Amnesty International Accuses Israel of Committing War Crimes in Lebanon

Watch 128k stream       Watch 256k stream

Amnesty International has accused Israel of committing war crimes for deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure in Lebanon. In a report released yesterday, the human rights group criticized Israel for destroying homes, bridges, roads, water treatment plants and fuel tanks. The report said such attacks were an "integral part" of Israel’s strategy in the war.

The group is calling for a United Nations investigation into whether Israel and Hezbollah broke humanitarian law.

The report is based on research from Amnesty missions in Lebanon and Israel, including interviews with victims, UN officials, Israeli military officers and members of the Lebanese government.

In a few minutes we are going to get a response on the report from Israel’s deputy ambassador to the UN, Daniel Carmon, but first we take a closer look at the report’s findings with Marty Rosenbluth. He is a specialist for Israel, the Occupied Territories and the Palestinian Authority for Amnesty International-USA. He was on one of the research missions for the group that helped compile this report.

• Marty Rosenbluth, specialist for Israel, the Occupied Territories, and the Palestinian Authority for Amnesty International-USA.

Related Links:

• Amnesty International report "Lebanon: Destruction of civilian infrastructure"
  
• Satellite images showing the destruction in Lebanon

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest in studio in Washington, D.C. is Marty Rosenbluth. He's with Amnesty International, a specialist for Israel, Occupied Territories and the Palestinian Authority with Amnesty International-USA, one of the research missions for the group that helped compile this report. He joins us in studio. Welcome to Democracy Now!

MARTY ROSENBLUTH: Thank you for having me.

AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you joining us in the Reuters studio. Can you talk about your major findings in this report?

MARTY ROSENBLUTH: Well, sure. What the report shows is that the Israeli claims that the damage to the civilian infrastructure was purely collateral damage just really doesn't match the facts. And you really only have to look at the statements by Israeli government officials. I mean, Dan Halutz, who’s the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, said at the very beginning of the war that the purpose of the air strikes was to send a message to the Lebanese government that if they didn't rein in Hezbollah, that the Lebanese population would pay a heavy price. I mean, that's prima fascia evidence that the strikes were designed as collective punishment. But also just the sheer level of the destruction, the destruction of the electrical infrastructure, the water infrastructure, the roads, the bridges, houses, businesses, etc., just doesn't match the Israeli claims that this was either collateral damage or due to the fact that Hezbollah was shielding amongst the civilian population.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And what are, in terms of established rules of war or international law, the main guiding points in terms of when civilian areas can be attacked in time of war?

MARTY ROSENBLUTH: Well, the most important principle of the laws of war is what is called the principle of distinction. I mean, this was passed a long time ago into what's called customary international law, which means it's binding on all parties, whether they be, quote/unquote, “non-state actors” like Hezbollah or the Israeli military. So the Israeli claim that since these have a military potential or contribute in some way to the military effort makes them a legitimate military targets is just not how international humanitarian law works.

JUAN GONZALEZ: When you say the principle of distinction -- for example, in your report you mentioned the many roads that were destroyed by Israel. Israel was claiming that these roads could potentially be used for military transport. But you raise the issue that while that may be true, they were principally used by civilians and that that should have been the overriding factor?

MARTY ROSENBLUTH: Correct. And that's really what the principle of distinction means: you have to distinguish between whether it's primarily a military purpose or primarily a civilian purpose to balance essentially what the military advantage is versus the effect on the civilian population. So when we met with senior IDF officials in Israel, they said, “Well, the electrical infrastructure is a military target, because Hezbollah needs electricity.” Well, of course Hezbollah needs electricity, but so do hospitals, so do civilians for refrigeration, so does the water infrastructure. The electrical pumps rely on electricity for water. So if you knock out the electricity infrastructure, you also knock out the water, which creates a major health hazard. So, simply claiming that there's some military potential or it contributes in some way to Hezbollah's military purposes doesn't mean that it can be targeted as a military target. That's a clear violation of the laws of war.

AMY GOODMAN: Marty Rosenbluth, can you outline the level of destruction?

MARTY ROSENBLUTH: It's still very difficult. I mean, just now, the full extent of the destruction has really begun to be estimated, but there's still, for all practical purposes, from our documentation, no electricity in the south, which, again, affects the water. Hundreds, if not thousands, of houses have been destroyed, businesses, roads, etc., etc. We now have another mission, which just got on the ground there on Sunday, to try to assess what the full extent of the damage is. And we'll also be sending another mission into northern Israel to assess the damage there. I was on the ground for a week in northern Israel looking at the effect of the war on civilians in northern Israel. And it's also clear that there was very clear violations of the laws of war on the part of Hezbollah, by targeting Israeli civilians.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Marty Rosenbluth, specialist for Israel, the Occupied Territories, and the Palestinian Authority for Amnesty International-USA. Now, your report, Marty, includes a number of statements from Israeli military officials indicating the destruction of the civilian infrastructure was indeed a goal of Israel's military campaign, designed to press the Lebanese government and the people of Lebanon to turn against Hezbollah.

MARTY ROSENBLUTH: Yeah, correct. And again, we take them at their word. I mean, when the chief of staff of the IDF says that the purpose of the air strikes is so that the Lebanese government will realize that they don't rein in Hezbollah, that Lebanon will pay a heavy price, that's a very clear statement of policy. When they say that unless the Lebanese government reins in Hezbollah, that they're going to destroy the electrical infrastructure, that's a very clear statement of policy.

So the Israeli government is doing essentially, is what they're saying. If you read their documents, they say, well, it isn't a question of the individual objective, but the overall strategic advantage. It's a very, very broad interpretation of what's called, quote/unquote, “dual use,” where if something has a military purpose and a civilian purpose, it can be targeted. And we and the entire human rights community, as well as the majority of the international community, would have a much more restrictive approach, which would require them to balance each attack, each target, based on whether or not it's a military target or a civilian target.