Annan demands Lebanon ceasefire

[muriel_volestrangler]

Hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah militants in Lebanon must stop immediately, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has said.

He told the UN Security Council it was "imperative" to establish safe aid corridors in the country, amid growing fears of a humanitarian catastrophe.

Mr Annan's call for a ceasefire followed a similar demand by the EU, which pledged 10m euros (£6.8m) in aid.
...
"We are not going to desert the people of Lebanon in their time of need, but we have to proceed with caution," Mr Annan told the Security Council at a briefing on the situation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5199088.stm

Nice in theory, but in practice Israel pays little attention to the UN - they turned back a UN ferry yesterday beause they decided it didn't have clearance to approach Lebanon.

[rodeodance]

1. the mighty push forward.

[MADem]

2. Good grief, it's either the way that story is written, or it's that Kofi

isn't being effective in his communications:

"We are not going to desert the people of Lebanon in their time of need, but we have to proceed with caution," Mr Annan told the Security Council at a briefing on the situation.

OR

Hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah militants in Lebanon must stop immediately, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has said.

Is it me, or did anyone else pick up on the STOP IMMEDIATELY vs. PROCEED WITH CAUTION business???

It's a bit waffly, when they juxtapose those two sentiments so closely together.

[rodeodance]

3. says condi to meet with him later today.

.....UN emergency relief co-ordinator Jan Egeland said the wounded could not be helped because Israeli air raids had cut off roads.

Without a truce allowing aid agencies to begin the relief effort there would be a "catastrophe", he warned.

Mr Annan is due to hold a private meeting with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana later on Thursday.

[dipsydoodle]

6. One of the Sky News reporters out in Beirut

just said live on UK tv, words to the effect, she should get off her butt , finish packing and get out there - with most of the emphasis on packing her luggage.

[dipsydoodle]

4. I was more interested in what

that dickhead Bolton said "you can't negotiate a ceasefire with terrorists"

What' this then : fucking mist ? http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/ira31894.htm

[Totallybushed]

5. Safe for what?

Safe for who?

Do we want Hezbollah to have safe aid corridors for their missles?

Not me.

What's the plan to ensure that only humanitarian aid, not military aid, reaches Lebanon?

[daleo]

7. What's the plan to make sure only Hezzbollah are targeted, not civilians?

Do we want Israel to kill innocent people indiscriminately and indefinitely?

Not me.

[Totallybushed]

8. Certainly not.

The plan is this. Hezbollah does not hide among them.

When they do hide among them, Israel must exercise all due caution to avoid killing civilians without therefore fore-going their right to kill combatants.

Sorry, but international law is very clear on this. If combatants are using civilians to shield themselves, they are responsible for the civilian deaths, not those attacking them.

[daleo]

10. International law says don't target civilians

Or use weapons that would be likely to cause widespread civilian deaths. By your reasoning, the U.S. would be permitted to destroy most of Iraq. It could have also destroyed most of Viet Nam.

And the British could have killed Jews indiscriminately in mandate Palestine, given that Jewish terrorist organizations were hiding among the Jewish population at that time.

[Totallybushed]

11. Complete nonsense.

Israel does not target civilians. It targets terrorists.

That the terrorists choose to hide behind their women's skirts is not Israel's responsibility. International law is clear on this.

[daleo]

12. I am going by the Geneva Conventions

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

Article 33
No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Pillage is prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.


Here's a link. Show me where it is permissible to kill civilians, just because they are in the war zone. There are probably other protocols as well.

[Totallybushed]

17. OK, here's one from your own link

Article 19
The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy.

Applicable to hospitals. They clearly can lose their protection if acts are committed in them harmful to the enemy. Regardless of the civilians present.

What pillage has been committed by Israel?

What collective punishment has been committed by Israel?

What reprisals against protected persons have been committed by Israel?

[daleo]

23. Article 3 gives the overall intent of the Geneva Conventions

If you strip article 3 to its primary meaning, the key relevant passages are:

"each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply...(to)...Persons taking no active part in the hostilities...following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place...Violence to life and person..."

This is why combatants are always careful to stress that civilian deaths are "collateral damage", no matter how unlikely the explanation seems. It is a legality, because you are not permitted to do violence upon non-combatants intentionally.

Civilians can't always prevent the things that are going on around them. They often aren't aware of what is going on around them. That's why combatants can't just assume that they "have it coming" or are cooperating with the other side. Combatants do have the authority to arrest civilians who are cooperating with one of the sides sufficiently to be considered as involved in the fight, though.

I didn't mean to imply that Israel was committing pillage (I assume that means robbery as well as invasion), that just happened to be part of that particular article of the Geneva Convention.

As for collective punishment, I would say much of what is going on is exactly that. Israel has long had a doctrine of "deterrence", which means hitting back with overwhelming strength and power after any sort of attack (or even an apprehended attack, in the case of 1967). Partly this is strategic, partly it is necessary for domestic political reasons.

Sometimes it is hard to find enough para-military forces to create the desired deterrent effect, especially in a limited military counter-response. In those cases, such a high level of civilian collateral damage ensues that a reasonable person has to conclude that it is an intrinsic part of the strategy. It would be extremely difficult to prove this, absent a specific military order or other document. People just have to draw their own conclusions based on their observations.

For the record, I don't question Israel's right to exist, or their right to respond to attacks with proportionate means. I just think this response is far past any sense of being proportional to the provocation, and innocent civilian populations are being made to suffer egregiously. I realize that Israel faces some serious threats, and it is difficult not to overreact to outrages. But they are overreacting and it is harmful in the long run for everyone, including Israel.

-------------------------------
Here is the full article:
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

[Totallybushed]

25. Obviously, there

is some room for differing interpretations. But why should the Israeli one be the correct one, instead of some other? Especially some other who is violating their own interpretation.

Look, IMO, until the Israeli soldiers are returned unharmed, and Hezbollah is disarmed, Israel must do what must be done to protect itself, its citizens, and its soldiers.

Deliberate targeting of civilians a la Hamas and Hezbollah, no. But these two evil outfits cannot be allowed to hide among their own civilians either.

I wish, I really do, that there was a non-violent way to resolve the conflict. But as long as one side feels justified in trying to destroy the other and kick them into the sea, there is not. Israel is a fact that the Palestinians and their Islamic friends will have to accept before there can be peace.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Totallybushed]

26. Another person

who does not seem to understand what is being said. I am not defending the bombing of innocents. I am simply saying that Israel has the right to defend itself.

[jonnyblitz]

42. that comment always cracks me up considering they are

the aggressor for chrissake!

[Totallybushed]

44. But that is just the point.

They are not trying to throw the Palestinians inot the sea. The Palestinians are trying to throw them into the sea. Or worse.

And what business is it of the Persians, who support Hezbollah, anyway?

No. The agressor is clearly and obviously Hamas and Hezbollah.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Can we see that international law you're referring to, please?

And how does that have relevance to the Israelis bombing a Christian suburb of Beirut, where there's no chance of Hizbollah being secreted?

[Totallybushed]

18. Start here

http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/evacuation-battlefield.html

and here

http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-middleeast.html

Go from there.

Of course, there can be legitimate disagreement about what is "proportionate" or "indiscriminate". But who decides? My opinion, for what little it is worth, is that Israel has not stepped over the bounds.

The law, international or otherwise, cannot and does not require people or countries to not defend themselves when being attacked.

[lumpy]

19. Picking fly shit out of the mayonnaise.

We know that it is damning that people are murdered for the actions of others. It may be reality and may be justified by empty words but it is wrong never-the-less. Some of us like to dream that human civilization might use that thing called conscience and some day rise above the instinct to kill our own.

[Totallybushed]

20. No one is calling for murder.

But Israel has the right to protect its own existence as a state, and certainly the right to protect its own civilians.

The responsibility for Lebanese civilian deaths lies with those that would hide among them. Not the Israelis. Unless you are able to apportion blame where it belongs, how can we begin to create peace?

And did you call international law "flyshit"? Becasue that was the message that I got.

[lumpy]

24. Law becomes fly shit when it is ugnored.

Or convoluted.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. Where the opinion of Ms. Arbour is that Israel seems to have to answer

for war crimes. Attacking areas where there is no known presence of Hizbollah would indeed seem to show Israel is committing war crimes.

First, it is forbidden to direct an attack against civilians who are not taking an active part in hostilities. Second, it is forbidden to attack civilian objects unless they make an effective contribution to your enemy's military operations. Thirdly, it is against the law to launch indiscriminate attacks -- attacks that cannot be directed at a specific military target.

Lighthouses, dairy farms, grain silos and pharmaceutical plants all seem illegitimate targets.

[Totallybushed]

28. Do you mean, like

the Beirut airport?

Second, it is forbidden to attack civilian objects unless they make an effective contribution to your enemy's military operations

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. I meant the examples I gave in the earlier post

For references, see this other post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1680430&mesg_id=1681541

The airport is a dubious target: while it's possible that Hizbollah might try to get armaments in through it, that seems a slim excuse for completely putting it out of action. They could have said only civilian passenger flights would be allowed.

[Totallybushed]

31. "They could have

said only passenger flights would be allowed".

Words. so powerful. How do they enforce that? Gound troops?

Nothing dubious about the airport, IMO. The fact that Hizbollah might try to get armaments through is an excellent reason for putting it out of commission.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. Threaten to shoot unauthorised planes

just like they enforce a blockade of the ports.

Hizbollah might do just about anything in Lebanon.They might be drinking water from a reservoir - but that doesn't mean it's a military target. Similarly power planst aren't military targets, when you're fighting a faction rather than a country, and so attacking them is also a war crime.

[Totallybushed]

35. Here's an ionteresting point.

Under international law, countries are responsible for attacks that originate from their territory.

In other words, Lebanon has a legal (and moral) obligation to shut Hezbollah down. Obviously they aren't up to the task, even if they wanted to do it. So Israel has to do it for them.

Another question for you then. How do they know which planes might have passengers or humanitarian supplies, and which have Iranian rockets on them ? Should the Israelis have authorized agents in every world airport to inspect the loading of planes headed to Lebanon? who is going to protect the Israeli agents stationed in Arab countries or Iran, places where a lot of the arms originate?

I'm just looking at the practicalities of your idea about how this should be accomplished versus how it can be accomplished.

No, I think closing it down is the best, the simplest, and the all-around most efficient way of doing this.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. There are scheduled flights; there are flights authorised

by trusted governments (ie Israel could say 'no flights sent by Iran, Syria etc.), there are flights arranged by well known NGOs like the Red Cross. They say all these flights must be identified before they come into Lebanese airspace. Easy. I suspect they have to do it anyway, to look for small planes that might try to land on makeshit runways somewhere.

[Totallybushed]

41. Yep, corruption

would never take place with such a plan. Smuggling absolutely could not occur. and sympathizers for hamas and Hezbollah would not be screaming to high heaven about heavy-handed Israeli tactics.

Or, they could just solve the problem and go on to the next one.

[Spazito]

32. It seems to me we again have the pot meeting the kettle...

Is Israel Using Arab Villages as Human Shields?

Several Israeli armaments factories and storage depots have been built close by Arab communities in the north of Israel, possibly in the hope that by locating them there Arab regimes will be deterred from attacking Israel’s enormous armory. In other words, the inhabitants of several of Israel’s Arab towns and villages have been turned into collective human shields -- protection for Israel’s war machine.

http://www.counterpunch.com/Cook07192006.html

[Totallybushed]

36. Interesting.

I will have to research this more carefully before I answer you.

However, one point leaps to mind. Assuming that, in fact, Israel is using proximity to Arab villages, they are using enemy civilians. Arab civilians. On the other hand, the Palestinians are using their own civilians to shield themselves.

While both acts are despicable, the Palestian acts are also downright cowardly, and, IMO, a betrayal of their own people.

[Spazito]

37. Whoa, "enemy civilians??? They are arab Israelis, citizens of

Israel, period. To even suggest they are lesser citizens because they are Arab is probably a place you don't want to go, imo.

[Totallybushed]

38. As I said, I'll

have to research this more carefully as this is information that I was not aware of.

But if they are Israeli citizens, then Israel is responsible for their safety.

Thank you for your correction.

[Spazito]

39. My thanks back to you for your courteous and reasoned response,

it is much appreciated.

[IndianaGreen]

9. 57 Lebanese civilians were killed today by Israel, we need a ceasefire!

Here is one of the Hezbollah fighters that Israel is targeting in Lebanon:



57 perish on deadliest day of war so far

By Raed El Rafei
Daily Star staff
Thursday, July 20, 2006

In the morning, Israel struck at the heart of Beirut's largest Christian neighborhood for the first time since the conflict started. A helicopter strike in Achrafieh destroyed two trucks stationed in an abandoned lot, but caused no casualties.

"It's simply terrifying. Nowhere is safe anymore," said Arlette, shaking at the memory of the blast that went off a few meters from her home.

Many families in the area were seen packing their bags shortly after the attack, leaving for the safety of the mountains.

"I am sending my nephews to Faraya. I cannot bare feeling they might be hurt," said Hoda as she waved goodbye to her three nephews. "I am totally confused. Israel is apparently sparing nobody."

Previous attacks had almost exclusively targeted Muslim, particularly Shiite, areas. While some suggested well-drilling equipment aboard the trucks could have been mistaken for rocket launchers by the Israeli military, others said the strike was a message to Christian MP Michel Aoun for comments this week in support of Hizbullah.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=74109

[Fozzledick]

13. Yeah, tell 'em to stop that shit!

[Supersedeas]

14. But Bolton and Dr. Rice have another agenda

[saigon68]

21. Rices agenda is to make a shatterproof mirror

By looking at it

[gratuitous]

16. Now, will the Bush administration back the UN?

After all, Bush said it was up to the UN to do something, but without the support of the United States, Annan's appeal for a cease-fire isn't going to be very effective. I have to admit, though, that the United States isn't in much of a position to back up anyone right now, what with our military pinned down in Afghanistan and Iraq, and not a whole lot left to support the UN.

Mighty fine barrel you've put us over, Mr. Bush. I wonder if anyone in the popular media will notice, or will they just shrug and say that's the way it is, no way anyone could have predicted that Bush's exercises in foreign adventurism might turn out badly, or that they'd hamstring our ability to do things in other parts of the world?

[Joe Bacon]

43. Bolton will veto anything to defend Israel

He wants Armageddon just like his boss.

[cantstandbush]

29. Just another UN requirement that Israel will ignore. nt

[citizen snips]

33. finally

it's about damn time they called for a ceasefire even though it's not going to work.