In recent days Israel has intentionally bombed government ministries in Gaza, a television station, university buildings, and a number of mosques. The UN estimates that one out of four of the dead in Gaza are civilians. Are they collateral damage or deliberate targets? In a December 30 Washington Post article (Israel Rejects Truce) various Israeli officials admitted their intention to target civilians. The article quoted Maj. Avital Leibovitch, an Israeli defense spokeswoman, who said the targets would include the civilian wing of Hamas this time, not just the military wing. “Anything affiliated with Hamas," she said, "is a legitimate target,” including "ostensibly civilian operations." I was surprised at the forthrightness of the Israeli officials. Under international law, targeting civilians, of any political affiliation or creed, is a war crime.
The Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem recently released a statement to the press, entitled “Targeting Civilians is Forbidden.” The organization states that, while Palestinian rocket fire at Israeli civilians constitutes a war crime, Israel also must defend its civilians in a manner that complies with international humanitarian law. In the United States, too few people are speaking out, perhaps because they fear being branded as anti-Semitic or perhaps because they simply agree with Israel's attack. An AOL poll shows that over 70 percent of respondents believe Israeli's actions in Gaza are justified.
I don't agree, but as Israel openly bombs civilians, I am complicit. Israel is carrying out these attacks with F-16 fighter jets and missiles provided by US taxpayers. Now a ground offensive has begun. We must ask ourselves whether we want the blood of children, women and unarmed reporters, government ministers, students and worshippers on our hands. If not, we must speak out.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Ezili Danto
the Zen Haitian
FirstAwake
David Danzig
Faith Paulsen
Lainey
Salon.com
Comments
A legitimate concern for sure. My take is that both sides are willing to sacrifice innocents, and have been doing so for a long time. Until the Arab nations wake up and get involved in a humanitarian way, and until Israel truly backs out of Gaza and the West Bank, then I fear the insanity will continue. This is a 2009 version of a centuries old conflict. Neither side is listening to any "outsiders."
Rated
1. If one were to interpret that targeting the civilian wing of Hamas means targeting the government institutions of Hamas, there is a different meaning than targeting civilians who are just the average shopkeepers, doctors, etc. So, I ask you this question, "Is it OK to target the government leaders of an enemy rather than only the military members?" I'm not asking you to research "just war" dogma or anything. I just want your opinion so I can understand what boundaries you believe are relevant for fighting a war.
2. You appear to be someone that I was targeting with a post I did earlier today that has to do with opposing the policies that different participants are pursuing in the Middle East. The post is here: Mideast Relativity. What to Oppose? Again, I'm interested in people's opinions.
"The 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents . . . (which the United States signed) bans attacks against heads of state while they conduct formal functions, heads of government while they travel abroad, and diplomats while they perform their duties. The Protected Persons Convention was intended to ensure that governments could function and negotiate even during war. Without it, countries might start a war (or get drawn into one) and then find themselves unable to stop because there was no leader at home to make the decision to do so and because their representatives were getting picked off on their way to cease-fire negotiations. "
The website goes on to mention the ban on assassinations that the US government put into place decades ago and has had to circumvent by claiming to be aiming for a control and command headquarters.
" . . . in 1986, U.S. Air Force and Navy planes bombed Libya after a Libyan terrorist attack against a nightclub frequented by American soldiers in Berlin. One of the targets was Muammar Qaddafi’s tent. During Desert Storm in 1991, we bombed Saddam Hussein’s official residences and command bunkers. After the United States linked Osama bin Laden to terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, we launched a cruise missile attack at one of his bases in Afghanistan. In each case, U.S. officials insisted that our forces were merely aiming at "command and control" nodes or at a building linked to military operations or terrorist activities. In each case, however, the same officials admitted off the record that they would not have been upset if Qaddafi, Saddam, or bin Laden had been killed in the process."
To answer your question more directly, a civilian is a civilian, although I suppose it could be argued that a head of government assumes a certain level of risk along with his position. I have a feeling that Israel will face charges of violating international law and it will be interesting to see if the bombing of the ministries is among those charges.