in hostilities.
According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, direct participation
in hostilities means acts of war which by their nature and purpose are likely
to cause actual harm to the personnel and equipment of enemy armed forces and
includes acts of defense. Thus, Hezbollah political leaders who are effectively
commanding belligerent forces would be legitimate targets. This conclusion does
not apply to all Hezbollah leaders and in particular to those who could not be
said to hold such command responsibilities or to be directly participating in
hostilities.
In principle, it is permitted to target the location where a combatant resides
or works. However, as with any attack on an otherwise legitimate military
target, the attacking force must refrain from attack if it would
disproportionately harm the civilian population or be launched in a way that
fails to discriminate between combatants and civilians.
Can Israel attack neighborhoods that house Hezbollah leaders or offices? And
what are Hezbollahs obligations regarding the use of civilian areas for
military activities?
Where the targeting of a combatant takes place in an urban area, all parties
must be aware of their obligations to protect the civilian population, as the
bombing of urban areas significantly increases the risks to the civilian
population. International humanitarian law obliges all belligerents to avoid
harm to civilians or civilian objects.
The defending party in the case of Beirut, Hezbollah must take all
necessary precautions to protect civilians against the dangers resulting from
armed hostilities, and must never use the presence of civilians to shield
themselves from attack. That requires positioning its military assets, troops,
and commanders as much as possible outside of populated areas. The use of human
shields is a war crime.
In calculating the legality of an attack on premises where a Hezbollah
combatant is present, Israel must take the risk to civilians into account. It
is not relieved from this obligation on the grounds that it considers Hezbollah
responsible for having located legitimate military targets within or near
populated areas or that Hezbollah may be using the civilian population as a
shield. Even in situations of Hezbollahs illegal location of military targets,
or shielding, Israel must refrain from launching any attack that may be
expected to cause excessive civilian loss in comparison to the concrete and
direct military advantage anticipated. That is, a violation by Hezbollah in
this regard does not justify Israeli forces ignoring the civilian consequences
of a planned attack. The intentional launch of an attack in an area without
regard to the civilian consequences or in the knowledge that the harm to
civilians would be disproportionately high compared to any definite military
benefit to be achieved would be a serious violation of international
humanitarian law and a war crime.
In any event, the presence of a Hezbollah commander or military facility in a
populated area never justifies attacking the area as such rather than the
particular military target. It is a prohibited indiscriminate attack, and a war
crime, to treat an entire area as a military target instead of attacking the
particular military facilities or personnel within that area.
Can Israel attack Hezbollah radio and television stations?
Military attacks on broadcast facilities used for military communications are
legitimate under international humanitarian law, but such attacks on civilian
television or radio stations are prohibited if they are designed primarily to
undermine civilian morale or to psychologically harass the civilian population.
Civilian television and radio stations are legitimate targets only if they meet
the criteria for a legitimate military objective, that is, if they are used in
a way that makes an effective contribution to military action and their
destruction in the circumstances ruling at the time offers a definite military
advantage. Specifically, Hezbollah-operated civilian broadcast facilities
could become military targets if, for example, they are used to send military
messages or otherwise concretely to advance Hezbollahs armed campaign against
Israel. However, civilian broadcasting facilities are not rendered legitimate
military targets simply because they spout
pro-Hezbollah or anti-Israel propaganda. For the same reason that it is
unlawful to attack civilian morale, it is unlawful to attack facilities that
merely shape civilian opinion; neither directly contributes to military
operations. That Lebanese civilian opinion might influence how the Lebanese
government responds to Hezbollah is not a sufficiently direct contribution to
military action to render the media used to influence that opinion a legitimate
military target. Rather, broadcasts should be met with competing broadcasts,
propaganda with propaganda.
Should stations become legitimate military objectives because of their use to
transmit military communications, the principle of proportionality in attack
must still be respected. This means that Israeli military planners and
commanders should verify at all times that the risks to the civilian population
in undertaking any such attack do not outweigh the anticipated military
benefit. Special precautions should be taken in relation to buildings located
in urban areas. Advance warning of an attack must be given whenever possible.
The IDF have dropped leaflets in parts of Lebanon warning residents to evacuate
is this an appropriate precaution?
International humanitarian law requires that if there is any risk to civilians
in an attack, an effective warning be given where circumstances permit.
Leaflet drops are one way to provide that warning. However, in some cases the
IDF are reported to have dropped leaflets giving residents only two hours to
evacuate. It is unclear how long Israel waited after the expiration of this
two-hour period to launch an attack in these areas. Whether this length of
notice is effective is a matter for factual evaluation from the ground, which
Human Rights Watch is not yet in a position to undertake. An assessment will
have to take into account the difficulties in movement caused by Israels
bombing of some transportation infrastructure such as bridges. In any event,
the giving of such warnings does not absolve the attacking party, in this case
Israel, from its obligations not to target civilian objects and not to carry
out attacks that fail to discriminate between combatants and
civilians, or that would have a disproportionate impact on civilians.
Examples of other precautions that parties should take to minimize civilian
casualties include selecting a time of day for attack when the fewest civilians
would be expected in the area; attacking a legitimate military target that is
mobile when it is away from civilian areas; selecting weaponry and a method of
attack that, if it misses its intended target, is least likely to harm nearby
civilians; and refraining altogether from an attack even against a legitimate
military target if the anticipated civilian harm will be disproportionately
high that is, an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of
civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a
combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and
direct military advantage anticipated.
Is Israels blockade of Lebanon legitimate?
Israel has targeted the country's only international airport, imposed a naval
blockade, attacked ports, and bombed road links out of the country. Blockades
as a tool of war are legitimate under international humanitarian law; however,
their imposition is still subject to the principle of military necessity and
proportionality.
First, the blockade must not have as its primary purpose to intimidate, harass
or starve the civilian population. Such actions are proscribed by international
humanitarian law, which prohibits armed forces from deliberately causing the
civilian population to suffer hunger, particularly by depriving it of its
sources of food or supplies.
Second, insofar as Israel attempts to justify the blockade on the grounds of
restricting the re-supply of the Hezbollah military, that legitimate purpose
must be weighed against the costs to the civilian population. Those costs can
also shift over time, as shortages of necessities intensify. Even if a blockade
were assumed lawful at the outset, it could become unlawful if mounting
civilian costs became too high and outweighed the direct military advantage. In
those circumstances for example, if food or medical supplies ran low Israel
would be obliged to permit free passage of material that is essential for
civilians and to protect humanitarian personnel delivering those supplies.
Read more articles: http://hrw.org/campaigns/israel_lebanon/
Israeli bomb kills 4 UN observers in Lebanon
Israeli soldiers display the bodies of five killed Hizbollah
fighters
July 26, 2006, 05:30
An Israeli air strike killed four United Nations military observers at their
base in southern Lebanon yesterday, the United Nations said. Kofi Annan, the UN
secretary-general, called on Israel to investigate the "apparently deliberate
targeting" of the base.
"This coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long established and clearly
marked UN post at Khiam occurred despite personal assurances given to me by
Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, that UN positions would be spared Israeli
fire," Annan said in a statement issued at UN headquarters in New York.
Marie Okabe, the UN spokesperson, said at the UN headquarters in New York: "I
can confirm that the four military observers that came under attack in Khiam
were killed in that attack. There are no further details for the moment".
Rescue efforts late
A spokesperson for the UNIFIL peacekeeping force in Lebanon said rescue teams
rushed to the peacekeeprs base, which appears to have collapsed while the UN
observers were in the shelter.
"One aerial bomb directly impacted the building and shelter in the base of the
United Nations Observer Group in Lebanon in the area of Khiam," said Milos
Strugar, the spokesperson.
"A UNIFIL dispatched rescue team which is on the spot is still unable to clear
the rubble."
"There were 14 other incidents of firing close to this position in the
afternoon from the Israeli side and the firing continued during the rescue
operation," he said.
Report investigated
In Jerusalem, an Israeli army spokesperson said the military was investigating
the report. In Rome, a US State department official said Israel told the United
States that the air strike that hit the UN base was an accident.
"It was a terrible tragedy. we have heard from the Israelis that it was an
accident," said the official, who is in Rome with Condoleezza Rice, the US
secretary of state, for an international conference on Lebanon. He had no
further details. - Reuters
Fury at 'deliberate' bombing claim Press Association
Wednesday July 26, 2006 2:53 AM
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is at the centre of a diplomatic storm after
accusing Israel of deliberately bombing a UN observer post in southern Lebanon,
killing at least two peacekeepers.
Two peacekeepers were killed and two were feared dead under the rubble of
their post in the town of Khiyam, near the eastern sector of the border.
On hearing the news last night, Mr Annan rushed out of a Rome hotel where he
had been dining with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Lebanon's prime
minister on the eve of international talks on the Lebanon crisis. He said the
Israeli hit on the observer post was "apparently deliberate" and demanded an
investigation.
"I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by
Israeli defence forces of a UN observer post in southern Lebanon," Mr Annan
said in a statement.
He said the post had been there for a long time, was marked clearly, and was
hit despite assurances from Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert that UN
positions would not be attacked.
"I call on the government of Israel to conduct a full investigation into this
very disturbing incident and demand that any further attack on UN positions and
personnel must stop," he added.
But Dan Gillerman, Israel's UN ambassador, reacted furiously, describing Mr
Annan's comments as "premature and erroneous".
"First of all let me express Israel's deep regret for the tragic incident,"
he said, adding Israel was investigating. He then 'parroted' Mr Annan, saying
he too was "shocked and deeply distressed" by the "hasty statement".
"He went far too far for the seasoned and experienced diplomat that he is. I
think that his statement was irresponsible, unfortunate and deplorable," Mr
Gillerman said.
Observers from Canada, China, Austria and Finland were among the dead at the
UN post, UN and Lebanese officials said.
Israeli Airstrike Hits U.N. Outpost
4 Observers Killed; Olmert Pledges to Allow Lebanon Aid
By Scott Wilson and Robin Wright
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, July 26, 2006; Page A01
JERUSALEM, July 25 -- An Israeli airstrike hit a United Nations post in
southern Lebanon late Tuesday, killing four international observers, hours
after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert agreed to lift Israel's 14-day blockade of
Lebanon for shipments of humanitarian aid to reach the swelling ranks of
displaced Lebanese civilians.
U.N. officials said an aerial shell struck an observer post in the hilltop
town of Khiyam, and rescue teams reached the site soon after to search for
survivors in the rubble. Milos Strugar, a senior adviser for the mission, known
by the acronym UNIFIL, said the four observers inside the post had taken cover
in bunkers after 14 Israeli airstrikes landed nearby throughout the afternoon.
In a statement, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he was "shocked and
deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting" of the "clearly
marked U.N. post at Khiyam." Annan said Olmert had given him "personal
assurances" that U.N. posts would not be targeted, adding that the UNIFIL
commander had been in "repeated contact with Israeli officers throughout the
day on Tuesday, stressing the need to protect that particular U.N. position
from attack."
"I call on the government of Israel to conduct a full investigation into this
very disturbing incident and demand that any further attack on U.N. positions
and personnel must stop," Annan said.
Israeli government officials, expressing regret over the deaths, said that
the U.N. personnel were not targeted and that there would be an investigation.
[The official New China News Agency reported Wednesday that one of the dead
was Chinese. The others were from Austria, Canada and Finland, the Associated
Press reported, citing U.N. and Lebanese military officials.]
The airstrike came at the end of a day when Hezbollah gunmen operating from
southern Lebanon fired scores of missiles into Israel and battled Israeli
forces seeking to uproot the Shiite Muslim militia from a border stronghold.
The Israeli government and the Bush administration are drawing up plans for a
more robust international peacekeeping force to deploy in Lebanon as part of a
diplomatic solution to end the fighting, now entering its third week.
After international criticism that Israel was not doing enough to ensure the
delivery of food and medicine to Lebanon's increasingly desperate south, Olmert
pledged in a meeting here with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice earlier in
the day to allow aid flights, sea shipments and safe passage for deliveries on
roads that have been targeted for days by Israeli bombers. Israeli officials
said they would begin allowing the aid to arrive as soon as possible.
But Lebanese officials warned that it would take at least a week to repair
runways at Beirut international airport, bombed by Israeli warplanes along with
major roads and bridges in the south after Hezbollah captured two Israeli
soldiers in a July 12 cross-border raid. Israeli military aircraft hit dozens
of targets again Tuesday as Olmert, backed by Rice, promised to continue to
fight the militia arrayed along the northern border.
"We will reach out for them, we will stop them, and we will not hesitate to
take the most severe measures against those who are aiming thousands of
missiles against innocent civilians for one purpose -- to kill them," Olmert
said. "This is something that we will not be able to tolerate."
Rice's two-day visit to the region was more a listening tour than a
determined attempt to end a conflict that showed no sign of abating. She
declined to call for an immediate cease-fire, saying that "we cannot return to
a status quo ante, in which extremists at any time can decide to take innocent
life hostage again."
"It is time for a new Middle East," Rice said. "It is time to say to those
who do not want a different kind of Middle East that we will prevail, they will
not."
As early-warning sirens wailed across northern Israel, Hezbollah fighters
fired more than 90 rockets, which landed from the Mediterranean coast to the
Sea of Galilee. The barrages killed a teenage girl in the Druze town of Maghar
and sent roughly 30 others to hospitals, most of them with symptoms of shock.
More than a dozen rockets hit the city of Haifa, Israel's third largest, which
only two weeks ago was thought to be beyond the range of Hezbollah's arsenal.
The strikes increased the number of Israeli civilians killed by rocket fire
to 18, while 24 Israeli soldiers have died in combat operations. Eight soldiers
were wounded early Tuesday in ground operations around Bint Jbeil, a town about
two miles inside Lebanon's border that Israeli officials say is a center of
Hezbollah's military operation.
By the end of a day of sporadic clashes, Israeli forces claimed to have
seized Bint Jbeil, one of the largest towns in the roughly 15-square-mile
region where Israel has focused its ground operation. Defense Minister Amir
Peretz indicated that Israel intends to hold the region until an acceptable
peacekeeping force could be arranged.
Israeli warplanes kept up their attacks across Lebanon, hitting 10 sites in
southern Beirut, roads in the battered coastal city of Tyre and a rocket
launcher on its outskirts that Israeli military officials said was used earlier
in the day to fire on Haifa. Lebanese officials told reporters in Beirut that a
dozen Lebanese were killed, bringing the known death toll in two weeks of
fighting to about 390, almost all civilians. The number of Hezbollah fighters
killed is not known.
The bombing of Beirut's southern suburbs came after a one-day respite during
Rice's visit to the Lebanese capital. Four powerful explosions rattled the city
toward the end of the day, sending up smoke over the Dahiya suburbs where
Hezbollah has its headquarters and where many of its Shiite supporters live.
Six of the victims died in an air raid that demolished two houses in
Nabatiyeh, a Shiite town about 16 miles north of Bint Jbeil. A man, his wife
and their son were killed in one house, according to a daughter who survived
the strike and talked to her father as he died slowly under rubble.
The Associated Press in Beirut quoted Mahmoud Komati, deputy chief of
Hezbollah's political arm, as saying "the truth is -- let me say this clearly
-- we didn't even expect [this] response . . . that [Israel] would exploit this
operation for this big war against us." But Komati said in the interview that
the group did not intend to give up its arms.
Much of the day focused on the tentative first phase of diplomacy to halt the
fighting, which Olmert has said will end only with the release of the two
captured Israeli soldiers, the deployment of the Lebanese army or a
multinational force in the south and the implementation of a U.N. resolution
that calls for the disarmament of Hezbollah and other militias.
Israeli officials said Rice's meeting with Olmert concerned mostly
humanitarian issues at a time when Israel and the United States are being
pressured by European and Arab nations to address a growing crisis across
Israel's border.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia pledged $500 million Tuesday for Lebanon's
reconstruction, days after imploring the White House to endorse an immediate
cease-fire.
According to U.S. and Israeli officials, Olmert agreed to lift the blockade
as soon as possible. The Israeli navy has prevented ships from docking in
Lebanon, while military aircraft have bombed the main airport and its fuel
depots, and key roads and bridges across the country of 4 million people.
Israeli military officials say the campaign, which has left much of Lebanon's
civilian infrastructure in tatters, is designed to prevent Hezbollah from
restocking its arms supplies. Much of its weapons stocks come from Iran through
Syria, Israeli officials say.
Rice's meeting with Olmert also touched on what a senior Israeli official
described as "Israel's exit strategy." The official said the government
believes it has at least until Rice returns to the region -- perhaps next week
-- to press on with its military operation.
"At the end of the day, the international community realizes we are doing a
dirty job on its behalf" against Hezbollah, said the official, who spoke on
condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly on the
talks.
The official said the deployment of a multinational force was "in the cards,"
mainly because Israel remembers "the trauma" of its 18-year occupation of
southern Lebanon that ended in May 2000.
But the official said composing such a peacekeeping force would take time
given that key questions remain unanswered, including which countries would
take part and what the force's mandate would be. The official said any
multinational force must be able to confront Hezbollah, something the current
U.N.-led observer mission in southern Lebanon has not done.
"One of the big issues on the table is that a cease-fire has to get it
right," said Mark Regev, an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman. "You cannot
have a cease-fire that allows for an immediate rearming of Hezbollah."
After meeting with Olmert, Rice traveled to Ramallah in the West Bank for a
largely symbolic meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who demanded
an immediate cease-fire along Israel's second front in the Gaza Strip.
The fighting there began June 25 when the military wing of the governing
Hamas movement and two smaller armed groups captured a 19-year-old Israeli
soldier in a raid on an army post just outside Gaza.
Abbas has been pressuring Hamas to endorse a two-state solution to the
conflict, something Rice said was still viable in the form of the U.S.-backed
peace plan known as the "road map." Before the Gaza crisis began, Abbas had
called for a referendum on a document that endorses a future Palestinian state
in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. The vote was scheduled to be held
Wednesday, but has been left behind in the violence.
"Israeli aggression in the West Bank and Gaza Strip must stop immediately so
we can strengthen the truce and start a political process that aims to end the
occupation," Abbas said.
[Israel on Wednesday sent tanks into Gaza and launched airstrikes, killing
two fighters, from Hamas and Islamic Jihad, in Gaza City, the Reuters news
agency reported, citing medics. Palestinian officials said a total of seven
people were killed overnight.]
To protest Rice's visit, Palestinians organized a general strike that
shuttered Ramallah's commercial districts. Shortly before she arrived in a
convoy of bulletproof vans, hundreds of Palestinians marched through nearly
empty streets, carrying placards calling on Rice to "go home." Others waved
Lebanese flags.
"The United States has no credibility," said Khalida Jarrar, a Palestinian
legislator from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestinian, a radical
nationalist faction with a Marxist orientation. "What's happening in Lebanon
makes the U.S. image look worse and worse."
Wright reported from Jerusalem and Ramallah. Correspondents Jonathan Finer in
Avivim, Israel, Edward Cody in Beirut and Anthony Shadid in Tyre contributed to
this report.
In Bahasa Malaysia
Israel guna bom penabur Human Rights Watch
ZAKIA Mowannes, seorang penduduk Lebanon yang cedera pada perut selepas
dibedil tentera Israel, dirawat di sebuah hospital di Sidon, Lebanon, kelmarin.
- Reuters.
---------------------------------
BAITULMAQDIS 25 Julai Human Rights Watch (HRW) menuduh Israel menggunakan
bom tangan jenis penabur yang dilepaskan dengan tembakan meriam di kawasan
penduduk awam di Lebanon.
Bom penabur ialah bom yang menaburkan puluhan bahan letupan lebih kecil
apabila meletup.
Penyelidik pertubuhan hak asasi manusia itu berkata, bom penabur digunakan
dalam serangan terhadap kampung Blida di selatan Lebanon pada 19 Julai lalu,
menyebabkan seorang terkorban dan sekurang-kurangnya 12 orang awam cedera
termasuk tujuh kanak-kanak.
HRW mendakwa, penyelidiknya mengambil gambar bom penabur yang dibawa oleh
pasukan meriam Israel di sempadan Israel-Lebanon.
Senjata jenis penabur tidak tepat dan tidak berkesan apabila digunakan di
sekitar penduduk awam, kata Pengarah Eksekutif HRW, Kenneth Roth dalam satu
kenyataannya semalam.
Senjata itu sama sekali tidak boleh digunakan di kawasan penduduk awam.
HRW memetik saksi sebagai berkata, tentera Israel melepaskan tembakan bom
penabur di Blida pada petang 19 Julai lalu.
Saksi menggambarkan bagaimana tembakan itu menyebabkan ratusan bom-bom kecil
bertaburan di seluruh kampung tersebut.
Serangan itu membunuh Maryam Ibrahim, 60, di dalam rumahnya dan mencederakan
seorang pemandu teksi, Ahmed Ali, 45, yang kehilangan kedua-dua belah kaki,
menurut HRW.
Lima anak Ahmed cedera dalam serangan itu.
Menurut HRW, bahan letupan kecil yang bertaburan di kawasan yang luas
menyebabkan sukar untuk mengelakkan kemalangan jiwa penduduk awam jika mereka
berada di kawasan pertempuran.
Penyelidikan kami di Iraq dan Kosovo menunjukkan bom penabur tidak boleh
digunakan di kawasan berpenduduk tanpa menyebabkan kematian penduduk awam,
tegas Roth.
Israel mesti berhenti menggunakan bom penabur di Lebanon dengan serta-merta.
AP
Panduan untuk bakal pengantin & sudah berkahwin.. cara utk mengawal kewangan,
meningkatkan dana kewangan utk berkahwin & sesudah berkahwin, berbelanja secara
berhemah.. insha ALlah
layari laman web>> http://www.maskahwin.com/index.php?ref=delete
untuk keterangan lanjut
---------------------------------
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 1GB of free storage!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Alternatif-Net : A Discussion Forum Focusing on Issues Related to Justice
Forum Perbincangan Maya Yang Fokus Kepada Isu Keadilan
Disclaimer: Messages sent do not represent the stand of the Barisan Alternatif
(BA) unless otherwise stated
Complaint : Send to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Sub : Send blank e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsub : Send blank e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alternatif-net/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
