Israel Matzav

Britain's Guardian plays prosecutor, judge and jury; convicts IDF of 'war crimes': Part 2 of 3

The British Daily Guardian runs three articles in Tuesday's editions in which Israel is accused, judged and found guilty of war crimes. In one article, Israel is accused of using a drone that can see 'everything' to fire on an innocent family sitting in the courtyard of its home drinking tea, killing four people and to fire on a group of girls carrying a white flag killing two people. In the second story, Israel is accused of using three 'Palestinian' brothers as 'human shields' to prevent IDF tanks and personnel from being fired upon. In the third story, Israel is accused of firing upon 'Palestinian' medical workers - including ambulance crews (whose members are interviewed) and hospitals (for which only pictorial evidence is provided). Each story comes with a video of the interviews with the 'Palestinians.' (Hat Tip: Melanie Phillips).

I'm going to split this into three separate posts, because one post will be too long. Due to the risk that someone may read one post and not all three, the introduction about the Geneva Convention that follows will appear in all three posts. This is the second post.

When watching the videos and reading the articles, there are a number of points you must bear in mind. First, the Guardian consistently misstates 'international law.' From watching these videos, you would think that it is absolutely forbidden to attack anyplace where there are civilians, and especially not 'medical crews' and the like. But this is not the case. Let's look at the Geneva Convention on this point.

Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states:

The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations

Article 51/7 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions (adopted in June 1977) specifies:

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, favour 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.

That means that if Hamas is hiding 'fighters' in hospitals, Israel may target those hospitals. It means that if medics are doubling as 'fighters,' Israel may attack those medics.

At least one of the videos makes reference to Israel's actions being 'disproportionate.' But the proportionality test to which they are referring never comes into play because of Hamas' (documented) use of human shields. This is from a post that I did about the Qana incident in Lebanon in the summer of 2006 - just substitute Hamas for Hezbullah. The original article from which it was taken is here.

International law has three major prohibitions relevant to the Qana incident. One forbids deliberate attacks on civilians. Another prohibits hiding forces in civilian areas, thereby turning civilians into "human shields." A third prohibition, the proportionality restriction that Israel is accused of violating, involves a complicated and controversial balancing test.

Geneva Convention Protocol I contains one version of the proportionality test, the International Criminal Court Statute another; neither is universally accepted. As a result, the proportionality test is governed by "customary international law," an amalgam of non-universal treaty law, court decisions, and how influential nations actually behave. It does not hinge on the relative number of casualties, or the force used, however, but on the intent of the combatant. Under customary international law, proportionality prohibits attacks expected to cause incidental death or injury to civilians if this harm would, on balance, be excessive in relation to the overall legitimate military accomplishment anticipated.

At Qana, Israeli aircraft fired toward a building to stop Hezbollah from shooting rockets at its cities. The aircraft did not deliberately target civilians; but Hezbollah rockets are targeted at civilians, a clear war crime. U.N. humanitarian chief Jan Egeland last week called on Hezbollah to stop its "cowardly blending" among women and children: "I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this." If Hezbollah used Lebanese civilians in Qana as "human shields," then Hezbollah, not Israel, is legally responsible for their deaths.

If Israel was mistaken and Hezbollah was not firing from or hiding amongst these civilians, the legality of its action is assessed by the proportionality test. Because the test is vague, there have been few, if any, cases since World War II in which a soldier, commander or country has been convicted of violating it. In the absence of guidance from the courts, determining whether Israel's military has failed the proportionality test depends on an assessment of what civilian casualties it expected, what its overall military goals are, the context in which the country is operating, and how the international community has in practice balanced civilian risk against military goals.

With all of that in mind, let's go to the second videotape.



I want to start with the two earlier incidents, which have nothing to do with this story. I don't recall any incident in which it was proven that the IDF used 'human shields' in 2007. And yes, I was blogging by then.

As to the boy tied to the front of the border police jeep, there is no proof that he was being used as a 'human shield.' More likely, he was put there to prevent him from throwing stones and the like at Israeli troops and subsequently let go.

The IDF did in fact have a method of operation called the 'neighbor policy' several years ago. Whenever a terrorist was holed up in a house, they would send a neighbor (not followed by IDF soldiers) to knock on the door and ask the terrorist to come out. They figured that the terrorist was less likely to shoot at a neighbor than at IDF soldiers. Israel's Supreme Court ruled that policy illegal several years ago.

As to the three brothers, the only 'proof' of their claims is that they made them. If Israel really did what they claim it did, why would it have let them go? Why would it not have arrested them on trumped up charges or killed them? Why would it allow them to go home and speak to the international media? Are we that foolish?

But by far the most outrageous claim in this video is the claim that Hamas does not use 'human shields,' a claim made in the names of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Here is some proof to refute that claim:

A report issued on Monday by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center in Herzliya presents evidence that during last week's fighting in Gaza, Hamas sought to place civilians in the line of fire and use them as 'human shields' in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (Hat Tip: Melanie Phillips).

19. During the IDF activity in the Gaza Strip both Hamas and the PIJ called upon Palestinian civilians to gather in places where, they claimed, the IDF was about to attack. That was done to have them serve as human shields, exploiting the fact that the IDF avoids deliberately harming Palestinian civilians. The terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza Strip have used the tactic before.

20. The following are examples of calls in the Palestinian media for Palestinians civilians to serve as human shields:

1) Hamas's Al-Aqsa TV and PalMedia Website called upon civilians to form a human shield at the home of Abu al-Hatal in the Sajaiya neighborhood (in Al-Sha'af according to other version) because the IDF had threatened to blow it up (March 1).

The picture above appeared on Hamas' Al-Aqsa television on March 1. The Arabic inscription reads: “Hamas calls upon on [the Palestinian] public to come to the house of Abu al-Hatal in al-Sha'af [neighborhood] to act as human shields” (Al-Aqsa TV, March 1).

2) Al-Aqsa TV called upon the Palestinians in the northern Gaza Strip to go to the house of shaheed Othman al-Ruziana to protect it because the IDF was threatening to blow it up (February 29).

3) Al-Aqsa TV called upon the residents of Khan Yunis to gather at the house of Ma'amoun Abu ‘Amer because the IDF was threatening to blow it up (February 28). An hour later dozens of Palestinians from Khan Yunis were reported to have gathered on the roof of Abu ‘Amer's house to serve as human shields to prevent the house from being hit (Pal-today Website, February 28) .

4) Al-Aqsa TV called upon Palestinians in the northern Gaza Strip to go to the house of shaheed Musab al-Ja'abir to protect it because Israel was threatening to blow it up (February 29).

5) The PIJ's Radio Sawt al-Quds called upon civilian to gather around the house of Fawzi Abu al-Hamed in the Absan al-Kabira region to prevent it from being blown up by the IDF (March 1).

21. Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniya boasted to Al-Jazeera TV of the “firm stance” of the Palestinians. As an example he said that the “occupation” had threatened to blow up buildings but nevertheless hundreds and thousands of Palestinians had left their homes “in the middle of the night” and gone up on the roofs of the houses the Israelis had threatened to blow up (Al-Jazeera TV, February 29).

And here is some more proof (the link is to a video).

And finally, for good measure, let's go to the videotape.



Note especially the kids being dragged by Hamas 'fighters' beginning around the 4:25 mark.

Hamas doesn't use human shields? Any organization that makes that claim has no credibility whatsoever.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:56 PM