Israeli leaders have been using NATO's Kosovo War as an excuse for bombing civilians. Here's one version: Olmert chides European leaders for slamming Israel's offensive Ha'aretz/Reuters 08/06/06. Olmert's statement came in an interview with the German paper Welt am Sonntag:
"Where do they get the right to preach to Israel?" Olmert said when asked about criticism from European capitals of Israeli military operations that have led to a heavy civilian toll.
"European countries attacked Kosovo and killed ten thousand civilians. Ten thousand! And none of these countries had to suffer before that from a single rocket.
Some 10,000 Albanians died in Serbia's 1998-99 counter-insurgency war and there were allegations of random brutality by both sides.
"I'm not saying it was wrong to intervene in Kosovo. But please: Don't preach to us about the treatment of civilians."
The Welt am Sonntag interview is at "Sie haben Israel sowieso gehasst" 06.08.06. The sentences translated above in the Reuters article is contained in the following passage:
Die europäische Kritik an Israel in jüngster Zeit ist sehr scharf gewesen. Wie erklären Sie sich das?
Olmert: Es ist eine falsche Wahrnehmung. N ur weil wir eine starke Armee und eine Luftwaffe haben, müssen wir noch lange nicht tolerieren, dass Raketen auf uns geschossen werden. Unsere Toleranz ist am Ende. Es ist das Recht eines jeden Landes auf dieser Welt, sich zu verteidigen.
Ist bei der Kritik auch Antisemitismus im Spiel?
Olmert: Eher Vorurteile und Kurzsichtigkeit. Woher nehmen sie eigentlich das Recht, Israel zu predigen? Die europäischen Länder haben Kosovo angegriffen und zehntausend Zivilisten getötet. Zehntausend Zivilisten! Und keines dieser Länder hatte zuvor auch nur durch eine einzige Rakete zu leiden! Ich sage nicht, dass es falsch war, im Kosovo einzugreifen. Aber bitte: Predigt uns nicht über den Umgang mit Zivilisten.
Here is an earlier version, quoted by William Arkin in Reading Lebanese Civilian Casualties Early Warning blog Washington Post 07/27/06:
Appearing on CNN on Tuesday, Shimon Peres, an otherwise well-informed official, even said that the level of civilians deaths in Lebanon wasn't high because, look how many people NATO killed in the Kosovo war, "over 10,000."
Arkin continues:
The 10,000 figure caught my attention, because I conducted the definitive civilian bomb damage assessment (for Human Rights Watch) after the 1999, 78-day Kosovo bombing. We concluded that just more than 500 civilians died as a result of NATO bombing. That Israel's deputy prime minister has such a distorted image is worrisome, and it says an awful lot about the abuses of civilian casualties by politicians and commentators to make political points. (my emphasis)
Although it's maybe over-emphatic, this article does shed light on some of the questionable aspects of the apparent success of the massive bombing campaign in the Kosovo War: Operation Allied Force and the Role of Air Power by Earl Tilford, Jr., Parameters Winter 1999-2000. Tilford writes:
Arguably, the bombing facilitated the attainment of Serb strategic objectives. First, bombs falling back home in Serbia made it easier to inspire Yugoslav soldiers and Serb thugs to continue committing the kind of atrocities associated with ethnic cleansing. More than one surviving Albanian Kosovar reported that the Serbs answered their pleas for mercy by telling their victims to "take it up with Bill Clinton." Second, while Milosevic might have hoped to outlast NATO's cohesion, he could not have hoped to defeat a concerted attack by the Alliance, especially if it initiated a ground campaign, or survive a war of attrition given the resources of the 13 nations contributing to the operation. But NATO ruled out a ground attack into Kosovo and chose to use air power alone, primarily as a coercive instrument.
Politically, Milosevic could not allow the foreign occupation of Kosovo withoutputting up a fight. At some point, after it was clear that taking a continued battering would be futile, he could - and did - sign an agreement, claiming that the survival of the nation was at stake. In the end, although Yugoslavia sustained a good deal of damage to its industrial and communications infrastructure, which will continue to exact a toll on its already weak economy for some time to come, Milosevic and his regime survived. With regard to President Clinton's third objective -deflating Serb military capabilities - Milosevic's forces, particularly the land forces that are the bedrock of his military strength, remain intact. NATO's operational and tactical defeat, i.e., its failure to seriously diminish the capacity of Yugoslavia's land forces, thus produced a telling strategic reverse. (my emphasis)
1 comment:
Whether 500 or 10,000, Olmert's point is still valid. The air war against Serbia risked civilian casualties to avert a greater evil - but as in all air campaigns that risk was a questionable one to take given that ground troops might have been able to fight with greater discrimination.
The fact is that those who criticize Israel in this war have a hurdle of fairness before them that few can clear except for committed pacifists and appeasers.
There is a double standard working here. Israel is simply not permitted to defend itself without being accused of targeting civilians, although NATO and others will claim that such losses at their hands can be excused as incidental.
Olmert is correct in his basic argument, even if one grants Arkin his numerical claims.
Neil
Post a Comment