Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Amnesty International redefines 'war crimes'
Jerusalem Post ^ | 8-31-06 | ALAN DERSHOWITZ

Posted on 08/31/2006 5:35:54 AM PDT by SJackson

Just about everything Israel does to defend itself is 'illegal.'

The two principal "human rights" organizations are in a race to the bottom to see which group can demonize Israel with the most absurd legal arguments and most blatant factual mis-statements. Until last week, Human Rights Watch enjoyed a prodigious lead, having "found" - contrary to what every newspaper in the world had reported and what everyone saw with their own eyes on television - "no cases in which Hizbullah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack."

Those of us familiar with Amnesty International's nefarious anti-Israel agenda and notoriously "suggestible" investigative methodology wondered how it could possibly match such a breathtaking lie.

But we didn't have to wait long for AI to announce that Israel was guilty of a slew of war crimes for "widespread attacks against public civilian infrastructure, including power plants, bridges, main roads, seaports, and Beirut's international airport."

There are two problems with the Amnesty report and conclusion. First, Amnesty is wrong about the law. Israel committed no war crimes by attacking parts of the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon.

In fact, through restraint, Israel was able to minimize the number of civilian casualties in Lebanon, despite Hizbullah's best efforts to embed itself in population centers and to use civilians as human shields. The total number of innocent Muslim civilians killed by Israeli weapons during a month of ferocious defensive warfare was a fraction of the number of innocent Muslims killed by other Muslims during that same period in Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, Algeria, and other areas of Muslim-on-Muslim civil strife. Yet the deaths caused by Muslims received a fraction of the attention devoted to alleged Israeli "crimes."

This lack of concern for Muslims by other Muslims - and the lack of focus by so-called human rights organizations on these deaths - is bigotry, pure and simple.

AMNESTY'S EVIDENCE that Israel's attacks on infrastructure constitute war crimes comes from its own idiosyncratic interpretation of the already-vague word "disproportionate." Unfortunately for Amnesty, no other country in any sort of armed conflict has ever adopted such a narrow definition of the term. Indeed, among the very first military objectives of most modern wars is precisely what Israel did: to disable portions of the opponent's electrical grid and communication network, to destroy bridges and roads, and to do whatever else is necessary to interfere with those parts of the civilian infrastructure that supports the military capability of the enemy.

That's how the American and Britain militaries fought World War II. (In fact, Israel shows far more restraint than Britain did during World War II. Prime Minister Winston Churchill directed the Royal Air Force to bomb the center of towns with the express purpose of killing as many civilians as possible.) Had the Allies been required to fight World War II under the rules of engagement selectively applied to Amnesty International to Israel, our "greatest generation" might have lost that war.

The strategy of destroying some infrastructure was particular imperative against Hizbullah. Israel first had to ensure that its kidnapped soldiers would not be smuggled out of the country (as other soldiers had been and were never returned), then it had to prevent Hizbullah from being re-armed, especially given that Hizbullah damaged a ship using advanced radar technology provided by the Lebanese army and rockets provided by Iran.

Hizbullah was being armed by Syria and Iran - as those countries themselves admitted - and the president, government, and population of Lebanon overwhelmingly supported the militia's indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israeli civilian population centers. The Lebanese army actively supported Hizbullah's military actions. Israel was, in a very real sense, at war with Lebanon itself, and not simply with a renegade faction of militants.

HERE'S HOW law professor David Bernstein answered Amnesty's charge:

The idea that a country at war can't attack the enemy's resupply routes (at least until it has direct evidence that there is a particular military shipment arriving) has nothing to do with human rights or war crimes, and a lot to do with a pacifist attitude that seeks to make war, regardless of the justification for it or the restraint in prosecuting it [at least if it's a Western country doing it], an international "crime."

In other words, if attacking the civilian infrastructure is a war crime, then modern warfare is entirely impermissible, and terrorists have a free hand in attacking democracies and hiding from retaliation among civilians. Terrorists become de facto immune from any consequences for their atrocities.

THE MORE troubling aspect of Amnesty's report is their inattention to Hizbullah. If Israel is guilty of war crimes for targeting civilian infrastructure, imagine how much greater is Hizbullah's moral responsibility for targeting civilians! But Amnesty shows little interest in condemning the terrorist organization that started the conflict, indiscriminately killed both Israeli civilians (directly) and Lebanese civilians (by using them as human shields), and has announced its intention to kill Jews worldwide (already having started by blowing up the Jewish Community Center in Argentina.) Apparently Amnesty has no qualms about Hizbullah six-year war of attrition against Israel following Israel's complete withdrawal from Southern Lebanon.

As has been widely reported, even al-Jazeera expressed surprise at the imbalance in the Amnesty report:

During the four week war Hizbullah fired 3,900 rockets at Israeli towns and cities with the aim of inflicting maximum civilian casualties.

The Israeli government says that 44 Israeli civilians were killed in the bombardments and 1,400 wounded.

AI has not issued a report accusing Hizbullah of war crimes. Amnesty does not even seem to understand the charges it is making. Take, for example, this paragraph from its report:

Israeli government spokespeople have insisted that they were targeting Hizbullah positions and support facilities, and that damage to civilian infrastructure was incidental or resulted from Hizbullah using the civilian population as a "human shield". However, the pattern and scope of the attacks, as well as the number of civilian casualties and the amount of damage sustained, makes the justification ring hollow.

But the issue of human shields and infrastructure are different. The first relates to civilian casualties; the second concerns property damage. Of course Israel intentionally targeted bridges and roads. It would have been militarily negligent not to have done so under the circumstances. But it did not target innocent civilians. It would have given them no military benefit to do so.

The allegations become even more tenuous, as when Amnesty writes, "a road that can be used for military transport is still primarily civilian in nature." By this reasoning, terrorists could commandeer any structure or road initially constructed for civilian use, and Israel could not touch those bridges or buildings because they were once, and still could be, used by civilians. This is not, and should not be, the law.

Consider another example: "While the use of civilians to shield a combatant from attack is a war crime, under international humanitarian law such use does not release the opposing party from its obligations towards the protection of the civilian population."

Well that's certainly nice sounding. But what does it mean? What would Amnesty suggest a country do in the face of daily rocket attacks launched from civilian populations? Nothing, apparently. The clear implication of Amnesty's arguments is that the only way Israel could have avoided committing "war crimes" would have been if it had taken only such military action that carried with it no risk to civilian shields - that is, to do absolutely nothing.

For Amnesty, "Israeli war crimes" are synonymous with "any military action whatsoever."

The real problem with Amnesty's paper is that its blanket condemnations do not consider the consequences of its arguments. (It doesn't have to; it would never advance these arguments against any country but Israel.)

Amnesty International's conclusions are not based on sound legal arguments. They're certainly not based on compelling moral arguments. They're simply anti-Israel arguments. Amnesty reached a predetermined conclusion - that Israel committed war crimes - and it is marshalling whatever sound-bites it could to support that conclusion.

Amnesty International is not only sacrificing its own credibility when it misstates the law and omits relevant facts in its obsession over Israel. It also harms progressive causes that AI should be championing.

Just last year, for example, Amnesty blamed Palestinian rapes and "honor killings" on - you guessed it - the Israeli occupation. When I pointed out that there was absolutely no statistical evidence to show that domestic violence increased during the occupation, and that Amnesty's report relied exclusively on the conclusory and anecdotal reports of Palestinian NGOs, Amnesty stubbornly repeated that "Israel is implicated in this violence by Palestinian men against Palestinian women."

This episode only underscored AI's predisposition to blame everything on Israel. Even when presented with an ideal opportunity to promote gender equality and feminism in the Arab world, it preferred to take wholly unrelated and absurd shots at Israel.

Amnesty International just can't seem to help itself when it comes to blaming Israel for the evils of the world, but rational observers must not credit the pre-determined conclusions of a once-reputable organization that has destroyed its own credibility by repeatedly applying a double standard to Israel.

The writer is a professor of law at Harvard. His most recent book is Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Israel
KEYWORDS: amnestyinternational; dershowitz; israel; warcrimes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

1 posted on 08/31/2006 5:35:55 AM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Good article by the Dersh.


2 posted on 08/31/2006 5:41:16 AM PDT by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Good to see (former?)Liberal Dershowitz finally seeing the light on at least this issue.


3 posted on 08/31/2006 5:45:37 AM PDT by Vaquero ("An armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad

One liberal who really gets it.


4 posted on 08/31/2006 5:45:43 AM PDT by cripplecreek (If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Cachelot; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel; Lent; GregB; ..
If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.

also Keywords 2006israelwar or WOT [War on Terror]

----------------------------

5 posted on 08/31/2006 5:47:20 AM PDT by SJackson (The Pilgrims—Doing the jobs Native Americans wouldn't do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

6 posted on 08/31/2006 5:50:06 AM PDT by Ouderkirk (Don't you think it's interesting how death and destruction seems to happen wherever Muslims gather?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 1st-P-In-The-Pod; A_Conservative_in_Cambridge; af_vet_rr; agrace; albyjimc2; Alexander Rubin; ...
it would never advance these arguments against any country but Israel

It has used them against the U.S.

FRmail me to be added or removed from this Judaic/pro-Israel/Russian Jewry ping list.

Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.

7 posted on 08/31/2006 5:51:43 AM PDT by Alouette (Psalms of the Day: 39-43)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

At least anti-Semetic Amnesty International chose the correct initials for their organization, AI for Anti-Israel.


8 posted on 08/31/2006 5:53:30 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

The only point I take exception with is "innocent muslim civilians" or "innocent muslims" because there is no such thing. These so-called "innocent muslims" allowed hezbullah to operate in their midst.


9 posted on 08/31/2006 5:53:44 AM PDT by Ouderkirk (Don't you think it's interesting how death and destruction seems to happen wherever Muslims gather?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SJackson; All

It's hard to get through any article related to AI. They are definitely Artificially Intelligent. These clowns are a joke, might as well be part of the UN.


10 posted on 08/31/2006 5:55:44 AM PDT by unionblue83 (Duty is ours; consequences are God's. -- Stonewall Jackson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk

I especially like his opinions on torture to prevent imminent attack He basically says "You do what you have to do and you keep your mouth shut about it"


11 posted on 08/31/2006 5:58:32 AM PDT by cripplecreek (If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
Good to see (former?)Liberal Dershowitz finally seeing the light on at least this issue.

He's always seen the light where Israel is involved, his one rock of sanity.

12 posted on 08/31/2006 6:01:26 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
One liberal who really gets it.

And he's almost as extinct as the dinosaur.

13 posted on 08/31/2006 6:03:45 AM PDT by demkicker (democrats and terrorists are intimate bedfellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Why does anybody pay attention to these @$$-hats?
Kill the enemy. Destroy the infrastructure that allows the enemy to fight. Kill anybody who gets between you and the targets. Ignore idiots that are trying to support the enemy (or kill them, too!).


14 posted on 08/31/2006 6:08:29 AM PDT by Little Ray (If you want to be a martyr, we want to martyr you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Dershy has relized that islam and western civilization are at a crossroads and he has chosen sides with the west. Good for him.


15 posted on 08/31/2006 6:15:20 AM PDT by Ouderkirk (Don't you think it's interesting how death and destruction seems to happen wherever Muslims gather?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Amnesty International would have found that Nazi Germany did not commit war crimes as they did with North Vietnam and the Vietcong. Only the United States commits war crimes in the minds of this anti-American left-wing fascist bunch of idiots.
16 posted on 08/31/2006 6:21:34 AM PDT by YOUGOTIT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YOUGOTIT

AI would make it a War Crime for a Jew to cover his crotch to avoid a kick to the jewels by a Muslim.


17 posted on 08/31/2006 6:45:21 AM PDT by massgopguy (massgopguy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
The Dersh is right again... AI used to be a human rights organization til it was taken over by the Left. Now its just an international front group for a Leftist agenda that has little real connection with the human rights AI is supposed to be defending... like bashing Israel.

(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )

18 posted on 08/31/2006 7:03:26 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alouette

AI? FM!


19 posted on 08/31/2006 8:52:14 AM PDT by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Obviously, AI is part of the international cabal that constantly provides cover for the Jew-haters of the world. Their definition of a "war crime" is exactly the same as that of the terrorists. Kill them=war crime. They kill you=legitimate armed resistance. AI has about as much credibilty as the UN.


20 posted on 08/31/2006 1:04:59 PM PDT by attiladhun2 (Islam is a despotism so vile that it would warm the heart of Orwell's Big Brother)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson