Human Rights Watch Report on the Israel-Lebanon War

Human Rights Watch has issued a report on the Israel-Lebanon War: Fatal Strikes: Israel’s Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon Aug 2006 (accessed 08/02/06 PDT).

This report documents serious violations of international humanitarian law (the laws of war) by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in Lebanon between July 12 and July 27, 2006, as well as the July 30 attack in Qana.  During this period, the IDF killed an estimated 400 people, the vast majority of them civilians, and that number climbed to over 500 by the time this report went to print.  The Israeli government claims it is taking all possible measures to minimize civilian harm, but the cases documented here reveal a systematic failure by the IDF to distinguish between combatants and civilians.

Since the start of the conflict, Israeli forces have consistently launched artillery and air attacks with limited or dubious military gain but excessive civilian cost.  In dozens of attacks, Israeli forces struck an area with no apparent military target.  In some cases, the timing and intensity of the attack, the absence of a military target, as well as return strikes on rescuers, suggest that Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilians.

The Israeli government claims that it targets only Hezbollah, and that fighters from the group are using civilians as human shields, thereby placing them at risk.  Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack.  Hezbollah occasionally did store weapons in or near civilian homes and fighters placed rocket launchers within populated areas or near U.N. observers, which are serious violations of the laws of war because they violate the duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties.  However, those cases do not justify the IDF’s extensive use of indiscriminate force which has cost so many civilian lives.  In none of the cases of civilian deaths documented in this report is there evidence to suggest that Hezbollah forces or weapons were in or near the area that the IDF targeted during or just prior to the attack. ...

While not the focus of this report, Human Rights Watch has separately and simultaneously documented violations of international humanitarian law by Hezbollah, including a pattern of attacks that amount to war crimes.  Between July 12, when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight, and July 27, the group launched a reported 1,300 rockets into predominantly civilian areas in Israel, killing 18 civilians and wounding more than 300. Without guidance systems for accurate targeting, the rockets are inherently indiscriminate when directed toward civilian areas, especially cities, and thus are serious violations of the requirement of international humanitarian law that attackers distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians. Some of these rockets, Human Rights Watch found, are packed with thousands of metal ball-bearings, which spray more than 100 meters from the blast and compound the harm to civilians.  (my emphasis)

For us Americans, who have to be concerned about how this looks in the Middle East and the Islamic world, particularly in Iraq with its Shi'a-dominated government that is momentarily our ally, the following figures provided by Robert Fisk don't look good (Entire Lebanese family killed in Israeli attack on hospital Independent 08/03/06):

The obscene score-card for death in this latest war now stands as follows: 508 Lebanese civilians, 46 Hizbollah guerrillas, 26 Lebanese soldiers, 36 Israeli soldiers and 19 Israeli civilians.

In other words, Hizbollah is killing more Israeli soldiers than civilians and the Israelis are killing far more Lebanese civilians than they are guerrillas. The Lebanese Red Cross has found 40 more civilian dead in the south of the country in the past two days, many of them with wounds suggesting they might have survived had medical help been available.  (my emphasis)

However well or poorly that may fit with anyone's cheerleading, it's a balance that presumably carries great weight,  including among Hizbullah's fellow Shi'a in Iraq.

I found the section of the Human Rights Watch report on the applicable laws especially interesting:

Many issues of international humanitarian law have arisen during fierce combat in southern Lebanon and in relation to the bombardment of populated areas by the Israeli Air Force.  Most relevant to this report are questions related to the principle of distinction (issues related to precautions to be taken in attack as well as proportionality and indiscriminateness of the attacks), the protected status of relief personnel and personnel involved in peacekeeping operations, and the duty of both sides of a conflict to take all feasible precautions to protect the civilian population and civilian objects under their control against the effects of attacks.  In this respect the parties must, to the extent feasible, avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas and remove civilian persons and objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives.   In particular, the parties must never use the presence of protected persons with the intent of rendering certain points, areas, or military personnel immune from military operations.  The use of human shields is a war crime.

Two fundamental tenets of international humanitarian law are those of “civilian immunity” and the principle of “distinction.”  They impose a duty, at all times during the conflict, to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and to target only the former.

It is forbidden in any circumstance to carry out direct attacks against civilians; to do so intentionally is a war crime. The parties to a conflict must also refrain from threats or acts of violence the primary purpose of which is to terrorize the civilian population.  Also prohibited are “attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals.” ...

In general it is prohibited to direct attacks against what are by their nature civilian objects, such as homes and apartments, places of worship, hospitals, schools or cultural monuments, unless they are being used for military purposes. 

The mere fact that an object has civilian uses does not necessarily render it immune from attack. It can be targeted if it makes an “effective” contribution to the enemy’s military activities, and if its destruction, capture or neutralization offers a “definite military advantage” to the attacking side in the circumstances prevailing at the time.

However, with regard to such “dual use” objects, combatants must choose a means of attack that will avoid or minimize harm to civilians and damage to civilian objects. In particular, the attacker should take all feasible measures to cancel or suspend an attack if it becomes apparent that the expected civilian casualties would outweigh the importance of the military objective.   This principle of customary law is codified in article 57 of Protocol 1 [of the Geneva Conventions]. ...

Violations of the norms established above, when serious, constitute war crimes.  Conduct considered to be a war crime under customary law has been enshrined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.  That codification includes the so-called “grave breaches” to the Geneva Conventions and other serious violations of international humanitarian law as well as serious violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions. 

Of particular concern in the present conflict are the following acts that constitute war crimes:

* Making the civilian population or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities the object of attack.

* Making civilian objects, that is, objects that are not military objectives, the object of attack.

* Attacking personnel or objects involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission.

* Causing incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

* Deliberately using civilians and civilian objects to shield troops and materiel from attack.