Saturday, January 10, 2009

[civilians] when are they considered combatants



Before getting into the main question, the attack from the Lebanon raised a question:

So, if Nasrallah did not fire the rockets, who did?

Some Arabs claim that Israel fabricated the attack to justify striking against Hezbollah. That is difficult to believe, since the IDF already has too much on its hands and cannot fight on two fronts - despite assurances from Israeli officials that they can simultaneously battle Hamas and Hezbollah.

A more reasonable argument is that Saudi Arabia doctored the attack, through its own proxies in South Lebanon, to incriminate Hezbollah and provoke Israel into striking at the Islamic group. Saudi Arabia, after all, was not pleased with the results of the Lebanon war of 2006, since it failed to break - or even weaken - Hezbollah, which it sees as an extension of Iranian influence in the Arab world.

Coinciding with the latest tension in Lebanon was the emergence of a rival group to Hezbollah on January 7 called the Arab Islamic Resistance - believed to be linked to Saudi Arabia.

"When is a civilian a civilian and when is he a combatant?" An article on the Iraq war dead says:

And there is a more fundamental problem: hospitals had no formal category for "civilian combatants," although some doctors did note militia membership when this was obvious. The principal distinction they drew was between civilians and military personnel -- and this is not synonymous with the distinction between noncombatants and combatants.

Civilian combatants is a tricky category. Would you consider Dad's Army as civilian? If you were being invaded and were neither official military nor militia, would you still not have taken up a cudgel against a German unit if it came to it? Would you not give aid and succour to your nation's troops and aid them in whichever way you could? Would you not sit at a desk at Bletchley and try to decode enemy messages? Is not all of this destructive to the enemy?

What is a civilian in war time?

Hamas plays this game to the nth degree [see youtube above]. The ringleaders say that the civilians are lovingly surrounding the glorious hamas heroes and willingly laying down their lives. Oh really? Hamas have this thing about death is glorious and every Palestinian laying down his grandparents' and children's lives for the cause [see video] but the question still remains, from the point of view of Israel:

"When is a civilian a civilian and when is he a combatant?"

This is the thing it is so difficult to forgive with Hamas - that they will lodge weaponry and military supplies in the centre of supposedly civilian populations to increase the civilian dead and even fire at Israel from in there:

The Hamas tactic of firing rockets from schools, hospitals and mosques dates back to 2005, when Israel ended its occupation of Gaza. Several months ago, the head of the Israeli air force showed me a videotape (now available on YouTube) of a Hamas terrorist deliberately moving his rocket launcher to the front of a U.N. school, firing a rocket and then running away, no doubt hoping that Israel would then respond by attacking the rocket launcher and thus killing Palestinian children in the school.



And what of the "civilians" who suddenly man a rocket launcher, then just as suddenly go back to being shoemakers and housewives the moment the rockets are launched?

Hamas leaders have echoed the mantra of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, that "we are going to win because they love life and we love death."

This is why the bloggers who are waxing lyrical about the wicked Israeli targetting of civilians have their facts skewed.

What absolute bollocks.

It is significant that the individuals and groups saying Israel are "targetting" civilians are largely non-middle-eastern and/or leftist. People on the ground there know full well that Israel is solely targetting anything remotely Hamas:

Major Avital Liebowitz, of the IDF Spokesperson’s Office, told the correspondent that the army had indeed widened its target list in comparison to previous operations, saying Hamas has used ostensibly civilian actions as a cover for military activities. "Anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target," she said.

Israel let it be known that they were doing this. Now what did Hamas do? Move all civilians to safe ground which civilized nations do? Not a bit of it. They arrange the maximum possible head count for their own people. And why are Hezbollah not attacking in the north? Why are Egypt and Syria not wading in? Why is Iran not sending troops?

So to quote the civilian casualties of Israel's actions - yes and the blame is laid fairly and squarely at the feet of the people represented in the youtube video which opened this post.

Thank goodness rational bloggers with no axe to grind recognize this:

I posted earlier this week about the double standards on display, but the more ludicrous articles I see from apologists for this violent anti-Semitism, especially the truly disturbing ones that try to make some (sometimes thinly veiled) comparisons with the Holocaust, the more I draw the conclusion that many of these apologists as little more than modern day “noble savages” (though what’s noble about violent ant-Semitism is beyond me).

Stop the rockets. Stop the violence. That's it.

UPDATE: For a more detailed look, try this and this.


10 comments:

  1. I agree with you on stopping the rockets and the violence James.

    The distinction between civilians and military people is important though- it is made more complicated in a guerilla war though that is not a new problem- that has been around for ages. However I think the distinction is vital- one of the arguments against Hamas and Al Quaeda is that they do not distinguish between civilians and the military. I do not think we should go down that road.

    I agree with you that when it comes to adults it is difficult to make the distinction and I have sympathy with an IDF soldier- not to mention a Brit in Iraq or an American in Afghanistan- who believes that a civilian might be about to kill him. These are afterall young men who are frightened rightly and an innocent action can quickly be conceived of as a suspicious one. On the other hand thinking about it another way- one of the things that I object to is that for example in the Georgian and Russian encounter in Ossytia there was plenty of evidence on both sides (see the BBC's fascinating file on four) of people driving away from the conflict or trying to escape being shot.

    I don't know what has happened in Gaza- some of the accusations are worrying and I think there should be investigations but I do think that if someone is not involved in the fighting, if they are actively taking refuge in their home or fleeing, they should not be a target. If you make them the target I wonder whether you take a step down the road which leads to tyranny and to terrorism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am in total agreement with stopping the rockets and violence, but for that to happen there would need to be a change in attitude too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Read the update and see the chances of peace happening according to the Hamas charter.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've been reading a book by Alan Johnston the BBC journalist who was kidnapped in Gaza.

    He said during his time there he's seen Palastian children as young as eight or nine throwing stones at the Israeli troops. It's mindset that is impossible to change.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Given your name, I would expect you to write this way. However, this is a distortion of what is happening.

    Hamas is not even being supported by the Arab world - that's what is the bottom line here.

    I don't expect you to address any of the points in the post and I deeply sympathize with the loss of life there but let me ask you two questions:

    1. Does Israel have a right to exist without being exterminated?
    2. Where should they be allowed to exist?

    Please don't shuffle off onto other rhetoric - just answer those two simple questions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "1. Does Israel have a right to exist without being exterminated?
    2. Where should they be allowed to exist?".

    Israel does not have a right to exist simply because the Jews claimed that in the Bible God promised them land. However, the people have a right to exist. I suggested that America gives them a chunk of Alaska.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "I suggested that America gives them a chunk of Alaska."

    Better yet, give them a chunk of the UK; the UK created the problem in the first place when the mideast was broken up into Palestine, Iraq, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  9. BobG: I agree that the problem is largely created by British interference. However, it would not be practical trying to fit the Promised Land within the UK. It is basically an issue of land. Alaska has plenty of that, and given the US support for the Israelis, it is not such a bad idea.

    ReplyDelete

Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.