As Lebanon is bombed by Israel, I was shocked (but not surprised) to watch the BBC talk calmly on TV a few days ago - with computer generated graphics to demonstrate - how Israel was conducting war crimes (not said as such, obviously) by targetting Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure, a mirror image of Hizbollah’s repeated war crimes against Israel in Haifa and elsewhere.

Israel have so far targetted: “highway bridges, residential buildings, and an electrical sub-station“; Beirut airport, “the fuel stores of the Jiyyeh power plant”; three factories producing household goods; “production facilities of at least five companies in key industrial sectors - including the country’s largest dairy farm, Liban Lait; a paper mill; a packaging firm and a pharmaceutical plant” that “will cripple the economy for decades to come”; churches; a hospital; apparent Hezbollah TV and radio stations; highways, and more. This mimics the usual Israeli strategy of collective punishment, as carried out in the recent Gaza attacks which “included the cutting off of water and power supplies, the destruction of bridges and damaged sanitation for local Palestinians.” As Amnesty International pointed out, “The wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure and property and the disproportionate restrictions imposed on civilians by Israeli forces amount to collective punishment on the entire population of the Gaza Strip, a violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits punishing protected persons for offences they have not committed.”

Israeli PM Olmert was quite clear that “The Lebanese government is responsible. Lebanon will pay the price.” Brig. Gen. Dan Halutz said that, “Nothing is safe (in Lebanon), as simple as that,” with the press wires explaining his statements to “the residents of Dahiya”, a neighbourhood in Southern Beirut, saying that they “should understand the situation and draw the proper conclusions if concerned about their safety”. The “proper conclusions” are no doubt echoes of Israeli diplomat Abba Eban’s comments in 1981 defending Israeli bombing of civilians in Beirut, saying that “there was a rational prospect, ultimately fulfilled, that afflicted populations would exert pressure for the cessation of hostilities.” So, too, the desire here is to punish the Palestinian and Lebanon civilian populations with the “rational prospect” that they will “exert pressure” for the end to death and destruction, fulfilling one of the core requirements of terrorism. Israeli Chief of Staff Mordechai Gur also admitted in 1978 that Israel targetted civilian populations, causing Israeli military analyst Deev Schiff to remark: “In South Lebanon we struck the civilian population consciously, because they deserved it…[T]he importance of Gur’s remarks is the admission that the Israeli army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously…the army, he said, has never distinguished civilian [from military] targets…[but] purposely attacked civilian targets even when Israeli settlements had not been struck.”

Explaining the current Israeli strategy, Philip H. Gordon at the Washington Post says that “Jerusalem and Washington” hope “that the Israeli bombing campaign will put Hezbollah out of business or somehow lead the Lebanese people and army to turn against it”. He quotes retired Israeli army Col. Gal Luft as saying that Israel’s aim is to “create a rift between the Lebanese population and Hezbollah supporters.”

The message to Lebanon’s elite, he said, is this: “If you want your air conditioning to work and if you want to be able to fly to Paris for shopping, you must pull your head out of the sand and take action toward shutting down Hezbollah-land.”

“Afflicted populations” must, of course, “exert pressure”. Israel’s strategy was further explained by the head of the Chaim Herzog Institute for Media, Politics and Society at Tel Aviv University, Professor Yoram Peri: “Israel wants to make Hezbollah a liability to the Lebanese people and the Lebanese government. Israel wants to tell them that the price for Hezbollah’s attacks is too heavy and they need to put pressure on Hezbollah to disarm or to change its policies vis-à-vis Israel.”

Such statements can be quoted in the press without much analysis or criticism, despite it being an almost exact copy of bin Laden’s belief “that since the United States is a democracy, all citizens bear responsibility for its government’s actions, and civilians are therefore fair targets” , no doubt a “rational prospect” for him, too. Of course, justification for such tactics and support for Israeli atrocities are not hard to come by, such as Alan Dershowitz’s piece, entitled ‘Civilian Casualty?’ It depends. In it, he argues “that ‘civilianality’ is often a matter of degree, rather than a bright line”, mainly because the word “civilian” is now an “increasingly meaningless word” as it “equates the truly innocent with guilty accessories to terrorism”: “just who is a ‘civilian’ in the age of terrorism, when militants don’t wear uniforms, don’t belong to regular armies and easily blend into civilian populations?” he asks. A few weighted examples of how to apply his “continuum of civilianality” rule (such as comparing the death of a two year old Israeli girl “and a 30-year-old civilian who has allowed his house to be used to store Katyusha rockets”) allow him to conclude that “Every civilian death is a tragedy, but some are more tragic than others”. Just in case you wish to compare the estimated 100 Lebanese children killed to our two-year old Israeli girl, he ingeniously offers up the explanation that “women and children” can’t “always be counted as civilians” because “Terrorists increasingly use women and teenagers to play important roles in their attacks”.

To Dershowtiz, the over 300 now killed are simply guilty without evidence, just merely because they’re Lebanese and were killed by Israeli strikes. Should Dershowitz like to return to reality and read a little history, perhaps he would be aware of the praise heaped upon the terror tactics used by the early Zionist terror groups (such as the Irgun Tsvai Leumi the Stern Group) in helping form the state of Israel by targetting civilians. (See Chomsky, Fateful Triangle, Chapter 4 and elsewhere in the text. For example, see pg184). It has also been recorded that soldiers in the IDF have dressed as civilians (Ibid, pg 823). Furthermore, the practice of hiding amongst civilians is one that should be familiar to those who know of Israel’s history. Citing military historian Meir Pail, Chomsky also describes “the Arab siege of Jerusalem in 1948 in which 2000 Jews were killed”:

“the Israeli Army also prevented civilians from leaving the town, and there too military centers were situated in the midst of the civilian population” [and] that “Naturally military headquarters are at the center,” i.e., in populated areas, something that was “especially true” of the Haganah under the British mandate, “when the Israeli military network�?�was pushed under the cover of the legal civilian center, such as the Jewish Agency and the Histadrut [labor union].” Military orders were “that everyone should remain in the city.” The army prevented civilians from escaping, because “civilians are an organic part of the city just as its buildings are.” Haganah posts were placed on the roofs of houses, and drew hostile fire.” (Ibid, pg 533)

One also has to ask whether or not Israel’s current tactic of building “armaments factories and storage depots … close by Arab communities in the north of Israel … in the hope that by locating them there Arab regimes will be deterred from attacking Israel’s enormous armory” and using “several of Israel’s Arab towns and villages [as] collective human shields” should therefore be condemned, and somehow thus justifies Hezbullah’s attacks on these locations because these Arab citizens are now not so “tragic” human shields if we are to entertain Dershowitz’s views. Or perhaps the Israeli children signing bombs and artillery shells used for Lebanon are not so innocent as we’d like to think, and perhaps Hezbollah’s rockets into Haifa are a just response against those who can’t “always be counted as civilians”.

Returning to reality, it is obvious that the “rational prospect” is being applied once more in Lebanon. In an interview with a Dr Mrouwe at Tyre hospital, located in southern Lebanon, which has suffered bombings (including the bombing of their hospital) he was “Asked how [the current bombing] compared to 1996 when Israel launched an attack on the south, killing scores of civilians.” He replied: “It’s incomparable, incomparable. In 1996 the majority [of casualties] were fighters. This time we have yet to receive any fighters.” The UK Times also reported from the same area, pointing out that “The Israeli military said that it was hunting down Lebanon�??s Hezbollah guerrillas, but it is the civilian population that is bearing the brunt of the conflict. Survivors interviewed by The Times said that Israel was bombing homes, schools, the centres of villages and towns and vehicles including ambulances”, such as those of the Red Cross, bombed despite being clearly marked.

The Israeli defence force, for their part, claimed regarding their attack on the Shi’ite Dahiya quarter of south Beirut, that: “If we had chosen to bomb earlier, it would have ended with hundreds of civilians killed, and we took ethical considerations into account. On the other hand, we will not adopt a naive approach, and the model of terrorists hiding behind civilians will not be accepted.” In other words, we will kill civilians to kill terrorists, in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention, which states “The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.” Nevertheless, even if civilians wished to escape, as the 300,000 residents south of the Litani river were warned to do by Israel, they would be unable.

Commenting on the scale of the crisis, the Guardian refers to a UN report on the effect of Israeli bombing saying that “Hundreds of bridges and virtually all road networks have been systematically destroyed, leaving entire communities in the south inaccessible.”

Even then, “Israeli warplanes hit fleeing Lebanese civilians” said the LA Times, as “a minibus and a convoy of cars” tried “to flee villages around Tyre following Israeli warnings to evacuate”. Fortunately, Israeli justice minister Ramon believes “All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah�?�, claiming that �??These places are not villages. They are military bases in which Hezbollah people are hiding and from which they are operating,” and called for “Maximum firepower” as well as targetting of civilian infrastucture: “there is still electricity [in Baalbek],” he said, puzzled. Another fan of Dershowitz, apparently.

Putting all this aside, the incident that sparked off the Lebanese attacks were the kidnappings of two Israeli soldiers, rightly denounced as a crime and a terrorist attack. Similarly, in Gaza, the kidnapping of an IDF soldier sparked off massive reprisals against the Palestinians. Both incidents are worth looking at. In Gaza, the day before the Israeli soldier was kidnapped, Israel kidnapped two Palestinian civilians, justified at the time by Israel who said they were members of Hamas planning an attack against Israel. No evidence is given for these claims, and no questions arise in the media about the legitimacy of such actions, especially whether or not this somehow justified Hamas in launching a massive attack against Israel if they wished, just like Israel is now justified to destroy the civilians of Gaza.
With regards to Lebanon, there is the small question as to whether or not Hezbullah actually crossed the border to kidnap the two soldiers, or whether they were captured “during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon” (AP). According the Bahrain News Agency, the Israeli soldiers had entered the Lebanese town of Aitaa al-Chaab as Israeli aircraft flew overhead “bombing roads leading to the market town of Nabatiyeh, 60 kilometers south of Beirut”. It would be worth asking who attacked who, but this will never be answered.

Even if Hezbullah did initiate the war first, perhaps those carrying out the kidnappings could be excused for being confused since Israel themselves have resorted to kidnapping in the past, such as the kidnapping of Sheikh Abdel Karim Obeid and Mustafa Dirani - top Hizbullah officials - which were done in order to barter for Israeli soldier Ron Arad. Arad was captured as a POW by a Lebanese Shi’ite militia, Amal, when his plane crashed, damaged by an early exploding bomb meant for PLO targets in Lebanon. Attorney Amnon Zichroni recently justified this kidnapping by saying: “When I was involved in efforts to release Arad, Israel kidnapped Lebanese guerilla leaders Sheikh Abdel Karim Obeid and Mustafa Dirani, and although the kidnappings did not bring about Arad’s release, they did help in obtaining information.” So, it would appear kidnapping is useful under certain circumstances, namely if you’re Israel. Obeid was held for ten years, and then finally was released, along with others in a prisoner swap between Hizbullah and Israel. This is by far not the only instance of such kidnappings.
The fact that Israel have before negotiated peaceful prisoner swaps from kidnappings suggests that they have other goals on their mind today to change “the rules of the game”. Olmert’s demands for withdrawl were instructive, with Juan Cole providing a good breakdown: “1. The return of two captured Israeli soldiers held by Hizbullah; 2. A withdrawal of Hizbullah to the Litani River, 30 mi. or so north of the Israeli border deeper into Lebanon; 3. Cessation of rocket attacks on Israel.” As Cole points out, creating a buffer zone up to the Litani “will inspire the profoundest fear in the Lebanese that Israel is essentially attempting to move its border north and make the Litany the new border, thus staking a clear claim on the waters of the river, which Israelis have coveted since 1948.”

Furthermore, in an opinion piece for the Daily Star, Augustus Richard Norton, a professor of International Relations at Boston University, points out that the attack is more than likely all about Iran:

The Israeli response is only incidentally about the return of the captives. What is under way reflects a deep strategy that focuses on Israel’s major adversary, Iran, and simultaneously strives to sustain Israeli hegemony over its neighbors … While the generals will delight in the prospect of cutting Hizbullah down to size, the more important dimension is preparing the battlefield vis-a-vis Iran. If Hizbullah’s capacity to bombard Israel is eliminated, then it will be easier for Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear sites later. Israel has obviously been preparing for such an attack for several years, and if the United States and the other players in the so called “Five plus One” group fail in their efforts to temper Iran’s nuclear programs, Israel’s offensive in Lebanon is likely intended to make it easier to move against Iran.

Since the strategy for a war against Hezbollah in Lebanon has been planned for at least a year, it seems likely that the kidnapping incident provided Israel the pretext in order to carry out strategic objectives. As Shlomo Goldwasser, father of captured soldier Ehud Goldwasser put it, “[Udi] is a card in this game.” Perhaps it is time for the game to end. The only “rational prospect” from all this is a continued cycle of violence and deaths of civilians by both sides as they practice terrorism to achieve their aims. Unfortunately, this will only happen if the US, UK and Germany stop stonewalling the UN and EU in criticizing Israel or attempting to intervene. “EU foreign ministers called on Israel not to resort to “disproportionate action” but criticism of Israel in an original draft was diluted after pressure from Britain and Germany”, and the US an UK both prevented criticism from the G8. Furthermore, the US has vetoed at least one UN resolution, that “demanded the unconditional release of Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit … as well as Israel’s immediate withdrawal from Gaza and the release of dozens of Palestinian officials detained by Israel. It condemned the firing of rockets into Israel as well as the Israeli assault on Gaza and pressed the Jewish state to halt its “disproportionate use of force” against civilians.”