Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Civilians in cross-hairs: What to do?

Should we accept that the loss of innocent lives is inevitable, and sometimes even justifiable, during conflicts? Some say no.

By SUSAN TAYLOR MARTIN
Published May 24, 2006

On Sunday and Monday, U.S. missile strikes reportedly killed up to 80 Taliban members in Afghanistan. But they also killed as many as 17 civilians, including children.

Similar incidents are also alleged to have occurred in Iraq as U.S. troops hunt for insurgents.

The two recent cases in Afghanistan and the Gaza Strip have prompted calls for investigations. And they have stoked the debate over whether attacks likely to kill innocent people are justifiable under certain circumstances or whether they constitute war crimes.

"Under international law you must take all feasible precautions to avoid or at least minimize civilian loss,'' says Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch.

"Civilians can die without war crimes being committed, but you have to have an investigation to find out what happened, particularly in situations where we see time and again civilians paying the price.''

Both Israel and the United States have agreed to obey international laws of warfare, which are based on two main principles. One, the attacker must distinguish between civilian and military targets, and two, the attacks must be proportionate to the anticipated military benefit. Taken to the extreme, that means it's okay to shoot a sniper but not okay to use a nuclear weapon that could wipe out countless innocents as well.

In reality, though, it is often hard to define what constitutes a military target or disproportionate force, especially in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where one side has superior technical might and the other operates in crowded conditions.

In Saturday's incident, an Israeli missile killed a leader of Islamic Jihad as he traveled through Gaza City by car. The missile also killed three civilians in a nearby vehicle and injured a 3-year-old girl so badly she may never again walk or breathe without a respirator.

Israeli authorities say the attack was in response to repeated instances in which Palestinians have launched Qassam rockets at Israeli cities, often from densely populated civilian areas in the Gaza Strip. The crude rockets rarely kill or injure but are considered a serious threat.

"If militant Palestinians followed the rules of international warfare, they would not place themselves in proximity to the civilian population,'' says Ariel Cohen, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. "They deliberately place their rocket launchers and fighters and commanders among civilians, thus using their own civilians as shields in violation of international law.''

But Garlasco says Israel isn't justified in attacking militants anywhere or anytime it chooses just because the militants themselves may violate rules of war.

"To say an Islamic Jihad leader can't drive in a car through Gaza City is just ridiculous. You can make a good case that he may be a military target, but the question is, 'Are we going to incur so much civilian harm that it's something we just shouldn't do at this time and in this manner?' ''

Both Israelis and Palestinians accuse each other of deliberately targeting civilians, and Palestinians draw widespread condemnation for their use of suicide bombers. Islamic Jihad has claimed responsibility for all of the major suicide attacks against Israel in the past year, most recently one in April that killed nine at a Tel Aviv restaurant.

Since the start of 2006, however, Israel has killed more than twice as many Palestinian civilians as Palestinians have killed Israelis - 39 Palestinians compared to 17 Israelis, according to B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization. In March, the group urged the Israeli government to investigate whether an attack that killed three Palestinian children along with two militants was "disproportionate'' and thus constituted a war crime.

Cohen, of the Heritage Foundation, calls B'Tselem a "an extremist, leftish organization'' that plays into the hands of radical Palestinians.

"I think these people (at B'Tselem) are wrong because they do not recognize the deadly nature of Islamist terrorism, they do not recognize the hateful religious incitement and propaganda that brainwashes Palestinians,'' Cohen says.

B'Tselem denies that it minimizes Palestinian atrocities, noting that it has also accused the Palestinians of war crimes and other human rights violations. But as an Israeli organization, its main function is to ensure that the Jewish state follows a high moral code, communications director Sarit Michaeli says.

"Even Israeli public figures mention our existence as an example of the strength of Israeli democracy. We are doing this because Israel is important to us, and we want to make it the best it can be. All the friends of Israel should strive to do the same.''

Showing that heavy force is not always necessary, Israeli troops on Tuesday surrounded the hideout of a Hamas military leader in the West Bank and said they would knock it down if he didn't come out. He surrendered without a fight.

The question of disproportionate military action also haunts several incidents in which U.S. troops have killed civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the weekend strike on an Afghan village.

President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday ordered an investigation into the attacks, expressing concern over the decision to bomb civilian areas but also condemning the militants' "act of cowardice'' in using civilians as human shields.

In Iraq last November, U.S. Marines killed as many as 15 unarmed Iraqis "in cold blood'' after a fellow Marine died in a roadside bombing, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., recently charged. Many of the victims were women and children, including six members of one family.

Garlasco, of Human Rights Watch, says an attack that took out a major enemy figure like Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi could well be justified. More problematic under international law are attacks that exact heavy civilian tolls with relatively little military gain.

"Why is the United States killing all these civilians?'' he wonders. "Not only should they look at it from a legal perspective but also from a practical war-fighting perspective. By killing civilians you're alienating those peoples whose hearts and mind you're trying to win.''

Susan Martin can be contacted at susan@sptimes.com.

[Last modified May 24, 2006, 04:37:33]