August 31, 2006

Ask Amnesty: Debriefing on Recent Amnesty Missions to Lebanon and Israel

This discussion will focus on Amnesty's recent mission to northern Israel and Lebanon, where the organization found strong evidence that violations of International Humanitarian Law were commiteed by boths sides to the conflict. Marty Rosenbluth, Amnesty International USA's Country Specialist for Israel, the Occupied Territories and the Palestinian Authority, was part of the mission that went into northern Israel and will be online to answer questions about Amnesty's findings and analysis.

This online discussion will take place Thursday from 12:00-1:00 p.m. EDT.

Featured Guest: Marty Rosenbluth

From our featured guest: "Amnesty is one of the only, and certainly the largest, grassroots organizations that has been addressing violations by all parties to this conflict. I know you will have lots of interesting questions. I look forward to speaking with you and answering these questions on the day of the discussion. "

---

Question Submitted by George:

I read in news headlines that Amnesty is calling for an investigation of Israeli bombing. Do you also call for an investigation of the indiscriminate Hezbollah attacks against Israel? They may not have done as much harm, proportionately, but they are every but as much a war crime.

Marty Rosenbluth answers:

Yes. We have in fact called for an investigation into violations by both sides to the conflict. We stated this both in our recent report, and in press release for the report, as well as in other documents we produced during the conflict. Some media reports stated we were calling for an investigation into violations by both sides, but some did not.

In the report we stated:

“Amnesty International calls for the immediate establishment of a comprehensive, independent and impartial inquiry into violations of international humanitarian law by both Hizbullah and Israel in the conflict. The inquiry should examine in particular the impact of this conflict on the civilian population. It should propose effective measures to hold accountable those responsible for crimes under international law, and to ensure that the victims receive full reparation.

Amnesty International has asked the UN Security Council and the UN Human Rights Council to request the UN Secretary General to establish a panel of independent experts to conduct this inquiry. They should include experts with proven expertise in investigating compliance with international humanitarian and human rights law, in military matters, as well as in forensics and ballistics. The experts should receive all necessary assistance and resources. The outcome of the inquiry should be made public and include recommendations aimed at ending and preventing further violations.

But it is essential that this investigation be comprehensive and non-political. For that reason Amnesty condemned the resolution of the UN Human Rights Council that called for an investigation into Israeli violations, but completely failed to address serious abuses being committed by Hizbullah. In our press release on August 11th we wrote:

"The Council had an opportunity to address forcefully the appalling crisis in Lebanon and Israel with a united voice. Instead, members' focus on their narrow political objectives resulted in a highly-politicized resolution that muted the Council's voice by ignoring the violations of one party to the conflict…"
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Judy:

I have read the essence of your report as found in the NYTimes. Perhaps it is innacurate? Why is it that only Israel'sffenses are mentioned? Why is there no mention of Hezbollah's using civilian venues and civilian clothing in provoking military action? Israel clearly blundered in its handling of the attacks, and its leaders are subject to the penalties a democratic electorate can impose. But why are Hezbollah's actions in operating from civilian venues disregarded? This m.o. is also a war crime, but AI disregards it. AI does a better job representing individuals and small groups subject to mistreatment around the world. It does not do well in judging military actions, and certainly, Hezbollah comes out smelling like a rose.

Marty Rosenbluth answers:

It is important to clarify that the report was not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of the all the violations Amnesty found during the conflict. As the report itself states, it is our initial assessment and concerns on the massive destruction of civilian infrastructure in Lebanon that has taken place during the conflict. The report does not, for example, deal directly or comprehensively even with the question of civilian casualties in Lebanon.

We stated in the introduction to the report, that we will be addressing the attacks by Hizbullah into Israel and their impact on civilians in future reports, which we hope will come out as soon as possible. We had fact finding missions on the ground in both Israel and Lebanon during the conflict, and have more researchers on both sides of the border now working to gather and analyze information on other aspects to the conflict. While not a comprehensive report, the types of violations we are looking at can be found in the mission diaries on our website at: http://amnestylebanonisrael.blogspot.com
.
We are looking into allegations, based on credible secondary sources, that Hizbullah was in some cases using civilians as shields. While we continue our own work on this question, we also say that these persistent allegations support the need for a full, comprehensive and independent investigation by the United Nations. We have made this request on several occasions and we detailed in of the questions above that it is essential than any investigation look at violations by all parties to the conflict.

Without confirming that in fact Hizbullah did or did not engage in this practice, since again this needs to be properly investigated, it is clear that the use of “human shields” is a violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may constitute a war crime. (Protocol I, 51 (7) states “Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” is a war crime… However, “the presence within the civilian population individuals [of non civilians] does not deprive the population of its civilian character” (Protocol, I 50 (3). And more importantly, a violation using civilian shields “shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians” (Protocol I article 51 (8).

So, even if Hizbullah is guilty of using the civilian population as shields in certain cases it does not absolve Israel of any responsibility. In other words, two wrongs do not make a right.

One more point, though. I would like to respond to your statement that “Israel clearly blundered in its handling of the attacks, and its leaders are subject to the penalties a democratic electorate can impose.” With respect to serious IHL violations amounting to war crimes, political accountability is not enough – individual criminal accountability is called for. AI considers that combating impunity is an essential part of ending abuses brought about by this conflict. This would be the case for both violations committed by Israelis and by members of Hizbullah. Simply voting someone out of office is not sufficient.

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

Question Submitted by Sanjay Mohammed:

Although Amnesty International has (correctly) called for protests outside the Sudanese embassy, why has the organization not protested outside the Israeli embassy for their use of cluster bombs and for their deliberate attacks on civilians that Amnesty itself has called a war crime? To suggest that we cannot protest outside the Israeli embassy because "Amnesty is trying to be balanced" or because there is no Hizbullah office to protest in the US is naive. Do we employ the same logic with the Jangaweed?

Marty Rosenbluth answers:

I can only speak for our work on this conflict, but because the emphasis of our work was calling for a ceasefire by all parties to the conflict, we decided to hold the vigils in neutral locations.

It is important to keep in mind that Amnesty has expressed its concerns about violations both by Israel and by Hizbullah. By keeping our vigils in neutral locations we were making that point clear.

We don't compare the violations committed by one party to the violations committed by another, rather we compare the actions committed by all parties to the guidelines established under international law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by mardell moffitt:

What are the people of Israel doing to help with the HUGH oil spill they caused off the coast? (What about the "environmental rights" of the effected area and all living things surrounding it?)

Marty Rosenbluth answers:

We mention our concerns over the oil spill in our report on infrastructure. We stated that the attack on Lebanon’s largest power station at Jiyyeh had both an immediate adverse impact on the population, and long-term implications for the environment and the economy. Israeli forces bombed the Jiyyeh power station, south of Beirut, and its fuel tanks on July 13 and again on July 15. As a result of these attacks 15,000 tons of heavy fuel oil to leak into the sea. The oil slick has contaminated more than 150km of the Lebanese coastline, and has spread north into Syrian waters. The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) has characterized it as one of the worst environmental disasters seen in the region. The cost of a comprehensive clean-up was estimated to be US $150 million, with work taking up to a year.
The rules of state responsibility also very much come into play, whereby wrongful conduct by one party would require reparation. While Amnesty is not an environmental organization per se, attacks on the environment that may effect the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights are very much an AI concern. We are therefore very concerned with the effects of the spill on the well-being of the population including risks to health and adverse affects of people’s livelihood, etc. Again, as I have said above, a proper investigation is required into all violations that may have occurred during the conflict and this should certainly be included.

Article 55 of Protocol I prohibits “the use of methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause widespread, long-term, and severe] damage to the environment and thereby to prejudice the health or survival of the population.” It also requires care be taken to protect the natural environment from such damage. “Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause…severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated” is a war crime. (See ICC statute 8(2)(b)(4))


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

Question Submitted by David:

What excuse,if any,is given for the use of cluster bombs in the conflict?

Marty Rosenbluth answers:

Regardless of what any excuse there might be for their use, Amnesty has long called for a worldwide moratorium on the use of cluster weapons because they present a high risk of violating the prohibition of indiscriminate attack.

This is because of the wide area covered by the numerous bomblets released and the high “dud” rate (the number that did not explode upon impact thus becoming similar to anti-personnel mines). In any case they should not be used in an area which in which there is a high risk to civilians.

An indiscriminate attack is defined as one “which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective” or “which employ a means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by [Protocol I]. Protocol I 51(4). We think that cluster weapons would be covered by that definition if civilians are being put at risk.

We are currently working to gather documentation on the effects of unexploded ordinance. Reliable sources have reported daily injuries and deaths to civilians, including children.

We are also currently preparing an action calling on Israel to assist with the clean up of unexploded cluster weapons. Watch our website for details!

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

Question Submitted by Joy:

What is AI doing to insure that the ongoing situtation in Gaza is not forgotten during this time of conflict between Israel and Lebanon?

Marty Rosenbluth answers:

We continue to monitor the situation very closely. We were in Gaza shortly before the conflict in Lebanon broke out, and we hope to be back soon. We are also in constant touch with human rights organizations and others on the ground.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Sanjay Mohammed:

Can you speak about the Israeli attacks on supermarkets and hospitals and other civilian targets? Israel maintains it was doing so because Hizbullah fighters were hiding in those structures or nearby. Has AI found any validity in these claims? And, does this argument stand when measured against international humintarian law?

Marty Rosenbluth answers:

The destruction of civilian infrastrucutre, including supermarkets and hospitals, was the topic of our report so I will not go into too much detail here. I encourage people to download it and read it because it has a lot of good information.

As I said in response to an earlier question though, we are looking into allegations, based on credible secondary sources, that Hizbullah was in some cases using civilians as shields part of which would include hiding in or near civilian structures. While we continue our own work on this question, we also say that these persistent allegations support the need for a full, comprehensive and independent investigation by the United Nations.

Again, without confirming that in fact Hizbullah did or did not engage in this practice, since this needs to be properly investigated, it is clear that the use of “human shields” is a violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may constitute a war crime. (Protocol I, 51 (7) states “Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” is a war crime… However, “the presence within the civilian population individuals [of non civilians] does not deprive the population of its civilian character” (Protocol, I 50 (3). And more importantly, a violation using civilian shields “shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians” (Protocol I article 51 (8).

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

Question Submitted by Russ:

How can we insure needy people receive food and medical aid regardless of political affiliation?

Marty Rosenbluth answers:

If you go to the On-line action center by clicking on "Act!" above you can take action to help lift the blockade which is preventing aid from reaching those who need it.

Amnesty does not, however, endorse any specific organization. There are many organizations doing excellent work helping victims on both sides of the border.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Kendall:

While I expect Amnesty Int'l to rightly pursue reports of the IDF targeting civilians in Lebanon, will Amnesty follow-up on Hezbollah's attacks against Israeli civilians (i.e. firing over 3,000 ballistic missiles into Israel)? And what is Amnesty's position on the IDF soldiers that were taken hostage at the beginning of the conflict? Are we doing anything about that?

Marty Rosenbluth answers:

As I said above, Amnesty is working on gathering more documentation and will be publising our results soon. I was part of the mission that was on the ground in Israel during the war and saw the effects of the katushya's first hand. One of the things we will continue to look at is is the fact that many of the rockets whose affects we saw were packed with thousands of small metal ball bearings which shredded everything within hundreds of feet of the blast site. Now that there is a ceasefire, it is easier for us to move around and we will be able to gather the information we need to complete our research.

As for the second part of your question Hizbullah captured two Israeli soldiers on July 12. Israel reportedly has captured several Hizbullah fighters during the conflict. Neither Israel nor Hizbullah have in the past treated as POWs each other’s captured combatants. Amnesty International believes that Israel and Hizbullah should treat enemy combatants they have captured as POWs. Accordingly, they should be treated humanely. They must never be held as hostages. And they should be granted access to the ICRC without delay.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Laman:

I have noticed that a question about cluster bombs has been asked. My next question is about the killings of four UN observers. I read that the IDF was warned approximately 10 by the UN observers to be careful. How do you explain the IDF's reckless bombing anyway?

Marty Rosenbluth answers:

Certainly we would hope that this would be part of the comprehensive investigation we are calling on the United Nations to carry out. We have read the media reports you mention but we do not, however, yet have our own documentation on this question.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Frank:

Why did Israel drop the cluster bombs in the few remaining hours before the cease fire was supposed to take effect? Why were cluster bombs dropped in the first place since the agreement between the Israeli government and the American government called for no violation of International Law (these weapons are designed to kill people, even children)?

Marty Rosenbluth answers:

I answered a question above on cluster bombs in some detail. Why, according to media reports, Israel dropped most of them in the last 72 hours of the war I can't speculate on.


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

Question Submitted by Buddy:

When a nation has her citizens attacked and kidnapped by people who have traveled across her internationally-recognized border, and then witnesses the attackers intentionally firing deadly rockets at her from amidst a civilian population, what alternative does a nation have but to destroy the terrorists and their weapons that are being used to indiscriminately kill her civilian population?

Marty Rosenbluth answers:

Amnesty has said on numerous occasions that Israel has not only the right, but in fact the responsibility, to protect its citizens. But it has to do so in conformity with international law, and in particular International Humanitarian Law. Irene Kahn, Amnesty International's Secretary General said that Amnesty opposes violations of human rights whether they are committed in the name of security or in the name of liberty. While she was speaking about the Israeli Palestinian conflict, the same principle would apply here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Rob Carle:

Is Hisbollah guilty of any human rights violations? Did they use civilians as human sheilds?

Marty Rosenbluth answers:

Certainly Hizbullah's firing of several thousand rockets into northern Israel rockets would meet the definition of the indiscriminate use of force. The katushya's are inherently indiscriminate, since they cannot be aimed with any accuracy at all. Over 40 Israli civilians were killed as a result of these attacks and many hundreds injured, In addition houses, businesses, hospitals and schools were also hit and damaged by these rockets. Amnesty has said that the indiscrimate use of force is a war crime.

As I said above, we are looking into allegations by reliable secondary sources that Hizbullah used civilians as shields. If this was the case, these acts would also be war crimes under International Humanitarian Law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Kevin DeJesus:

Do Hezbollah officials, i.e. the Lebanese parlimentarians, respond to AI's inquiries and dialogue? Thanks so much,

Marty Rosenbluth answers:

We are currently trying to get meetings with Lebanese and Hizbullah officials to express our concerns.


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

Question Submitted by Rael Nidess, M.D.:

Is Amnesty considering condemnations of those two countries for providing the arms Hezbollah used against Israeli civilians?

Marty Rosenbluth answers:

During the conflict, Amnesty International called for an immediate arms embargo on both Israel and Hizbullah.

In the call for the embargo, we stated that as civilians continue to bear the brunt of the conflict in Israel and Lebanon, we were gravely concerned about the continuing transfer of weapons to the region. Our Secretary General Irene Kahn said at the time "The pattern of attacks and the extent of civilian casualties show a blatant disregard of international humanitarian law by Israel and Hizbullah. Direct targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure and launching indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks amount to war crimes."

We further stated that governments supplying Israel and Hizbullah with arms and military equipment are fuelling their capacity to commit war crimes. All governments should impose an arms embargo on both sides and refuse permission for their territories to be used for the transfer of arms and military equipment.


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

Question Submitted by Meredith:

At what point will Israel finally be pressured by the International Community to release the location of the thousands of land mines they left in Lebanon during the war decades ago? It is my understanding that part of the peace agreement of that period was that they would reveal the land mine maps, something which they have still, as of yet, not done.

Marty Rosenbluth answers:

Amnesty opposes the use, manufacture, stockpiling and transfer of anti-personnel landmines because of their inherently indiscriminate nature. However, neither Israel nor Lebanon is party to the Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty. It is estimated that some 400,000 landmines remain from the period 1975-2000, during which both Israel and Hizbollah, among others used them. Some 75 percent of these landmines are in the border area between Israel and Lebanon, where some 90,000 people live. In June 2005, Lebanon stated that 3,975 landmine casualties (1,835 killed and 2,140 injured) had been identified since 1970.

Amnesty considers it imperative that these mines be identified and removed. Amnesty believes that that all parties that placed the mines should take the necessary measures to ensure that mine removal can take place, including revealing where they have been placed.

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

ASK AMNESTY Home

The views expressed in the online discussions hosted on this site reflect the views of the discussion guests and do not necessarily reflect those of Amnesty International USA. Amnesty International USA does not necessarily sponsor, endorse, recommend or license content posted by third parties.