What's new

Every Israeli Missile Strike is a War Crime

fatman17

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Apr 24, 2007
32,585
98
38,698
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Weekend Edition August 1-3, 2014
The Experts’ Verdict
Every Israeli Missile Strike is a War Crime
by JONATHAN COOK
Nazareth.
Today’s Guardian includes an article that appears to be excusing Israel of responsibility for the massive death tolll it has inflicted on Palestinian civilians. But, more significantly, it includes a lot of useful – and damning – information about just how “indiscriminate” Israel’s weapons really are.
This interests me a great deal because I have been warning about problems with the interpretation of international law used by leading human rights groups on this very point since the 2006 Lebanon War.
At that time I got into a dispute with Human Rights Watch’s Middle East policy director, Sarah Leah Whitson. Her organisation argued that Hizbullah was committing war crimes by definition whenever it fired rockets at Israel, even if it hit military targets, because those rockets were primitive and inherently inaccurate.
By contrast, HRW claimed, Israel’s missiles were precise and therefore their use was not inherently inadmissible. Its view was that Israel did not commit war crimes by firing its missiles; the obligation was on observers to show that they had not been used within the rules of war – which is a much harder standard of proof. For more on this debate, see my articles here and here.
In practice, HRW’s argument was nonsense, as was clear even in 2006. During that war, Israel dropped millions of cluster munitions – little bomblets that serve effectively as land mines – all over southern Lebanon, endangering the whole civilian population of the area.
But Norman Finkelstein recently pointed out the more general problem with HRW’s argument:
“By this standard, only rich countries, or countries rich enough to purchase high-tech weapons, have a right to defend themselves against high-tech aerial assaults. It is a curious law that would negate the raison d’être of law: the substitution of might by right.”
It may not be entirely surprising that HRW and others interpret international law in a way that serves rich and powerful western states, however many civilians they kill, and criminalises developing states, however few civilians they kill.
The current fighting in Gaza illustrates this point in dramatic fashion. Some 95% of the 64 Israelis who have been killed during the current fighting are soldiers; some 75% of the nearly 1,500 Palestinians who have been killed are civilian.
But comments from experts in the Guardian article add another layer of insight into HRW’s dubious distinctions.
One should ignore the irritating framing used in the article, which seems to suggest that the high Palestinian death toll may be down to human or systems errors. Experts discount this theory in the article and also point out that Israel is often not checking whether its shooting is accurate. In other words, it gives every indication of not taking any precautions to ensure it is hitting only military targets (or rather targets it claims are military in nature). That recklessness makes it fully culpable.
But we also have experts cited here who make the point that much of Israel’s precise weaponry is not accurate at all.
Andrew Exum, a former US army officer and defence department special adviser on the Middle East, who has studied Israel’s military operations, says this:
“There are good strategic reasons to avoid using air power and artillery in these conflicts: they tend to be pretty indiscriminate in their effects and make it difficult for the population under fire to figure out what they’re supposed to do to be safe.”
“Pretty indiscriminate”! So doesn’t that mean Israel was committing war crimes by definition every time it made one of those thousands of air strikes that marked the start of Operation Protective Edge, and that continue to this day?
But it is not just strikes from the air that are the problem. There is more:

“However, military analysts and human rights observers say the IDF is still using unguided, indirect fire with high-explosive shells, which they argue is inappropriate for a densely populated area like Gaza …
“[Israel's 155m howitzer] shells have a lethal radius of 50 to 150 metres and causes injury up to 300 metres from its point of impact. Furthermore, such indirect-fire artillery (meaning it is fired out of direct sight of the target) has a margin of error of 200 to 300 metres.”
Read that again: a margin of error of up to 300 metres, plus a lethal radius of up to 150 metres and an injury radius of 300 metres. So that’s a killing and injury zone of close to half a kilometre from the intended “precise” site of impact – in a territory that is only a few kilometres wide and long. In short, one of the main shells Israel is using in Gaza is completely imprecise.
Set aside what Israel is trying to do in Gaza. Let us assume it is actually trying to hit military targets rather than being either reckless about hitting civilian targets or deliberately trying to hit civilians, as much of the evidence might suggest.
Even if we assume total good faith on Israel’s part that it is trying to hit only Hamas and other military sites, it is clear it cannot do so even with the advanced weaponry it has. The inherent imprecision of its arsenal is compounded many fold by the fact that it is using these weapons in densely built-up areas.
So when are going to hear HRW or the United Nation’s Navi Pillay stop talking about proportionality or Israel’s potential war crimes, and admit Israel is committing war crimes by definition – right now, as you read this.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is Jonathan Cook: Journalist reporting on Israel and Palestine
 
Last edited by a moderator:
and what about every shell fired on Israel?

Fired in self defense :D

On a more serious note, I see that the UNO is starting to condemn Hamas and hold them responsible for the breach of the ceasefire ? Anybody knows anything more about that ? Here in Zim, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is mentioned as an afterthought in a 2 line article in the papers
 
When every single casualty out of three is a children and every eight casualty out of ten is civilian that's not just a "Missile Strike". It is murder and no, I am not a Hamas supporter.
 
When every single casualty out of three is a children and every eight casualty out of ten is civilian that's not just a "Missile Strike". It is murder and no, I am not a Hamas supporter.


Why does hamas fires rocket from civilian area than? If they want to fight Israel, they should fight from isolated area and should not use civilians as the shield.
 
Why does hamas fires rocket from civilian area than? If they want to fight Israel, they should fight from isolated area and should not use civilians as the shield.

The incessant killing by the state of Israel, if at all has to be justified by the rockets fired by Hamas, makes her an equally irresponsible state too which has little regard for innocent lives just as any other terrorist organization.And kindly compare the difference between the extent of collateral damage on both sides.Hope that does makes some meanings.
 
The incessant killing of Israel, if at all has to be justified by the rockets fired by Hamas, makes Israel an equally irresponsible state too which has little regard for innocent lives just as any other terrorist organization.


Look I do not suport israel but war between Israel and hamas has reached such a level where protecting civilians, take care of not attacking civilian areas etc has a little meaning.

If this is your opinion (makes Israel an equally irresponsible state too) than I won't argue against it.
 
and what about every shell fired on Israel?

I notice that you are not addressing the basic theme of the article. He is saying that people who assume that Israel is somehow being responsible are vastly mistaken because the weapons employed are inherently imprecise and are being pumped into a densely built area.

I have established and shown that the article is NOT about Hamas and their weapons but about clearing the misconception that Israelis are capable of taking care where they hit. Now I would like to ask you why you have a problem with his view? Why do you want him, or someone else on this thread, to be in a position that they have to answer your rhetorical question especially when it is totally irrelevant in the context of this thread.

Why do you jump up when Israel is being criticized on solid grounds to challenge an incorrect perception? Why are you acting like paid Hasbara people?

Why does hamas fires rocket from civilian area than? If they want to fight Israel, they should fight from isolated area and should not use civilians as the shield.

Go ask them. They will probably tell you that so many years of isolation, and embargo, and lack of opportunities, and lack of negotiations, and lack of any progress whatsoever has turned them into desperadoes. What do those rockets achieve any way, apart from reminding Israelis that they can not expect peace when they do not give peace?

Since Gazans can not go anywhere from the densely populated area, why are they being considered human shields? A shell has a margin of error and destructive radius combined in excess of half a kilometer, per this article. Why do you not have the guts to ask Israelis why they are using such imprecise ammunition in a densely populated area and are instead crying about human shields? What human shields? Is anyone in a radius of half a kilometer a human shield? What nonsense is this? How can you say such a thing? What motivates you to obfuscate the issue? Are you being deliberately daft?

This is what a human shield looks like:

Gaza Human Shields.jpg



Look I do not suport israel but war between Israel and hamas has reached such a level where protecting civilians, take care of not attacking civilian areas etc has a little meaning.

If this is your opinion (makes Israel an equally irresponsible state too) than I won't argue against it.

Now you sound positively, most definitely funny... You do not support israel, now do you? So what have you been doing on this thread?

You have totally disregarded the article when it makes a very cogent, logical, and fact-based argument. It clearly shows that Israelis have been deliberate in causing destruction and high civilian casualties by using imprecise ammunition and weaponry. What you have been doing instead is trying to implicate Hamas, when the article concerned and this thread has nothing to do with Hamas.

Having done this, you now proclaim that you do not support Israel.

So then, what had you been doing? Why bring Hamas up at all in a discussion of imprecise weapons and their impact on a densely populated area, if not to actually try to defend Israel.
 
I notice that you are not addressing the basic theme of the article. He is saying that people who assume that Israel is somehow being responsible are vastly mistaken because the weapons employed are inherently imprecise and are being pumped into a densely built area.

So what do you think the proper response should be from Israel to stop the rockets being fired from those very densely populated areas that target its civilians equally indiscriminately?
 
So what do you think the proper response should be from Israel to stop the rockets being fired from those very densely populated areas that target its civilians equally indiscriminately?

I am not going to leave the context of the article. It corrects a mis-perception that was used earlier by HRW about supposed Israeli moral superiority for possessing more precise weapons.

Outside of this we can agree, I suppose, to note that talk-talk is a better option than fight-fight for both Hamas and Israel. I feel that Hamas wants to talk and get something for face-saving, while Israel is acting as though it can continue to do what it has been doing with impunity.
 
I am not going to leave the context of the article. It corrects a mis-perception that was used earlier by HRW about supposed Israeli moral superiority for possessing more precise weapons.

Outside of this we can agree, I suppose, to note that talk-talk is a better option than fight-fight for both Hamas and Israel. I feel that Hamas wants to talk and get something for face-saving, while Israel is acting as though it can continue to do what it has been doing with impunity.

I will agree with you inasmuch that no side has any moral superiority over the other. Both Hamas and Israel are at war, right now, but it will take negotiations and a political solution to resolve the issues, not war. The military of both sides has a moral duty to fight the perceived enemies to the best of their abilities, but it is up to the leadership of both sides to see to it that the military only serves the overall solution, which must be political.
 
I will agree with you inasmuch that no side has any moral superiority over the other. Both Hamas and Israel are at war, right now, but it will take negotiations and a political solution to resolve the issues, not war. The military of both sides has a moral duty to fight the perceived enemies to the best of their abilities, but it is up to the leadership of both sides to see to it that the military only serves the overall solution, which must be political.

I have not implied anything about morality of the situation. In my mind it is very clear that Palestinians are reacting to inhuman conditions. There is no question of moral equality here. Zionism has been a pain in the butt for World Peace. Its the last colonial project and it is bound to fail some day. Eventually Israelis will have to make peace and make concessions.

Mark my words. Two state solution is dead. It will have to be an apartheid state. There is no other way now. Israelis were never serious about peace. They were serious about land only.

Future Palestinian struggle would be for equal rights in a single state. Things will proceed like South Africa, but I hope results will be quicker.

The tragedy of Gaza is well primed as a flash point for such a campaign. Already BDS campaign is gathering steam. According to latest article by The Economist, most Americans below 30 years of age consider Gaza situation as a crime by Israel. These people will be primary decision makers within two decades.

The American Jewish community is in some turmoil over this. There is definite divergence between USA and Israel.
 
I have not implied anything about morality of the situation. In my mind it is very clear that Palestinians are reacting to inhuman conditions. There is no question of moral equality here. Zionism has been a pain in the butt for World Peace. Its the last colonial project and it is bound to fail some day. Eventually Israelis will have to make peace and make concessions.

Mark my words. Two state solution is dead. It will have to be an apartheid state. There is no other way now. Israelis were never serious about peace. They were serious about land only.

Future Palestinian struggle would be for equal rights in a single state. Things will proceed like South Africa, but I hope results will be quicker.

The tragedy of Gaza is well primed as a flash point for such a campaign. Already BDS campaign is gathering steam. According to latest article by The Economist, most Americans below 30 years of age consider Gaza situation as a crime by Israel. These people will be primary decision makers within two decades.

The American Jewish community is in some turmoil over this. There is definite divergence between USA and Israel.

Mostly well said, except that I see a two state solution rather than a single one. It will take a few decades at least to achieve. May be we will talk about this then.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Back
Top Bottom