colonel smiled. “We’re not violating international law by targeting Hezbollah installations in southern Lebanon because the writ of the Lebanese government doesn’t run that far.”
The argument was familiar. During my years of teaching in the United States, students had sometimes argued that the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force against a country’s “territorial integrity or political independence” should not extend to countries—such as Somalia—without effective governments. Instead of contesting the point, I pursued its logical conclusion: “If that’s the case, you really must limit your strikes to those Hezbollah targets.”
The Israeli officer arched an eyebrow: “Why?”
“If you strike other targets, such as roads or airports, you’ll make it more difficult for the Lebanese government to do its job. At which point, your argument will become self-fulfilling since you’ll be helping to create a failed state.”
A nod, followed by an assurance: “You’re right. Don’t worry. We’re focussed on Hezbollah.”
At this point I pressed forward, changing the focus to international humanitarian law: “Also, you must never target civilians, or facilities such as water filtration or electrical plants relied upon by civilians.”
“Ah, here we disagree!” the colonel exclaimed. “Collateral damage is allowed in situations of military necessity. And dual-use facilities are legitimate targets.”
“What constitutes military necessity depends on the relative capabilities of the opposing forces,” I countered. “And the dual-use argument is a slippery slope.”
The Israeli smiled again: “Perhaps.”
“There’s a second reason you should do everything possible to protect civilians,” I continued. “Israel has to work particularly hard to maintain the moral high ground. Your reputation has suffered because of your treatment of the Palestinians.”
“We’re completely justified in our treatment of the Palestinians,” the IDF lawyer shot back.
I shrugged: “We can disagree on that, for today. But do me a favour, as someone who wants to sympathize with Israel. If you do launch air strikes, please limit yourself to Hezbollah facilities. Leave civilians—and the Lebanese government—alone.”
AS IT HAPPENS, the IDF did in fact bomb southern Lebanon the following week, and they restricted themselves to Hezbollah positions. If only they had shown similar restraint two years later when, in July 2006, they responded to the capture of two of their soldiers by Hezbollah militants with a much more extensive bombing campaign. The IDF bombed Beirut’s international airport, striking at the heart of Lebanon’s tourism-based economy. They bombed arterial roads, bridges, power and gasoline stations and imposed an air and sea blockade. They promised, in the words of their chief of staff, t0 “turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years.”
Although Hezbollah does pose a serious threat to Israel, as demonstrated by its ability to reach the Israeli communities of Haifa and Tiberias with missiles, the targeting of non-Hezbollah targets was both unnecessary and disproportionate. It also violated a central principle of international humanitarian law: that individual targets may only be selected if the direct military advantage anticipated from the strike exceeds the expected harm to civilians or civilian objects. Hezbollah’s rocket attacks, aimed at the general vicinity of Israeli cities and towns rather than specific military targets, were clearly illegal, but so, too, were some of Israel’s attacks.
Of the more than one thousand Lebanese civilians killed, some were struck by Israeli missiles as they followed Israeli instructions to leave their homes and villages. Others were hit because blasted roads, bridges and gasoline stations had made it impossible for them to flee. More civilians died when bombs were dropped in densely populated neighbourhoods where the military advantage could virtually never justify the civilian harm. Others died later as hospitals, water filtration plants and sewage treatment facilities struggled with power shortages.
Attacks on civilians or civilian infrastructure may never be justified by similar violations on the other side. Horrors such as that of the village of Qana, where more than two dozen Lebanese civilians died in a single precision air strike, cannot be balanced by lost Israeli lives.
For all these reasons, I was staggered when Stephen Harper declared that “Israel’s response under the circumstances has been measured.” The prime minister’s position demonstrated an ignorance of international law and a lack of common sense. Even more staggering was Harper’s refusal to moderate his stance after eight innocent Canadians, all members of a single family from Montreal, died as the result of an Israeli strike on the Lebanese village of Aitaroun. His later attempt, in October 2006, to label those who questioned Israel’s actions as “anti-Israel” was beyond staggering, to the point where he demeaned himself.
Harper’s willingness to defend Israel’s behaviour can be explained at several levels. He undoubtedly feels sympathy for the past sufferings of the Jewish people, including the Holocaust. He may be influenced by domestic electoral considerations, pro-Israel media moguls and lobbyists. He could be blinded to the complex and evolving nature of the Middle East by a desire to maintain clear distinctions between “right” and “wrong.” It is even conceivable that he believes, along with some evangelical Christians, that another war between Israel and its neighbours is a necessary precursor to the second coming of Christ. But most likely the prime minister just wanted to win points in Washington by aligning himself with the unequivocally pro-Israel position of George W. Bush.
In any event, Harper’s stance was misguided. By supporting Israel’s disproportionate response, he may have helped embolden the Israelis to continue and intensify their attacks—after all, their actions were receiving public support from the leader of a country widely respected for being impartial. By failing to demand that Israel hold back, he might have exacerbated a situation where tens of thousands of Canadians were desperately seeking to flee Lebanon, and the Canadian government was unprepared to help. One thing is certain: Harper has helped to polarize a world already divided over the “war on terrorism” and Iraq. Consider how upset Muslims were, watching the effects of the Israeli onslaught. Consider how upset some of them were by our prime minister’s one-sided statement. What impact might this have on our future security at home and our soldiers’ efforts to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan?
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
