Israel's Lebanon Travel Ban An Open Violation Of International Law

[bigtree]

Israel isolates Tyre with threat to bomb all traffic

No exemptions for humanitarian convoys says military

Jonathan Steele in Tyre and Conal Urquhart in Metulla
Wednesday August 9, 2006
The Guardian

Israeli aircraft dropped leaflets over Tyre yesterday morning, warning people not to use vehicles south of the Litani river, heightening the city's sense of isolation.

All roads north and south of the port city have been cut by bombing in the last few days and Israeli authorities have refused permission for any ships to dock.

The travel ban had no time limit and mentioned no exceptions, even for ambulances and humanitarian convoys. Addressed to "Lebanese civilians south of the Litani River", it said: "Read this carefully and follow its instructions. The Israeli Defence Forces will escalate their operations and will strike with force against terrorist elements who are using you as human shields and firing rockets from inside your homes against Israel..." All vehicles would be bombed the letter said. It was signed "State of Israel".

Jakob Kellenberger, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, was forced to walk across the footbridge on a visit to Tyre yesterday. Access for civilians was his major concern, he said, a point he would emphasise during meetings in Israel today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1840059,00.html


argue with this: (http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm)

Protocol 1

Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977

PART IV: CIVILIAN POPULATION
Section 1: General Protection Against Effects of Hostilities

Chapter I: Basic Rule and Field of Application

Article 48: Basic Rule

1. In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.


Article 51: Protection of the Civilian Population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.


Article 52: General Protection of Civilian Objects

1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.


Article 54: Protection of Objects Indispensable to the Survival of the Civilian Population

2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.


Chapter IV: Precautionary Measures
Article 57: Precautions in Attack

1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.
2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
1. those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:

1. do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;

2. take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;

3. refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

2. an attack shall be canceled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

3. effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not pemmit.
3. When a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining a similar military advantage, the objective to be selected shall be that the attack on which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects.

4. In the conduct of military operations at sea or in the air, each Party to the conflict shall, in conformity with its rights and duties under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, take all reasonable precautions to avoid losses of civilian lives and damage to civilian objects

5. No provision of this article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.


full list of provisions: http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm

[Kagemusha]

1. Like they care.

Back to the doctrine of if military necessity is to kill 'em all, then kill 'em all.

[fuzzyball]

2. Laws mean didly squat unless someone can enforce them

and no one wants to get involved in the Israel-Hezbullah
war. Laws have meaning ONLY when there is a strong authority
with muscle behind it to enforce the law. US can get away with
breaking any international law because there is no one strong
enough to enforce it.

[bigtree]

3. this should be a factor in any 'peace' negotiation

who will defend the safety, security, and livelihoods of innocent Lebanese?

[Praetorian7]

12. It's a horrible tragedy

... but let's not forget about those suffering accross the border in Israel as Katyusha rockets rain on civilians. Noone ever mentions that Hizb'allah intentionally targets civilian areas.

[bigtree]

20. Of course Israel is on the defensive. That's already been established

they have the world at their backs as they push forward into Lebanon. But THEY bear ultimate responsibility for their actions. The rules of engagement are flexible enough to allow for 'direct' defense against 'concrete' targets. What they don't allow is the type of bombing from the air of populated areas with weapons that don't effectively distinguish between civilians and their stated target, Hizbollah, because of the disproportionate force of the ordinance.

I mention Hizbollah's crimes all of the time, but I don't expect much from folks who lob rockets indiscriminately into towns and cities in Israel, but I certainly expect more from those who profess to be so concerned with the preservation of innocent life, despite the fact it's the lives of their own they are ultimately defending. At no point should it be determined by anyone that the lives of innocent Lebanese are any less important than the stated target of Israels attacks or the lives they say they are defending.

[Little Star]

23. Believe me MANY mention it all the time.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Behind the Aegis]

8. smooth...

...not! :eyes: :puke:

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rex]

5. Hezbollah doesn't even need to do recruiting with news like this.

This will just escalate the violence to a higher level IMO.

[IChing]

6. Nationalism can no longer defend itself from being separate from

the rest of the planet.

At least Logically.

[Truthiness Inspector]

7. It's a good thing the journalist could get out

Jakob Kellenberger, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, was forced to walk across the footbridge on a visit to Tyre yesterday.

Maybe people should be walking OUT of Tyre, instead of into it. Rockets have been launched from Tyre by Hezbollah.

[Chulanowa]

10. So obviously everyone in Tyre deserves to die!

[Truthiness Inspector]

11. I said that where? Quote me please. n/t

[951-Riverside]

15. Quoting you quoting the story....

You quoting the story:

Jakob Kellenberger, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, was forced to walk across the footbridge on a visit to Tyre yesterday.

What you said in response to that quote:

Maybe people should be walking OUT of Tyre, instead of into it. Rockets have been launched from Tyre by Hezbollah.

As it relates to the Red Cross if they abandon Tyre there will be a humanitarian crisis, there are real human beings living in that town and if the Red Cross simply turns its back people like they did in New Orleans will die as a result.

[Truthiness Inspector]

16. Thanks

for making a tangental point.

[Chulanowa]

26. Well, what did you mean, then?

I've seen enough posts around DU screaming for the death of as many Lebanese as possible for the crime of being in proximity to Hezbollah to choke a rhinoceros. So perhaps my leg jerked when I saw one from you that seemed to fit the pattern.

What did you mean in your statement?

[bigtree]

21. it's estimated that there are upwards of 250,000 in Tyre

most have fled there to escape the bombing in their own towns. Is it reprisal? It can't be the type of defense alowed by international rules of engagement, not with missiles dropped from the air over populated areas. That's illegal (and immoral) no matter how many times Israel brings up the actions of Hizbollah as an excuse.

It still remains to be see whether Israel is actually aware of a specific target or if these attacks are just scattershot reprisals. There doesn't seem to have been any significant lessening of Hizbollah's ability to launch rockets into Israel as a result of the airstrikes which have killed over a thousand Lebanese. There's no evidence that air-bombing Tyre will have any different effect.

[FlavaKreemSnak]

14. Aren't America and Israel exempt from international laws?

I don't know a lot about it, but I don't think they apply to America or Israel, and I think America can make exemptions for other countries on a case by case basis. It is decided according to our interests and military objectives, isn't it?

[bigtree]

22. only in that they haven't signed on to any tribunal who would judge them

but, they use international law as a crutch when they want to move forward with their militarism. UN resolutions which give them a free hand are trumpeted, and others which would sanction and restrain them are routinely ignored.

I think Israel's violation of international compacts (along with Hizbollah's) should be weighed accordingly in the 'peace' negotiations. There has to be some protection granted the Lebanese civilians from Isreal's scattershot reprisals. Especially if the world intends for them to stand between Hizbollah and Israel.

[evox]

17. Israel is in breach with a number of UN resolutions

as well as International Law. However, since Israel is obviously above the law, they get away with anything.

[Behind the Aegis]

18. Such astute observations...

...well, not really. Israel is only "above the law" to posters like yourself, with an agenda.

[bigtree]

24. what's your 'agenda' in questioning other's?

Israel is operating 'above the law' by targeting these populated areas of Lebanon with their airstrikes. The force and direction of their attacks is in direct violation of sections of the Geneva Convention Protocol 1, Article 51:


Article 51: Protection of the Civilian Population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

1. those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
2. those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
3. those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
1. an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and
2. an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited. (sending a message)
7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.

the rest of the provisions: http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm

[malaise]

19. Until Israel is forced

to suffer for violating international law, her leaders will continue to violate all of human law with impunity.

[bigtree]

25. they should at least be held accountable in a way that prevents

further scattershot reprisals directed at the Lebanese population.