Someone explain to me why Israel is "targeting" civilians

I have seen entirely too many posts lately denouncing Israel for targeting the Lebanese civilian population. Could some of you anti-Israeli types explain to me the logic of it?

As far as I can tell, targeting civilians would only enrage Israel's few allies and piss off pretty much the whole world.

So why are they doing it?

Their communications and intel are as advanced as any country, surely they have the capability to tell the difference. So why would they do it?

No diffeent than wipin out a village because a suicide bomber came from there. Its been a hallmark of the occupation. It is also against international law.

on edit - thank you for the "anti-israeli types", its nice to be labeled so I can understand better who I am. :thumbsup:

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour today expressed grave concern over the continued killing and maiming of civilians in Lebanon, Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory and called for accountability for any breaches of international law.

The High Commissioner recalled that parties to a conflict have the obligation to exercise precaution and respect the principle of proportionality in all military operations so as to prevent unnecessary suffering among the civilian population. "Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians", she said. "Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable".

"International humanitarian law is clear on the supreme obligation to protect civilians during hostilities", the High Commissioner said. "This obligation is also expressed in international criminal law, which defines war crimes and crimes against humanity".

"International law demands accountability. The scale of the killings in the region, and their predictability, could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control".

http://www.ohchr.org/english/press/media.htm

Former Supreme Court Justice Arbour (Canada) was the chief prosecutor who was pivotal in holding Milosevic responsible for his crimes in Yugoslavia:

"In 1996 she had been appointed by the Security Council as Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda , based in The Hague ."

She was appointed as the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights in 2004.

international law? I read your post twice, but could not find the evidence.

the International Criminal Court:

(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed
conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against
individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are
not military objectives;
(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or
vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in
accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled
to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international
law of armed conflict;
(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause
incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or
widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which
would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military
advantage anticipated;
(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or
buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
(vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no
longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
(vii) Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia
and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive
emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal
injury;
(viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own
civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer
of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this
territory;
(ix) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion,
education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals
and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not
military objectives;
(x) Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical
mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither
justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned
nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously
endanger the health of such person or persons;
(xi) Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation
or army;
(xii) Declaring that no quarter will be given;
(xiii) Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure
be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
(xiv) Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and
actions of the nationals of the hostile party;
(xv) Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of
war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's
service before the commencement of the war;
(xvi) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;
(xvii) Employing poison or poisoned weapons;
(xviii) Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids,
materials or devices;
(xix) Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as
bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is
pierced with incisions;


http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about/officialjournal/Rome_Statute_120704-EN.pdf

There is more, but I believe this is sufficient to determine what constitutes war crimes, it seems Justice Arbour is concerned enough to issue her press release because of what is happening so she must be seeing actions that could constitute war crimes. I suspect she is more qualified to judge than either you or me.

reality is not relevant, only the narrative.

for others to read and judge for themselves so the questions are "valuable" in themselves.

Israeli troops and tanks rolled into the southern Gaza Strip, in the biggest raid since Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005. Israel has kidnapped 64 Palestinian governmental ministers and politicians. It bombed the home of Palestinian Prime Minister Ismael Haniyeh.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made the astounding statement, "I am deeply sorry for the residents of Gaza, but the lives, security and well-being of the residents of Sderot is even more important to me." The Associated Press quoted Olmert as saying, "I want no one to sleep at night in Gaza. I want them to know what it feels like."

The crisis caused by the Israeli government has upset many Israeli citizens.

Hundreds of Israelis protested outside Olmert's home, denouncing the government as war criminals and demanding an end to the Gaza invasion. "We call for our government to stop targeting Palestinian civilians--the targeting of civilians is a war crime--and start negotiating with the elected Palestinian leaders, not to arrest them," said Yishai Menuhin, a spokesman for the peace group Yesh Gvul.

Israeli newspaper Haaretz commentator Gideon Levy also criticized the Israeli actions. He wrote, "A state that takes such steps is no longer distinguishable from a terror organization."

Israel's brutal retaliation against Palestinian civilians constitutes collective punishment. Attacks on a civilian population as a form of collective punishment violate article 50 of the Hague Regulations, which provides: "No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible."

The Fourth Geneva Convention also prohibits collective punishment. Article 33 says: "No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed." The Convention requires all states party to it to search for and ensure the prosecution of perpetrators of the war crime of "causing extensive destruction ... not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." Amnesty International called the deliberate attacks by Israeli forces against civilian property and infrastructure war crimes.

Collective punishment is likewise forbidden by Article 75 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. As four US Supreme Court justices agreed in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld last week, Article 75 is "indisputably part of the customary international law."

http://www.counterpunch.com/cohn07042006.html

Srifa was a bustling hillside village. Then yesterday the Israeli jets came

Aliyah, 30, lay on a life support machine in the Jabal Amal hospital in a coma. She was one of a handful of survivors who made it out of Srifa, a village in south-east Lebanon. The man treating her put her chances of survival at less than 20%. "She has severe injuries and has lost a lot of blood," he said.
Fatima Ali Ashma was more fortunate, but not much more. She lay on a hospital bed struggling to breathe.

snip

The attack destroyed 15 houses, killed at least 17, and wounded at least 30. It happened on a day in which 63 people were killed in the bloodiest day of the Middle East conflict so far.

snip

Silah, a nearby village, had also been hit. "They have been calling us to help them. They have five persons killed, but we cannot move them because it is still under heavy shelling," said Dr Mrouwe. "They have eight wounded, and no one can reach there to help them. I think all the wounded there will die."

more

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1824751,00.html

500,000 civilians have been displaced.

will go on for at least another week if not more. I would not be surprised if that number doubled. It is already a humanitarian crisis and it will only grow.

Are rockets fired into civilian centers deliberately collective punishment?

Where is the outrage for these acts? Why are you outraged only at a people who wish to live in peace and try to some extent to AVOID civilian casualties while they fight those who wish only their annihilation?

The U.N. has long had an anti-Israeli bias, as do you.

But sometimes the U.N. gets it right...are you familiar with resolution 1559?

You do make me laugh, I have to give you that!!

no matter what is presented, it makes no difference. You simply find a way to deflect it or ignore it by changing the subject. You are not seeking information, you are only interested in having your imaginatino validated.

To answer your question I do not have a mental registry of UN resolutions, though I am familiar with most of them by content. I am guessing that 1559 regards Lebanon. Now, without even looking I can tell by your post that if a UN resolution is against Israeli interests then its a UN bias against Israel (persecutino complex), and others are ok, "UN gets it right".

If I understand correctly, there is an issue of 100,000 land mines in South Lebanon for which Israel refuses to disclose the locations. But I'm sure you can find a justification.

You are very skilled at moving the goalposts whenever it suits you. And the contention that Israel wants to live in peace is simply ludicrous. Wha the hell are the settlements about. What is intent of taking palestinian property and calling it their own. Living in peace? Yes, there are many people in Israel and Palestine who would like that, but the people who decide are the people who profit from war.

Someone mentions Israel's atrocities? Terra! Terra! Terra!

Someone points out the history of Israel? Terra! Terra! Terra!

Someone shows clear cut evidence of Israeli snipers shooting girls and boys through the head? Terra! Terra! Terra!

Give it a rest. You know as much as I do that Israel is guilty of injustice, oppression, wrongdoing and collective punishment.

Oh, yes, the UN has a bias just because they don't agree with you. Nice diversion yet again.

You are trying to make this about terrorism, but that is a meaningless point, because Israel and Israel alone is responsible for the terrible things it does, and you are at fault for ignoring that.

There is NO WAY to put a nice spin on that.

Innocents are being killed and emotionally tortured right now. Saying, "But such and such did THIS to Israel" does NOT make that right.

Collective punishment is illegal and immoral... FOR EVERYONE.

It does not matter what someone in a group does, it doesn't matter if suicide bombing is collective punishment, if you punish others for it, that is collective punishment too.

The crime is pricely what you are implying. Retaliating against a collection of people for something. That is the crime.

It doesn't matter who is at fault. The crime is retaliation. Retaliation is not defense.

resonance to what is happening. Again, Justice Louise Arbour, the former chief prosecutor who dealt with Yugoslavia and Bosnia seems to think there is reason for concern, I will trust her judgment.

Goodnight.

address the points made or recognize your lack of veracity.

Wake up.

fits into that picture...


Be sure to listen/watch/read Robert Fisk interview from his home in Beirut on Democracy Now.

link:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/19/1345257

and this is a good website for information from inside Lebanon:

link:


http://www.electroniclebanon.net

since it doesn't work. I don't know why they continue.

Which is why Israel is not targeting civilians. It would serve no useful purpose for them whatsoever. In fact, it would damage them.

that Israel does not engage in collective punishment and at the very least has not been extremely indiscriminate in a number of its attacks.

B'Tselem - Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories:

link

http://www.btselem.org/English/

Amnesty International

link:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/israel_and_occupied_territories/index.do

Human Rights Watch

link:

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast&c=isrlpa

It also says 1000 Israelis were killed....

he human rights situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories continues to deteriorate. Some 3,700 Palestinians – most of them unarmed and including over 600 children – have been killed by the Israeli army and settlers, and almost 1,000 Israelis – most of them civilians and including more than 100 children – have been killed by Palestinians since the start of the current uprising (Intifada) in September 2000.


So it would seem civilians are dying on both sides of this conflict. And you know, I heard the other day that Hamas and Hezbollah DELIBERATELY target civilians and want to annihilate Israel off the map, and have pledged to keep fighting until they do. Is this true?

Yeah, it's late and I'm feeling just a bit sarcastic. Have good evening.

they would accept a peace settlement with Israel..unfortunatley Israel responded with increased attacks on the Gaza:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/04/28/MN222422.DTL

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5121164.stm

Hezollah and Hamas have both negotiated and dealt with Israel in the past. But no, I am not in any way shape or form an apologist for either organization. I think both groups are born of frustration and desperation and are not helping matters one bit. As Uri Avnery of the Israeli peace organization Gush Shalom points out, "in 1982, when the Shiites in the south of Lebanon, until then as docile as a doormat, stood up against the Israeli occupiers and created the Hizbullah, which has become the strongest force in the country."link: http://www.nimn.org/articles/whats_new/000539.php Hamas was originally encouraged by Israeli authorities as a counter-influcence to the PLO.link: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/26/151252

But there is a fairly straightforward step that could be taken to greatly reduce tension in the region. As affirmed by the World Court opinion in a 14 to 1 vote on 23 February 2004 link: http://www.globalpolicy.org/wldcourt/icj/2004/0223grim.htm and then the peace proposal proffered by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and supported by the Arab League. If Israel were to withdrawal from all illegally occupied lands --(these are not disputed territories--they are occupied territories-again as affirmed by the World Court decision mentioned above) a state of hostility can cease between Israel and all Arab countries which includes full recognition of Israel including exchange of ambassadors and full diplomatic relations.

I should also add that the 3 to 1 kill ratio in the occupied territories is only part of the picture:

"snip:" Palestinian terrorism has to be rejected and condemned, yes. But it should not be translated defacto into a policy of support for a really increasingly brutal repression, colonial settlements and a new wall. Soon the reality of the settlements which are colonial fortifications on the hill with swimming pools next to favelas below where there's no drinking water and where the population is 50% unemployed, there will be no opportunity for a two-state solution with a wall that cuts up the West Bank even more and creates more human suffering. " --Zbigniew Brzezinski,

read full speech - link:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003...

Organizations like Hezbollah want war, not peace. They have said so. Or sure, they may negotiate for a temporary "peace" if they believe it is in their best interest at the time, but they want perpetual war...until Israel is annihilated.

In current situation, what is needed after Hezbollah has been rendered impotent is for a massive U.N. peacekeeping force to go in with a powerful mandate. This will require U.S. leadership...doubtful, I know. It's what Clark has called for. Then we need to work with the Lebanese government by providing massive economic aid, and work with them to provide social services to Southern Lebanon that Hezbollah has been providing. The U.N. force will need to work with the Lebanese army in disarming any remanents of the militia.

Hezbollah is a cancer. There is no hope for peace until the cancer is removed from Lebanon. It is the only path to democracy.

that's not going to happen -- it would be good if they would be demilitarized -- but that's not so likely either--but perhaps possible.

Does the Israeli government want a peace based on international law that accepts equal human rights?

you might find that Israel has not been willing to accept a peace based on international law or the acceptance of equal rights with its indigenous Arab population or its neighbors.

There is an excellent and very civil debate between Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami and Professor Norman Finkelstein that aired on Democracy Now. If you are interested....

listen/download or read transcript:

http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

I see that this is about the "terror" groups, already, so you can't spoil this with your diversions. Oh, and this is me talking, not every pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli response person, so realize that much.

Those organizations want to oppose Israel. Hamas followed their ceasefire almost flawlessly until Israel murdered a family on a beach at a picnic. Naturally, anyone would want to fight those responsible for such terrible things. Those organizations have shown themselves to be willing to engage in peace, but it has been the atrocities and injustices of Israel which has instigated their responses.

The true cancer are the Zionist forces which steal and murder. Those organizations which you mentioned are trying to fight it as best they can.

are a cancer as much as Hezbollah is. They THRIVE on this conflict, just like certain members of the IRA who don't want peace.

views it as collective punishment (how could we not?), it is damaging them. I personally don't see it as "intentional", but as callous disregard. How is that any better?

There can be no HONEST disagreement about that.

Spinning quicker than atop there....

I believe that by killing enough civilians they hope to persuade those left alive that aligning with Hezbollah is not good for them. As I said above, it is no different than leveling a village in Gaza to punish them for the acts of a few.

that will ever change your thinking. You have formed your narrative, your life is based on that narrative, and to question it is to jeopardize your understanding about a lot of things. That is painful and only the strong minded can accomplish that task.

I prefer evidence.

You can take comfort in your guile and cunning.

And hope for peace, I might add. I think we both at least share that.

Have a good evening.

As you level an entire city and murder innocents after causing the situation in the first place.

Lebanese 250+ Isreali 25. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5961513,00.html

Clarkie1 is one of the good guys please remember that

But you are REVELING in refusing to open either. That is the path to destruction and death: closed minds, closed eyes. Closed hearts.

so Israel is just collectively punishing the entire country of Lebanon, for no good reason. Even though doing so would result in the whole world being against them and result in massive sanctions and reparations.

absolutely nothing anyone says that does not fit with your thinking will be considered. So why even bother with these threads? You ask a question for which you really don't want to hear answers, all you want is a flame-fest. What's your point? Why bother? Why not just join the other 95 threads just like it? This is absurd.

Israel IS collectively punishing an entire country (for something Israel indirectly caused no less) for no good reason. Israel has indicated that it doesn't care what any country thinks, so your theory is incorrect. Furthermore, the US backs Israel, and that covers any country's bases, so why would they care about sanctions in the first place? Get a grip.

and they should stop already. None of this makes sense and it will not work in Israel's favor from any POV.

I can't imagine how they think this will help cool things down vis a vis terrorism.

They hate them.

Where to begin...

Start here

It does not matter to the victims and their families any way. The focus in this moment for me is ending these barbaric attacks on innocent people.

it seems that Israel does have a disdain for the people of Lebanon (not to mention Palestine). First, the two countries do not have a nice history, and I do think that this plays a role in it. Secondly, Israel has convinced itself that it is justified no matter what, so if anyone gets in their way, they are just in their way. Third, Israel has displayed this sort of collective punishment attitude before in many instances, as well as a complete disregard for other peoples (Sabra and Shatila comes to mind), so this is part of it as well.

I should have realized that Israel was such a silly country that they would risk the wrath of the world just to kill some Lebanese civilians.

:sarcasm:

about the rest of the world. This was made apparent when a recognized international court ruled their wall illegal, and they built it anyway. It was made apparent time and again.

They care not for the lives of innocents, they care not for decency, they care not for justice.

Sharon had a part in the massacre of civilians in Lebanon, and within 20 years Israel elected him Prime Minister, and Bush hailed him as a 'man of peace'. So there doesn't seem to be much 'risk' to them - a few Israeli civilians who live near the border may get killed, but that's the only downside for the Israeli government. I think the Israelis are practising "shock and awe" - telling the Lebanese, and by implication the Syrians, that when the Israelis decide to attack, they will kill at random on a large scale. The thinking is that this will get the civilians to do everything possible to get rid of Hizbollah, or anyone else who threatens Israel. Also, the killing of civilians and the destruction of civilian infrastructure means the country becomes poorer, and less able to defend itself against future Israeli attacks.

They ignore the ill feeling this creates, just as the USA has ignored the ill feeling that invading Iraq and killing civilians there has created. Yes, in that sense it is 'silly'. 'Amoral' may be the more important adjective - they don';t mind killing some Lebanese if it scares those left alive.

How can we explain something that isn't happening?

I only suppose that you have a unique definition of "targeting", or you include Hezbullah guerrillas as "civilians".

Lebanon has been "torn to shreds", and you are saying they're only targeting guerrillas? What? It is clear that Israel has no regard for the lives of innocents.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5196800.stm

"About 230 Lebanese people have been killed since then - the vast majority of them civilians, but including about 30 soldiers."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5192036.stm

it says as much in the body of my original post. In almost every thread though the "Hezbollah Attack Drones" come in and bleat out "ISRAEL IS EVIL AND SICK!!! THEY ARE TARGETING CIVILIANS!!".

My point in the OP was there is no logical reason why Israel would target civilians. Which the "Hezbollah Attack Drones" oh so succinctly prove my point, as their only defense of the argument "Israel is targeting Civilians", when faced with that difficult question "why?", can only respond with more bleating in the form of "Because Israel is evil!!!"

that is what Hezbollah and Hamas does.

Read up:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1516268,00.html

What does Israel "not" do? Don't even make me bring up things like Sabra and Shatila or their latest "hit" of shelling a family at a beach picnic. Try thinking.

which is that Israel aren't targeting civilians; they're targeting the ability of Hezbollah to respond with any show of force once Israeli ground forces enter Lebanon, which includes bombing roads and airports to cut supply lines, bombing telecommunications facilities and radio transmitters to disrupt lines of communication, and directing airstrikes against areas known to be centres of Hezbollah activity and likely locations of Hezbollah leaders, in order to disrupt the chain of command and demoralise the potential resistance.

All of which are standard tactics in operations of this nature; the wholesale slaughter of civilians, on the other hand, would serve no tactical or strategic purpose in Israel attaining the goal they seek (quite aside from the fact that it would render them pariahs in the court of world opinion).

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fi-rockest215jul15,0,1109798.story?coll=la-home-headlines

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/VBOL-6RVDR3?OpenDocument

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=74078

Yes, of course, when trying to stop terrorist attacks, you'd attack a grain silo. Silly me, why didn't I think of that before? Grain silos are almost WMD, aren't they?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't understand what you're saying

pretty much sums it up as far a isreal is concerned.

any civilians nearby?

Why is that?

...Israel is not targeting Lebanese civilians. They just have this annoying propensity for getting in the way of all those bombs that Israel keeps dropping on their country. If the Lebanese people would just get the hell out of the way of the bombs, there'd be no problem. Duh!

civilian and terrorist. They just kill whatever is in the way.

funny typo

The claims that they are based on the number of dead (which actually is surprisingly low under the circumstances) and the level of damage to the transportation and communications infrastructure (collective punishment).

What is being forgotten is that the Israelis are claiming (and so far it seems to hold up) valid military reasons for doing it.

They are also ignoring that the Hezbollah put their installations and weapons in the middle of populated areas in hopes for forestalling counter strikes or gaining martyrs it the IDF shot back. That is in violation of the Geneva Convention and the IDF can not be held accountable for that.

When all is said and done, there will be a lot of noise made an the UN and elsewhere, but nothing will really come of it. Lebanon will be in tatters for another generation. People will have died for nothing they were responsible for, and a great many displaced. Hezbollah and their foreign sponsors should pay the bill for that, but I doubt they will unless the IDF gets lucky.

Glad to know we can't criticize the actions of a sovereign nation against another sovereign nation. Guess I'm REALLY just an "Anti American type."

I have seen none.

As usual. False choice. Remember the false choice about the Iraq invasion, anti-invasion people being called "pro-saddam" over and over and over and over and over and over and over? Suddenly it's forgotten...

Where they came from, their relation to biblical Isarelites, who is Semitic and who isn't, who were the Khazars, etc. I not trying to start a flame war but a little research might help people understand the history of this region and why it will be in flames during our own lifetime. The information is out there and Google is very helpful although many sites that existed six years ago when I did my research have since been removed.