Too Quick to Blame Iran?
August 22nd, 2006 by Stephen
Time and again we are being told by our political leaders that Iran and Syria are arming Hezbollah’s evil campaign (skipping over the detail that Israeli war crimes were being perpetrated by arms from America). We were quickly informed last week that abandoned militant positions held equipment that implicated Syria and probably Iran in arming Hezbollah.
Well now it turns out that British night vision equipment has turned up in such places. At yesterday’s Downing Street news conference, the following question was asked:
Asked about any concerns over British equipment found in Hezbollah strong holds the PMS said that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) were establishing the facts of exactly what had been found and as the situation was unclear the MoD would respond in due course and not before. When asked about weaponry found in Hezbollah hands from Syrian and Iranian origins and that the Government had suggested that it was the fault of those countries; therefore if the weapons found are British is it the fault of the British Government, PMS said that people should wait for the facts to be established
So we should wait for the facts to be established (or conveniently forgotten) before blaming Britain, but it is quite alright to blame Iran and Syria immediately.
I take it you’re not an International Human Rights Lawyer?
Right. So there seems to be some debate about the war crimes issue, doesn’t there?
there is a war crime if civilians are specifically attacked as civilians. However, it is different if they are killed as a result of a strike against a military or a “dual-use” target…
Precautions to minimise casualties should be taken and the argument is about whether such precautions the Israelis say they have taken have been sufficient.
So it isn’t simple a fact that a war crimes is committed because you say it has been committed. And as you rush to uninformed judgement, why are you so partial.
On the issue of Iran & Syria’s support..you seem to have shot away your own silly assertion by mentioning the night vision equipment. We may well have sold them to Iran but we didn’t sell them to Hezbollah, did we? So how do you think they got there?
Israel must be wiped off the map - Ahmadinejad, on Aljazeera. Pleasant chap, very unlikely to get involved. Tell you what, though, those Hezbollah chaps are getting very good at building their own rockets, aren’t they?
Of course not. It is simply a matter of looking at the facts of the matter to deduce that war crimes have been committed.
We note that UN High Commissioner Louise Arbor and the Secretary General have warned that the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon may consitute war crimes.
Human Rights Watch released this statement:
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.â€
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. ‘
Qana was certainly a war crime
Israel have systematically destroyed Lebanese civilian infrastructure, including television stations (a war crime), power (likewise), water and sewerage (and again). Israel’s definition of military targets is not consistent with International Law, and includes such things as the private residences of Hezbollah members of the elected Lebanese government. Would we justify Hezbollah bombing the civilian areas of Tel Aviv? Of course not! Unsurprisingly private residences are in civilian areas.
The Guardian has a piece on this here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1835915,00.html
You ask:
In a piece that I equally condemned Hezbollah (their “evil campaign”) and Israel. If you would like me to spell it out - yes, Hezbollah terrorists commit war crimes in firing at civilian targets. There should be no doubt that this is my view.
So my question: why do you think I am being partial when I proscribe both sides of this nasty little war?
On the issue of who is currently supplying equipment to Hezbollah, the Prime Ministers Spokeswoman suggested that we should wait for all the facts to emerge before rushing to judgement.
That advice is inconsistently applied, as I have pointed out. But if heeded, we might come to a better appreciation of the facts of the matter.
I have admitted that I could be wrong on this issue (see my Mistakes we Make When Thinking post. The trick is to allow the facts dictate what we perceive as truth, rather than go looking for facts that confirm us in our world view.
As for your comments about how hostile Iran is to Israel - see my post: Iran and Lebanon, where I set out my hypothesis about Iranian involvement, making it quite clear that Iran is hostile to Lebanon.
Finally, George Bush suggested in a recent speech that Iran was supplying Hezbollah via Syria. This makes little sense because to pass through Syria, Iranians must first pass through Turkey or Iraq. Bush seems to have forgotten that he has Iran surrounded.
His solution was to seal the Syrian border with Lebanon - which is frankly ridiculous.
But geography was never Bush’s strong point, and it may be that he has garbled a better thought out analysis… but looking at the foreign policy disaster of Iraq makes me doubt this!
the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon may consitute war
Yes. That doesn’t support your assertion that is was a war crime.
Human Rights Watch researchers found numerous cases in which the IDF launched artillery and air attacks with limited or dubious military objectives
Their researchers are military strategists? Who’d have thunk it?
Qana was certainly a war crime
No, the events in Qana have been called a war crime by some. Opinion is divided, although you don’t reflect that, and you have neither access to the facts nor a proper understanding of international law.
So my question: why do you think I am being partial when I proscribe both sides of this nasty little war?
Because you say things like this:
I have said on this blog that I don’t think it likely that Iran is involved in arming Hezbollah
which isn’t based on any assessment of evidence but rather takes an attitue contrary to the US and Israel for the sake of striking a pose.
I’ll ask the question I asked again. Let’s see if you answer it this time. The night vision equipment was delivered to Iran and ended up with Hizbollah. So why do you assert that Iran isn’t arming Hizbollah?
Care to answer that question this time?
Hezbollah has also received Iranian-supplied weaponry, including 11,500 missiles already in place in southern Lebanon. Three thousand Hezbollah militants have undergone training in Iran, which included guerilla warfare, firing missiles and rocket artillery, operating unmanned drones, marine warfare and conventional war operations. Finally, 50 pilots have been trained in Iran in the past two years
- Wikipedia
Hezbollah asked Iran for “a constant supply of weapons to support its operations against Israel” in the Israel-Lebanon conflict
- Jane’s Defence Weekly
“Mohtashami Pur, a one-time ambassador to Lebanon who currently holds the title of secretary-general of the ‘Intifada conference,’ told an Iranian newspaper that Iran transferred the missiles to the Shi’ite militia, adding that the organization has his country’s blessing to use the weapons in defense of Lebanon
- Wikipedia
You haven’t consulted even the most readily available onlone sources, preferring to spout the propaganda and spin of terrorists and rogue states.
As I say, partial. So partial there’s another word I could use.
When terrorists use civilians as human shields, it is the terrorists who are criminally responsible for the “foreseeable” deaths of the civilian shields
Military targets located in cities can be attacked so long as reasonable efforts are made to minimize civilian casualties. Indiscriminate carpet bombing of cities with no military targets is prohibited, except possibly in instances of belligerent reprisal for attacks on one’s own cities
Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Havard
You don’t have to agree with Dershowitz, supposing you’d ever bothered to read an expert opinion that clashed with your own untutored prejudice; but you could mention that there is expert legal opinion that contradicts your own amateur forays into international law.
Like I said: partial.
Hello David,
I’ll try and answer all your comments together, or else this thread will get very confused.
The International Committee of the Red Cross issued a statement after Qana to the effect: “Issuing advance warning to the civilian population of impending attacks in no way relieves a warring party of its obligations under the rules and principles of international humanitarian law.
“a distinction [must] be drawn at all times between civilians and civilian objects on the one hand, and military objectives on the other. All necessary precautions must be taken to spare civilian life and objects and to ensure that the wounded have access to medical facilities.”
What were they talking about? Israel have repeatedly used “precision” weapons to bomb civilian targets, including residences and convoys of fleeing civilians. It is rather bad form, of course, to tell someone to flee and then kill them as they do so.
But in Qana specifically, they deliberately targetted a residential building, knowing it had civilians within it, on the faulty belief that it also contained Hezbollah targets. This was as reprehensible as the American targetting of a Baghdad residence in the Iraq invasion on the belief that Saddam was there (when several young girls were among those killed. Of course, we forget such atrocities with time, don’t we. I don’t think the girl’s father will do so though).
We note that Hezbollah were firing rockets from near Qana, but actually were doing so from south of the town, whereas the residence in question was in the north. Moreover, the rockets were not fired from the populated area, but from just outside it.
It is reasonable to suppose that Hezbollah terrorists resided in the town, but they did not carry out their attacks from there. And again, no missiles had been fired on the day in question.
This was no proportional response. It was a deliberate targetting of a civilian residence, in the hope that Hezbollah fighters would be among the casualties. the munitions used were American supplied precision weapons, and they were used to bomb a civilian target (just days after the Israeli military had ignored repeated frantic calls from a UN post that they bombed, killing the UN staff).
Koffi Annan wrote that the bombing could be seen “in the broader context of what could be, based on preliminary information available to the United Nations … a pattern of violations of international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law committed during the course of the current hostilities,”
Now this is the UN secretary general. He is a politician, so he is careful with his words. But notice that if he is saying this can be seen in the broader context of a pattern of violations of international law, he has implicitly stated that this is a violation of international law.
I see no reason to change my judgement that this was certainly a war crime, but rather than asserting that there is divided opinion on the subject, I would invite you to write an apologetic for this action (preferably whilst avoiding the very thing you accuse me of: partiality).
As you will notice again in everything I write on this matter, I show no partiality to Hezbollah, who certainly bear responsibility for launching attacks from civilian areas. But that responsibility does not and cannot excuse Israel of its obligations under international law. You repeat the partiality charge in every post, as though it is a mantra you desperately want to believe. I submit it is you who shows partiality in this.
You suggest my partiality derives from my having said that I do not find claims of current Iranian involvement in Hezbollah credible. I wrote that article before any munitions finds, and I gave you a link to my reasons for saying that. Take a look at that article to see how partial I am. That was an attempt to understand the politics of the situation.
Am I wrong? Maybe. But at least I had the courage to make an analysis and state what I believe, rather than quote the sayings of respectable yes men. But you suggest I did not answer your question about the night vison equipment.
Actually I did answer. Look at the title of the thread again. “Too quick to blame Iran?”
We happily blame Iran based on the first shred of evidence, but we are told to wait for the facts of the matter when it emerges that British arms were used. Let us therefore wait for the facts of the matter. That is the answer. That is the point.
I see no reason to change my judgement that this was certainly a war crime, but rather than asserting that there is divided opinion on the subject
It isn’t a question of your judgement. I didn’t just ‘assert’ there was divided opinion. I quoted a very well known Havard legal expert as an example. You didn’t acknowledge the divided opinion, you have no training in or understanding of international law, and your bald claim that a war crime was committed at Qana is born out of sheer ignorance.
In equating Hezbollah with Israel by saying, with no legal expertise, that both have committed war crimes, you’re claiming a moral equivalence between the two. There isn’t one.
Am I wrong? Maybe. But at least I had the courage to make an analysis and state what I believe
No, not maybe. You’re wrong, you know you are, and you should say so. Awarding yourself a ‘courage’ gold star as if it were courageous to parrot propaganda with little research is self-serving nonsense.
That was an attempt to understand the politics of the situation
Well you’re failing miserably.
David, do you ever comment without acerbic hyperbole? The fine Boston institution to which you are appealing to authority is called Harvard, with an R. I presumed it was a typo first time.
You say that I have no training in or understanding of international law. Why do you think this?
Am I wrong? Not necessarily. People told me I was wrong over WMD too. I was more right than I knew!
As the PMS said, lets wait for some clarification on the situation (and in the mean time, read my thesis that I pointed you to, to understand the limitations of my observation).
I am amazed that I can write a long thesis about Qana and related issues, and you can delete the whole thing and then simply repeat an implication that because there is a contrary opinion, that the facts of the matter are irrelevent.
And read Alan Dershowitz\’s opinion piece more closely please. I think you have misunderstood him. (and even so, his piece does not stand in a vacuum. Argumentum ad verecundiam)
Your ‘thesis’ about Qana was irrelevant. I haven’t misunderstood Dershowitz, you have.
You’re wrong about Iran-Hezbollah, you’re wrong now about Dershowitz, you’re wrong to suppose decisions about war crimes are properly made by people with no training in law, you’re wrong to suppose either HRW or Kofi Annan are final (or even initial) arbiters on the matter.
You’re deeply wrong to imply an equivalence between the two parties. Israel tried to target Hezbollah terrorists, even though it failed sometimes, Hezbollah deliberately targetted civilians.
I think I understand one of your mistakes. I think you suppose that killing civilians in a war is necessarily a war crime. It isn’t. Your other mistakes I can only ascribe to an unthinking, knee-jerk, populist, anti-Americanism and anti-Israel prejudice of the sort favoured by the ragbag assemblage of fascists and theocrats of the Stop The War coalition.
Regarding Dershowitz, I have written a post which explains how you have misunderstood his opinion piece from which you quoted. I have also taken issue with the whole appeal to authority.
I have quoted material, facts and a few figures about Qana. I could quote some more, but you have just deleted without comment. It is highly relevant. You just chose to ignore it.
You say I’m wrong about Iran/Hezbollah. Your assertion is not a proof, and we will wait and see. You say “you’re wrong to suppose decisions about war crimes are properly made by people with no training in law”. This is a straw man. You are suggesting that I want to sit in judgement over the war crimes, whereas all I have said is that such crimes have certainly taken place.
If this is illegitimate, then should I also become the only person in the world who does not prejudge the criminal actions of Saddam Hussein? If I say that Saddam has committed war crimes in, say, using chemical weapons against Iran (provided by the U.S. with the knowledge of Donald Rumsfeld et al.), am I making the same grievous error in your eyes, because I (according to you) have no training in international law?
Everything I see conforms me in my view that Qana was a war crime. Even you make no attempt to refute the allegations. The same point could be made about attacks on red cross vehicles, UN observation posts and such like. Israel is as guilty of war crimes as Hezbollah. No-one has clean hands in that grubby little war (except maybe the casualties, of course).
Hezbollah does not have precision weapons. One might wonder whether they would target civilians or whether they would rather target Israeli tanks and planes if they had them. I think the latter, but I do not pretend to be able to get inside the mind of a terrorist.
The complaints from Kofi Annan, HRW and the International Red Cross are all relevant, because all three are unbiased observers in the conflict with evidence to bring to the table. Unlike Dershowitz, who is not unbiased, nor receiving first hand reports of the situation on the ground.
You say: “I think I understand one of your mistakes. I think you suppose that killing civilians in a war is necessarily a war crime.”
You do not understand. I do not make any such supposition. You need to pay attention to what I am saying, rather than putting words in my mouth.
If there are other mistakes, you have yet to demonstrate them. Simply claiming I am in error is not the same as actually taking issue with the points I have raised.
For the record I am not anti-American, nor anti-Israel in my outlook. I think there are some huge problems with current American foreign policy, but that is not anti-American (despite the witterings of Rush Limbaugh to the contrary). But these points (and the others left unaddressed) are, as usual, ad hominem, so I will stop there.