Middle East Tensions Exploding

[pappajacks 0]

looking at the numbers, it seems like the opposite. "self-defense" does not allow you to have a free pass and be free from criticism.

 

then there's this tidbit from the jerusalem post:

 

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

 

" high-ranking IAF officer caused a storm on Monday in an off-record briefing during which he told reporters that IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz had ordered the military to destroy 10 buildings in Beirut in retaliation to every Katyusha rocket strike on Haifa.

 

The officer said that the equation was created by Halutz and that every rocket strike on Haifa would be answered by IAF missile strikes on 10 12-story buildings in the Beirut neighborhood of Dahiya, a Hizbullah stronghold. Since the beginning of Operation Change of Direction, launched on July 12 following the abduction of two soldiers during a Hizbullah cross-border attack, over 80 buildings in the neighborhood have been destroyed."

 

 

Ten buildings levelled in residential neighbourhoods for every missile fired by Hezbollah.

 

That sounds like a campaign to terrorize civilians.

[Guest BrokenWings]

In regards to the UN building being hit by Israelis...

 

Another UN position of the Ghanaian battalion in the area of Marwahin in the western sector was also directly hit by one mortar round from the Hezbollah side last night. The round did not explode, and there were no casualties or material damage. Another 5 incidents of firing close to UN positions from the Israeli side were reported yesterday. It was also reported that Hezbollah fired from the vicinity of four UN positions at Alma ash Shab, Tibnin, ****, and At Tiri. All UNIFIL positions remain occupied and maintained by the troops.

 

Excerpt from a UNFIL press release. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr010.pdf

 

Hezbollah hit a UN building, but since there were no deaths, it apparently doesn't matter. The building should have been evacuated as it is clear they have been using it as a shield. I mean, it was a UN peace keeping force in a war zone.

 

We want to find out why this United Nations post was attacked and also why it remained manned during what is now, more or less, a war during obvious danger to these individuals.

 

-Canadian PM Stephen Harper.

 

Also, retired Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie was interviewed by CBC Radio, and said that the Canadian peacekeeper killed at the UN observation post had previously emailed Mackenzie saying that Hezbollah was using their post as cover.

 

We received emails from him a few days ago, and he was describing the fact that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position for tactical necessity, not being targeted. Now that’s veiled speech in the military. What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can’t be punished for it.

 

While I don't know if it is true, I have heard that peacekeepers must remain stationed until word from senior authorities say otherwise. Maybe Kofi Annan should have done something other than demands to negotiate with terrorists.

 

The coverage of this war is pathetic.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

looking at the numbers, it seems like the opposite. "self-defense" does not allow you to have a free pass and be free from criticism.

 

Where's the criticism for Hezbollah, who started this essential war? Or the criticism for the Lebanese government, who was supposed to disarm Hezbollah over the past six years? (Yes, I know they're impotent to do anything, but that's the UN's fault, which is also a completely impotent and useless organization).

 

I think it's time for the US to think about leaving the UN if this keeps up. How much do we do for them? What have they really done for us?

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

I like how our defeatist media establishment is already big on the "Israel is getting killed out there! OMG this war is failing!!!" This isn't to say that they aren't correct in some of their analysis but they are really lacking in a lot of facts to draw those conclusions sort of like when Newsweek called Afghanistan a quagmire after we were there for a week years ago.

 

If you think the UN is bad now just wait. After all, they are thinking of leveling a WORLD TAX on America to help generate revenue for it.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I like how our defeatist media establishment is already big on the "Israel is getting killed out there! OMG this war is failing!!!" This isn't to say that they aren't correct in some of their analysis but they are really lacking in a lot of facts to draw those conclusions sort of like when Newsweek called Afghanistan a quagmire after we were there for a week years ago.

 

If you think the UN is bad now just wait. After all, they are thinking of leveling a WORLD TAX on America to help generate revenue for it.

 

That wouldn't fly. Our Congress wouldn't allow it (at least I think they wouldn't). There would be open rebellion in America if something like that passed, because that's starting to get into some really Orwellian/Revelation type territory.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Who the heck is saying Israel is losing? The worst I could say for them right now is that they'll have a hard time wiping out a terrorist network (no one really can) and may not "win." They have zero chance of losing though. They haven't even really flexed their ground muscles yet.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Who the heck is saying Israel is losing? The worst I could say for them right now is that they'll have a hard time wiping out a terrorist network (no one really can) and may not "win." They have zero chance of losing though. They haven't even really flexed their ground muscles yet.

 

I was just commenting on the ambush Israel lost 9 or so soldiers in yesterday. The media were treating it like Gettysburg on the death toll charts. "Humongous casualties...what has Israel gotten themselves into now?!?! All of this death will probably decrease support for the war effort, etc., etc., etc."

 

Therefore, I wasn't commenting on losing in the overall sense b/c Israel has superior firepower but was simply reacting to the way the media covered Israel's offensives along the border yesterday in a few selected incidents.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

I'm about to enter transcendant musing mode:

 

Israel isn't "losing", but there is no way for them to win IF the goal is the complete elimination of hezbollah. Israel is just the current example in a long string, I can't think of any major power in history has ever been able to truly put away a real guerrila force, going all the way back to napolean days. of course my history isn't the greatest, I'm thinking of vietnam, current iraq, the days of napolean, russians in afghanistan. I'm sure there are some exceptions in some little dinky South American or African country or something, but as far as military powers, nothing's coming to mind.

hell that's the reason they are guerrila-style fighters and terrorists (or intermingle the two), its a tactic.

They're too connected to their societies. The civilians are not part of the guerrilla/terrorist movement, but the movement is part of the civilian population. There really isn't a way for a traditional military to take out an organization like that without becoming evil monsters themselves and just razing the population.

Its always been that way. It's MEANT to be a trap, because if you get aggressive in trying to take them out, you end up harming the civilian population, and that's what guerrilla warfare and terrorists WANT. Its not just to keep their skins safer, but it's also because they know that it just increases the hatred in the civilian population to you. this idea of populations blaming the guerillas soley is a myth thought of by naive people.

 

So many societies end up making this same damn mistkae and get caught up in "wars" like these.. why do they never learn? because there's always someone saying:

 

"But what's the alternative? Roll over and die? Surrender to these murderers and waive the white flag???"

 

its hard for people to argue with that, i mean who wants to advocate surrenderring!? and in many current cases, they're not wrong! just stopping does tons of damage to, say, US or Israel, now too.

 

Practically, the choices are fighting an unwinnable (in the regular sense) war and getting bogged down for years and years, becoming evil monsters yourself and playing the genocide game, or surrendering?

 

Boy those are some choices.

 

We basically need smarter people as our leaders to figure out a way to navigate. I think one solution is the "start, stop" method, but it requires real awareness. You fight juust enough to say, cut their effectiveness in half... slow down for a while and wait for an opening, then fight again, just enough to cut them down s'more.. hopefully getting em to the point where they might exist but they're just not that effective anymore.

The other way, is trying to infiltrate them with spies, so don't have to play their game, instead you can be ready for all their guerrilla-style tactics. That's hard as fuck to do, especially with the differences in ethnic/cultural makeups between, say, americans and arabs/iraqis.

Longer term, we (by we i'm more referring to the US here but applies to anyone) need to do everything we can to have the foresight to ignore all situations that involve soldiers existing, but not killing. Ie, occupations are just a bad idea, even if it's a good idea (relating to politics of the time.

Too late for that here, but something to keep in mind if there's ever a war with Iran or Syria or N Korea or China or whatnot.

 

in Israel's case, if they can cut Hezbollah's effectiveness by more than half, and keep them that way, in this current skirmish, it's a good foundation for a practical victory.

 

Well, writing that effectivelly ate up the last hour of friday work just as I hoped it would. Yesssss

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

I'm about to enter transcendant musing mode:

 

Israel isn't "losing", but there is no way for them to win IF the goal is the complete elimination of hezbollah. Israel is just the current example in a long string, I can't think of any major power in history has ever been able to truly put away a real guerrila force, going all the way back to napolean days. of course my history isn't the greatest, I'm thinking of vietnam, current iraq, the days of napolean, russians in afghanistan. I'm sure there are some exceptions in some little dinky South American or African country or something, but as far as military powers, nothing's coming to mind.

hell that's the reason they are guerrila-style fighters and terrorists (or intermingle the two), its a tactic.

They're too connected to their societies. The civilians are not part of the guerrilla/terrorist movement, but the movement is part of the civilian population. There really isn't a way for a traditional military to take out an organization like that without becoming evil monsters themselves and just razing the population.

Its always been that way. It's MEANT to be a trap, because if you get aggressive in trying to take them out, you end up harming the civilian population, and that's what guerrilla warfare and terrorists WANT. Its not just to keep their skins safer, but it's also because they know that it just increases the hatred in the civilian population to you. this idea of populations blaming the guerillas soley is a myth thought of by naive people.

 

So many societies end up making this same damn mistkae and get caught up in "wars" like these.. why do they never learn? because there's always someone saying:

 

"But what's the alternative? Roll over and die? Surrender to these murderers and waive the white flag???"

 

its hard for people who aren't really smart to argue with that, i mean who wants to advocate surrenderring!? and in many current cases, they're not wrong! just stopping does tons of damage to, say, US or Israel, now too.

 

Practically, the choices are fighting an unwinnable (in the regular sense) war and getting bogged down for years and years, becoming evil monsters yourself and playing the genocide game, or surrendering?

 

Boy those are some choices.

 

We basically need smarter people as our leaders to figure out a way to navigate. I think one solution is the "start, stop" method, but it requires real awareness. You fight juust enough to say, cut their effectiveness in half... slow down for a while and wait for an opening, then fight again, just enough to cut them down s'more.. hopefully getting em to the point where they might exist but they're just not that effective anymore.

The other way, is trying to infiltrate them with spies, so don't have to play their game, instead you can be ready for all their guerrilla-style tactics. That's hard as fuck to do, especially with the differences in ethnic/cultural makeups between, say, americans and arabs/iraqis.

Longer term, we (by we i'm more referring to the US here but applies to anyone) need to do everything we can to have the foresight to ignore all situations that involve soldiers existing, but not killing. Ie, occupations are just a bad idea, even if it's a good idea (relating to politics of the time.

Too late for that here, but something to keep in mind if there's ever a war with Iran or Syria or N Korea or China or whatnot.

 

in Israel's case, if they can cut Hezbollah's effectiveness by more than half, and keep them that way, in this current skirmish, it's a good foundation for a practical victory.

 

 

 

Good post. I liked this idea marginalizing the enemy since you can't destroy them outright. You need to break a few eggs to make that omelet but you don't need to use the entire dozen.

[JangoFett4Hire 0]

burp n/m

[megaadvice 0]

More than 54 civilians, at least 34 of them children, have been killed in a town in south Lebanon in the deadliest Israeli strike of the conflict so far.

Displaced families had been sheltering in the basement of a house in Qana, which was crushed after a direct hit.

 

Lebanon's prime minister denounced "Israeli war criminals" and cancelled talks with the US secretary of state.

 

Israel said it regretted the incident - but added that civilians had been warned to flee the village.

 

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Israel would "continue to act with no hesitation against Hezbollah" which has been firing rockets into Israel from southern Lebanon.

[Vyce 0]

It's the Lebanese who are claiming that most of those civilians were children, and I wouldn't trust anything they have to say on this matter further than I could toss a five ton weight. There are already discrepancies with the story, with regards to the time in which Israel allegedly hit that target.

 

I love all of the outrage when Israel inadvertently hits a civilian, while there is virtually no outrage ag Hezbollah, who has done nothing but lob missile after missile at CIVILIAN targets in Israel. Hezbollah brags about their missiles and how some of them have a long enough range to hit Tel Aviv.

[Art Sandusky 0]

The more I think about this, the more it seems like Israel just wanted to go ahead and at least show its teeth to the Arab world around it. Israeli special forces are some of the nastiest in the world. Conducting a search for missing soldiers could have been completed by now, and it wouldn't involve the image of explosions in urban areas and innocent Lebanese deaths (a lot of people are blurring the Hezbollah/Lebanon line when complaining about the coverage).

 

This isn't to say that I disagree with it. Unlike us, Israel is literally surrounded by a lot of people that don't like it. We're worried about terrorist infiltration, but at least Iran, Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan don't border us. A proactive move was the best course of action in terms of securing a long-term peace, believe it or not. Yeah, civilians are dying, but this is as surgical an air campaign as one could hope for in 2006. It's not like the majority of things blowing up are people. Don't forget roads and other infrastructures that are being blown to holy hell. Eventually these extremist groups will be seen as ineffectual and nothing but trouble, lose support when they get blown away, and we can go back to the business of fixing things within Israel again.

 

I'll even say they're right to refuse a cease-fire. Hezbollah is too good to give them 72 hours to regroup. They're not a bunch of scrubs with makeshift explosives, they're quite professional.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I think it's time for us to move from the phase of history where we tolerated barbarian terrorists threatening civilized democracies, and Israel is moving forward from that. We also need to do away with the countless empty words and broken ceasefires that the Muslims have perpetuated countless times. A ceasefire with murders isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

^ good luck with that.

 

As long as there are militarily superior powers, there will be terrorism and guerrilla warfare. Why? Because it's the only real tactic that works against a significantly superior enemy (unless you have grand admiral thrawn leading you or something, and lets face it, modern leaders ain't no Thrawns). the superior powers do NOT KNOW HOW to beat them completely.

 

what hezbollah is doing, deliberatly situating near civilians, is something guerrilas have been doing for DECADES. They do it because it works. Either the power pulls back because of the civilians, or the power does the equivalent of what Israel does and blasts away at the civilians to get to the terrorists. EITHER WAY, it serves the guerrila's agenda, its meant to maneuver you into a two-way trap scenario.

 

and we aren't smart enough to find a way around it (yet??).

[Art Sandusky 0]

So much for that pause in the fighting.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

So much for that pause in the fighting.

 

And whose fault is it that it ended prematurely?

[Art Sandusky 0]

Everyone's.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

This seems about right:

 

[Dobbs 3K 0]

What the hell is that?

[2GOLD 0]

I'm guessing it's like saying Israel will stand in front of the civilians while Hezz will use them for cover. Which is about right and pretty much why fighting them is a no win situation and why us fighting terrorist groups is a no win situation.

 

I think.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Yeah, that makes sense, and is what I was guessing it was. I couldn't figure out the woman in the blue dress. I guess it's supposed to be an Israeli woman with her child.

 

Frankly, the Arab civilians are so tolerant of the terrorists in their midst, I don't think it's really all that sorrowful if they do get killed. I mean, they let Hezbollah build missile launchers in their homes...what do they expect to happen?

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

This growing conflict has really hammered home the point to me that we just can't win a war on terrorism or stop the rise of these Islamic extremists. The Israelis hammer back hard after they have their soldiers captured and they get vilified in the media, denounced by the world, etc. and mostly because they won't take any crap and won't sign on to an immediate cease-fire which will just result in a rearming and rebuilding of Hezbollah while an international force under the guise of the UN or NATO takes months to get to the border. Meanwhile, by all accounts people in Lebannon don't even blame Hezbollah for causing the whole mess even though their infrastructure is getting torched around them BECAUSE of Hezbollah's actions.

 

Sometimes I just can't understand these people and the more crap like this happens the more I think the Middle East simply isn't ready for democracy and the more we entangle ourselves in trying to spread it throughout the region the more crap we'll get ourselves into. We're damned if we help them and we're damned if we don't.

 

Also, why hasn't the media hammered home the fact that Hezbollah was responsible for killing over 200 of our Marines in 1983? Seems like it should be a relevant fact since the world wants us to step in for this ceasefire and kinda gives us a decent justification to allow Hezbollah to get the crap kicked out of them. After all, why bail out a group with Americans blood on its hands?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

They had a big special on the Marines barracks bombing on CNN the other night. I didn't know a whole lot about it, so I watched it.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Yeah, that makes sense, and is what I was guessing it was. I couldn't figure out the woman in the blue dress. I guess it's supposed to be an Israeli woman with her child.

 

Frankly, the Arab civilians are so tolerant of the terrorists in their midst, I don't think it's really all that sorrowful if they do get killed. I mean, they let Hezbollah build missile launchers in their homes...what do they expect to happen?

 

 

That is an assumption to think that ALL if not the majority of Lebanese full on support Hezbo. While I'm sure they do have their passive supporters it is also not beyond the realm of imagination then that there are people who feel paralized, stuck in the middle of a conflict they have no control over. Since the Hezbos no doubt muscle alot of people into doing their bidding what is a person to do with guns to each side of their head?

 

 

 

 

Hezbo.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

That is true...but in the end, if Lebanon is going to become a truly free democracy, the change will have to come from within and not from without. The Lebanese people have to throw out Hezbollah. No one else can really remove them permanently, since they're so entrenched in Lebanese society.

[pappajacks 0]

Sometimes I just can't understand these people and the more crap like this happens the more I think the Middle East simply isn't ready for democracy and the more we entangle ourselves in trying to spread it throughout the region the more crap we'll get ourselves into. We're damned if we help them and we're damned if we don't.

 

The US does not encourage democracy in the region. They support the dictatorships in Egypt and Jordan to the tone of 10 billion a year....and they ignore democratically elected Hamas in palestine.

 

If there was free elections in Egypt, the "Muslim Brothers" party will win in a landslide and would end the peace treaty with Israel signed in 1977. That's why the US supports dictators in the region and I bet you they would rather have a dictator in Palestine than the Hamas.

 

A truly democratic middle east would be a nightmare.

 

The ironic thing of all this is that Lebanon has arguably the most moderate government in the region....which will change in the next election as i believe lebanon will radicalize itself....I even heard several Christians (which are 30-40% of the population) say they would vote for the Hizbollah next time around.

[EricMM 0]

No SHIT they ignore Hamas.

 

WTF...

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

 

Sometimes I just can't understand these people and the more crap like this happens the more I think the Middle East simply isn't ready for democracy and the more we entangle ourselves in trying to spread it throughout the region the more crap we'll get ourselves into. We're damned if we help them and we're damned if we don't.

 

The US does not encourage democracy in the region. They support the dictatorships in Egypt and Jordan to the tone of 10 billion a year....and they ignore democratically elected Hamas in palestine.

 

If there was free elections in Egypt, the "Muslim Brothers" party will win in a landslide and would end the peace treaty with Israel signed in 1977. That's why the US supports dictators in the region and I bet you they would rather have a dictator in Palestine than the Hamas.

 

A truly democratic middle east would be a nightmare.

 

The ironic thing of all this is that Lebanon has arguably the most moderate government in the region....which will change in the next election as i believe lebanon will radicalize itself....I even heard several Christians (which are 30-40% of the population) say they would vote for the Hizbollah next time around.

 

While much of what you say I has merit I have to disagree with certain aspects. It is true that we have given billions of dollars of aid to dictatorial regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt but the facts are that those funds were given with the promise of more democracy being spread. Granted, that hasn't happened but its the fault of the US government for not putting pressure or wanting to withdraw the funds to push that democratic initiative. To say that we are only propping up these places and not having any underlying goals of promoting democracy is wrong because while the government may not try to axe these regimes somebody somewhere is trying to promote democracy through this money.

 

Whether or not democracy is good/bad in the Middle East is an open subject for debate. Yes, it is true that in the short term we could get Muslim fanatics in power but I'd like to imagine that under the constraints of a democratically elected body these people would actually have to ANSWER to the people who elected them. For example, Hamas screams in the Palestinian territories that Israel is the one to blame for social and economic problems (which does have merit considering that Israel still doesn't open up more efficient commerce lines by sea or land between Gaza and the West Bank) but if they have their necks on the line to provide for their people democratically instead of bitching about it I think that's a positive. Will this change happen overnight? No, but it's a long-term vision that I think is healthy for the region if it can be successfully instituted.

 

Additionally, I think democracy can be an effective weapon against terrorism by allowing people control over their political futures and giving them a stake in their governments. One of the reasons extremism is rife in the Middle East in the first place you have to admit is that people have no stake/role in the political process so their only voice in the process is to support extremists who strike either against domestic authorities or other peoples. Again, this is a long-term vision not a short-term solution.

 

My whole argument I posted earlier was that if more of Lebanon's people still side with extremists and don't want to hold them to account for their actions then maybe they aren't entirely ready to embrace democracy and maybe we should really just give up on the whole project. I'd hate to have to go back to Cold War politics but if these people are more interested in killing themselves and others then who are we to tell them no?

[cbacon 0]

Israel/Lebanon: End Indiscriminate Strikes on Civilians

Some Israeli Attacks Amount to War Crimes

 

(Beirut, August 3, 2006) – Israeli forces have systematically failed to distinguish between combatants and civilians in their military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Human Rights Watch said in report released today. The pattern of attacks in more than 20 cases investigated by Human Rights Watch researchers in Lebanon indicates that the failures cannot be dismissed as mere accidents and cannot be blamed on wrongful Hezbollah practices. In some cases, these attacks constitute war crimes.

 

The 50-page report, “Fatal Strikes: Israel’s Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon,” analyzes almost two dozen cases of Israeli air and artillery attacks on civilian homes and vehicles. Of the 153 dead civilians named in the report, 63 are children. More than 500 people have been killed in Lebanon by Israeli fire since fighting began on July 12, most of them civilians.

 

“The pattern of attacks shows the Israeli military’s disturbing disregard for the lives of Lebanese civilians,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “Our research shows that Israel’s claim that Hezbollah fighters are hiding among civilians does not explain, let alone justify, Israel’s indiscriminate warfare.”

 

The report is based on extensive interviews with victims and witnesses of attacks, visits to some blast sites, and information obtained from hospitals, humanitarian groups, security forces and government agencies. Human Rights Watch also conducted research in Israel, assessing the weapons used by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

 

Human Rights Watch researchers found numerous cases in which the IDF launched artillery and air attacks with limited or dubious military objectives but excessive civilian cost. In many cases, Israeli forces struck an area with no apparent military target. In some instances, Israeli forces appear to have deliberately targeted civilians.

 

In one case, an Israeli air strike on July 13 destroyed the home of a cleric known to have sympathy for Hezbollah but who was not known to have taken any active part in the hostilities. Even if the IDF considered him a legitimate target (and Human Rights Watch has no evidence that he was), the strike killed him, his wife, their 10 children and the family’s Sri Lankan maid.

 

On July 16, an Israeli aircraft fired on a civilian home in the village of Aitaroun, killing 11 members of the al-Akhrass family, among them seven Canadian-Lebanese dual nationals who were vacationing in the village when the war began. Human Rights Watch independently interviewed three villagers who vigorously denied that the family had any connection to Hezbollah. Among the victims were children aged one, three, five and seven.

 

The Israeli government has blamed Hezbollah for the high civilian casualty toll in Lebanon, insisting that Hezbollah fighters have hidden themselves and their weapons among the civilian population. However, in none of the cases of civilian deaths documented in the report is there evidence to suggest that Hezbollah was operating in or around the area during or prior to the attack.

“Hezbollah fighters must not hide behind civilians – that’s an absolute – but the image that Israel has promoted of such shielding as the cause of so high a civilian death toll is wrong,” Roth said. “In the many cases of civilian deaths examined by Human Rights Watch, the location of Hezbollah troops and arms had nothing to do with the deaths because there was no Hezbollah around.”

 

Statements from Israeli government officials and military leaders suggest that, at the very least, the IDF has blurred the distinction between civilians and combatants, arguing that only people associated with Hezbollah remain in southern Lebanon, so all are legitimate targets of attack. Under international law, however, only civilians directly participating in hostilities lose their immunity from attack. Many civilians have been unable to flee because they are sick, wounded, do not have the means to leave or are providing essential civil services.

Many civilians are afraid to leave the south because the roads are under Israeli attack. Hundreds of thousands of Lebanese have fled their homes, but Israeli forces have fired with warplanes and artillery on dozens of civilian vehicles, many flying white flags. Israel has justified its attacks on roads by citing the need to target Hezbollah fighters moving arms and block their transport routes.

However, none of the evidence gathered by Human Rights Watch or reported to date by independent media sources indicate that any of the attacks on vehicles documented in the report resulted in Hezbollah casualties or the destruction of weapons. Rather, the attacks have killed and wounded civilians who were fleeing their homes after the IDF issued instructions to evacuate.

 

“Israeli warnings of imminent attacks do not turn civilians into military targets,” said Roth. “Otherwise, Palestinian militant groups might ‘warn’ Israeli settlers to leave their settlements and then feel justified in attacking those who remained.”

 

Human Rights Watch urges Israel to immediately end indiscriminate attacks and distinguish at all times between civilians and combatants. Human Rights Watch also calls on the United States to immediately suspend transfers of arms, ammunition, and other materiel credibly alleged to have been used in violation of international humanitarian law in Lebanon, until these violations cease. Human Rights Watch further asks the Secretary-General of the United Nations to establish an International Commission of Inquiry to investigate reports of such violations, including possible war crimes, and to formulate recommendations with a view to holding accountable those who violated the law. That commission should examine both Israeli attacks in Lebanon and Hezbollah attacks in Israel.

 

In previous reporting, Human Rights Watch has addressed the conduct of Hezbollah forces, condemning its attacks on civilian areas as serious violations of international humanitarian law amounting to war crimes. Human Rights Watch has called on the governments of Syria and Iran to use their influence on Hezbollah to promote respect for the laws of war. In this report, it urges Hezbollah to take all feasible steps to avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas and to remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.

 

Human Rights Watch