Proportionality and War Crimes

This NYTimes article at least shows that all sides of the conflict are being held to the standard and not just Israel. My question is, if a person allows a terrorist to store missiles in their home, does that make them a combatant or a civilian? I'm guessing that the Red Cross would call them a civilian.

The United Nations' top human rights official said Wednesday that the killing and maiming of civilians under attack in Lebanon, Israel and Gaza and the West Bank could constitute war crimes.

"The scale of 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," said Louise Arbour, the high commissioner for human rights.

Here is another reason why terrorists shouldn't be accorded the protections of the Geneva Conventions, they have no recognized structure that can be held accountable. But then, by definition, isn't a terrorist a war criminal?

"International humanitarian law is clear on the supreme obligations to protect civilians during hostilities," she said. That same obligation exists, she added, in international criminal law, which defines war crimes and crimes against humanity.

"Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians," she said in a statement released by her Geneva office. "Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged innocent civilians is unjustifiable."

The Swiss-based International Red Cross, the recognized guardian of the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war, said Wednesday that Israel had violated the principle of proportionality provided for in the Conventions and their protocols.

It also noted that Hezbollah was firing rockets into northern Israel. "Hezbollah fighters too are bound by the rules of international humanitarian law, and they must not target civilian areas," it said.

I really would like to know how the IRC has made the determination that the Israeli actions were out of proportion with the threat. The Principle of Proportionality isn't as simple as the IRC is making it out to be. In fact, I would say that this article gives a better view of what the reality of the situation is.

Many legal experts say Israel's response to the recent abductions has not upheld the principle of proportionality and violates international humanitarian law. "Every nation has a right to defend its citizens," says David M. Crane, a professor at Syracuse University College of Law, "but you must launch an attack in a proportional way and can't cause unnecessary suffering for civilians." Israel was criticized by some European governments and the UN secretary general for targeting Gaza's sole power plant and knocking out power to half of the region's 1.3 million Palestinians. The Geneva Conventions prohibit armed reprisals that intentionally inflict collective punishment against civilian populations as well as the targeting of nonmilitary targets. But some legal experts say during wartime, separating legitimate military from civilian targets can be tricky. "Virtually no target can, ipso facto, be delisted from a list of potential military targets," says Michael J. Glennon, professor of international law at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. "A hospital or church, if defended by enemy troops, becomes a military target." That includes electric grids, he adds.

This further makes my point about terrorist activity. Since the enemy in this context is a non-state entity, who chooses to hide among the civilians and use them as part of their support structure, that makes the reactions of the Israeli's far more justified. They should attempt to minimize non-combatant deaths, but if a civilian chooses to store rockets/missiles in their homes, they have removed themselves from the right to protections as non-combatants.

If they are not willing participants in the terrorist activities, then they have the choice of walking away. I find it improbable that the vast majority of those storing weapons for Hezbollah are being forced to stay with the weapons and opportunity to flee.

Unfortunately, I believe that Israel will shortly lose most of its international support for the present issue. The international community has been far too willing to condone terrorist activity when the party which was attacked had the gall to defend themselves. Those making the judgments sit in a tranquil environment and decide what is proportionate. It would be interesting if their chair were placed in harms way how their judgment would be altered.