fungus:

The MEMRI article reference I provided is nothing like the Gush Shalom example. If you read through that article you will notice that they are quoting the Arab press. Are you trying to tell me that the Arab press are biased towards Israel as well?

As for Shebaa Farms, the United Nations support the claim that it is indeed Syrian territory. As I stated above, it has always been Syrian territory in the past. The unfinished work of a Syrian-Lebanese committee to try and clearly define the border does not change the fact that when Israel captured this territory in 1967, it was indeed Syrian territory.

Why then, is Syria now being vaguely supportive of the Lebanese claim to the area? As you are probably aware, Syria is the major sponsor of Hezbollah in Lebanon, another terrorist organisation calling for the destruction of Israel. The Shebaa Farms, with Syrian support, is nothing but a pretext used by Hezbollah to continue their attacks against Israel.

Hey Fungus,

I am familiar with the articles you list when you mention ‘proportionality’.

Please note the following:

• According to law (international), Israel is not required to calibrate its use of force precisely according to the size and range of the weaponry used against it.

• The Associated Press on 28/12/08 reported (in the context of yet another Gaza conflict) that most of the 230 Palestinians who were reportedly killed were “security forces,” and Palestinian officials said “at least 15 civilians were among the dead.” The numbers reported indicate that there was no clear intent by Israel to inflict disproportionate collateral civilian casualties. What is critical from the standpoint of international law is that if the attempt has been made “to minimize civilian damage, then even a strike that causes large amounts of damage – but is directed at a target with very large military value – would be lawful.”.

• You mentioned the Rome Statute. Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, explained that international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court “permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur.” The attack becomes a war crime when it is directed against civilians. This is exactly what Hamas did and does.

• After September 11, when the Coalition of the Willing united to collectively expunge the Talibans, no one compared Afghan casualties to the actual numbers that died in at the WTC. There clearly is no international expectation that military losses in war should be on a one-to-one basis. To expect Israel to hold back in its use of decisive force against legitimate military targets in Gaza is to condemn it to a long war of attrition with Hamas.

For that matter, should we expect the ADF to shy away from replying to an IED that kills say 4 Australians in Afghanistan if the reply will most likely take out a military asset, kill 6 Taliban fighters and regrettably 20 Afghan civilians?

Avw, regarding the Shebaa Farms, well if the solution to the situation is for Israel to abide by international law and withdraw from them anyway, then I believe the ball is in Israel's court on that one.

Regarding the blockade of Gaza, the links I have provided about it describe in much detail a crippling blockade by Israel. The link you provided is of an article in which things seem to have improved in Gaza from the last time that journalist was there. The journalist attributes the easing of the situation to the smuggling tunnels and also to Israel's easing of the blockade. Also - and this could just be a coincidence - in the link you provided the journalist describes retailers having over-supplies of goods to sell. In the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs report I linked to, the report states that Israel's blockade of Gaza has hindered exporting abilities, leading to a glut of local products on the local market

Jonathan J. Ariel, you write, "You mentioned the Rome Statute. Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, explained that international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 'permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur.' The attack becomes a war crime when it is directed against civilians. This is exactly what Hamas did and does."

The Wikipedia entry I linked to cites Luis Moreno-Ocampo stating, "Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated."

One of the links I provided says this, "Attacks that are expected to cause collateral damage are not prohibited per se, but the laws of armed conflict restrict indiscriminate attacks. Article 57 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions states that, in an international conflict, “constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians, and civilian objects.” In addition, under Article 51, carpet bombing is prohibited, as are attacks that employ methods and means of combat whose effects cannot be controlled. Finally, attacks are prohibited if the collateral damage expected from any attack is not proportional to the military advantage anticipated. Military commanders in deciding about attacks have to be aware of these rules and either refrain from launching an attack, suspend an attack if the principle of proportionality is likely to be violated, or replan an attack so that it complies with the laws of armed conflict."

[continued below.]

[continued from above.]

Israel is known to use cluster bombs and white phosphorous bombs, both of which are clearly indiscriminate weapons. In one of the links I provided the writer states that use of cluster bombs is a war crime. Also, check out the links I provided earlier about the Israeli military targeting civilians.

One of the links I provided says that, "Attacks that are expected to cause collateral damage are not prohibited per se, but the laws of armed conflict restrict indiscriminate attacks. Article 57 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions states that, in an international conflict, “constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians, and civilian objects.” In addition, under Article 51, carpet bombing is prohibited, as are attacks that employ methods and means of combat whose effects cannot be controlled. Finally, attacks are prohibited if the collateral damage expected from any attack is not proportional to the military advantage anticipated. Military commanders in deciding about attacks have to be aware of these rules and either refrain from launching an attack, suspend an attack if the principle of proportionality is likely to be violated, or replan an attack so that it complies with the laws of armed conflict."

[continued below.]

You also write that nobody has taken the USA military to task for all the civilians it has killed in Afghanistan. Actually, John Pilger has. So has the Revolutionary Association for the Women of Afghanistan. I believe that using that as an argument is an example of what many Zionists seem to do when Israel comes in for criticism: "Oh yeah? Well, what about [insert human rights catastrophe here]?" The USA should come into criticism for the civilian deaths in Afghanistan. The fact that other countries have lousy human rights records does not mean that Israel should not be condemned for having a lousy human rights record.