snapshot

Please explain how this photo demonstrates an Israeli war crime.

Finally – I thought my inflammatory one-sentence post would go ignored and I’d have to ask myself..

Israel has been targetting infrastructure: the airport, bridges out of cities, etc. They have also been er, not targetting: that is, bombing with a wanton disregard for civilians.

The Fourth Geneva Convention outlaws “collective penalties” on a civilian population, as does Protocol II from 1977, though Israel didn’t sign that one (Only 4 countries have.)

Civilian infrastructure is a legal target if it is being used by enemy forces. The roads, bridges and airport that Israel is bombing is used by Hezbollah to move men and weapons to the front. It’s fair game.

Does this mean you also recognize Hezbollah’s targetting of Israeli infrastructure as legal warfare?

Are the Israeli buses considered “infrastructure” or just the passengers?

You cannot commit war crimes against inanimate objects. A third grader knows that “collective penalties” refer to reprisals carried out against a population, i.e. mass executions, rather than infrastructure that allows the movement of troops and weapons. Legitimate military targets include: armed forces and persons who take part in the fighting; positions or installations occupied by armed forces as well as objectives that are directly contested in battle; military installations such as barracks, war ministries, munitions or fuel dumps, storage yards for vehicles, airfields, rocket launch ramps, and naval bases.

Legitimate infrastructure targets include lines and means of communication, command, and control—railway lines, roads, bridges, tunnels, and canals—that are of fundamental military importance.

Legitimate communications targets include broadcasting and television stations, and telephone and telegraph exchanges of fundamental military importance.

Legitimate military-industrial targets include factories producing arms, transport, and communications equipment for the military; metallurgical, engineering, and chemicals industries whose nature or purpose is essentially military; and the storage and transport installations serving such industries.

Legitimate military research targets include experimental research centers for the development of weapons and war matériel.

Legitimate energy targets include installations providing energy mainly for national defense, such as coal and other fuels, and plants producing gas or electricity mainly for military consumption. Attacks on nuclear power stations and hydroelectric dams are generally, but not always, prohibited by the laws of war.

Not to mention, the Israeli’s leafleted the whole area warning that the strikes were imminent, allowing both innocent civilians and guilty terrorists to escape. Personally, I feel the Israeli response has been remarkably restrained.

Of course the moving of prisoners requires this kind of response from Israel? right! When Israel captures Hezbolla, they are just prisoners and is somehow justified. But he Hezbolla captures Israeli military it’s called kidnapping and Israel bombs the bloody hell out of the entire city, of which Hezbolla is only a minority.

We know that gang members who have murdered in the past live in North Nashville. Should we have the Nashville SWAT team blow up Charlotte Ave?

Are the Israeli buses considered “infrastructure” or just the passengers?

I think we both know the answer to that. I’m merely asking Bill if he subjects Hezbollah to the same exemptions and logic he applies to Israel.

Legitimate infrastructure targets .. of fundamental military importance.

If your argument hinges, as it seems to, on the claim that everything Israel has attacked in the last week was of “fundamental military importance”, you’re either not paying attention or being willfully ignorant. Israeli actions thus far are punitive in response to perceived Lebanese support for Hezbollah. Even Haaretz acknowledges as such:

IAF strikes killed at least 30 Lebanese civilians on Saturday, pounding Lebanon for a fourth straight day to punish it for letting Hezbollah militants threaten northern Israel.

Their actions are harming Lebanese civilian infrastructure far beyond any damage they could inflict on Hezbollah’s ability to function in south Lebanon, and they are completely disproportional (another violation of international law). I don’t understand how you can justify – morally, if not in international law – the deaths of 78 and counting civilians in retribution for the capture (er, sorry, “kidnapping”) of IDF soldiers.

“Here is a nice photo of Israel committing a war crime:” Do you remember writing that, or are you being willfully ignorant?

How many civilians were killed in that picture? That still remains the topic. If you have proof of Israeli war crimes, then by all means publish them. But a picture of a bridge being blown up does not meet the standard of war crime.

Your “revised” argument of civilian deaths nationwide (over a hundred now, by the way)is irrelevant. Other than to change the topic away from your erroneous characterization of the above photo.

I didn’t revise my argument. The picture is of an Israeli missile destroying a bridge – civilian infrastructure of no “fundamental military importance”.

Israel is punishing the people of southern Lebanon. That’s a war crime.

There is no such thing as a “civilian bridge”. It is just a bridge. It can be used by civilians as well as by hostiles. Bridges are legit military targets. Whether Israel is “punishing” the Lebanese or not is immaterial, as you have yet to demonstrate how blowing that bridge up relates to your argument. You revised your argument from “blowing up this bridge=war crime” to “I don’t understand how you can justify — morally, if not in international law — the deaths of 78 and counting civilians in retribution for the capture (er, sorry, “kidnapping”) of IDF soldiers.”

Let’s say, for example, we are at war with Israel. They blow up BNA and all the bridges connecting East Nashville to downtown as part of this war. Is that too a war crime? Or do only Lebanese bridges qualify?

There is no such thing as a “civilian bridge”. It is just a bridge.

Fine, remove the adjective “civilian”. It’s just a bridge. The onus is still on you to demonstrate how it, and the rest of Israel’s targets are of “fundamental military importance”.

Let’s say, for example, we are at war with Israel. They blow up BNA and all the bridges connecting East Nashville to downtown as part of this war. Is that too a war crime? Or do only Lebanese bridges qualify?

If BNA and the bridges connecting East Nashville and downtown are of fundamental military importance (say, the bridges are fundamental for transport of steel in making bombers in downtown Nashville or something), then no. Otherwise, if the goal is merely to punish, terrorize, or intimidate the civilian population, then yes.

No, the onus is still on you to demonstrate how that bridge in Lebanon was blown up “merely to punish, terrorize, or intimidate the civilian population”. That would prove your initial point of it being a war crime, which you have yet to do.

No. The geneva convention stipulates that targets of “fundamental military importance” are okay. Israel has been targeting the airport, bridges, water supplies and power. These comprise civilian infrastructure. The onus is on Israel (or you, since you’re defending them) to provide justification as to how these targets are of fundamental military importance. It’s rather easy for me to provide evidence that they are of fundamental civilian importance: civilians use the bridges. Civilians drink water. Civilians use power. Now you explain how destroying these things will impede Hezbollah while maintaining a semblance of proportionality. I’ll wait here.

In the meantime, I updated the post with a few choice quotes representing the punishment/intimidation angle.

That’s all very nice. My point is the photo. What bridge is it? What leads you to believe it to not be of any military signifigance? What you are presenting is a very circumstantial case full of fallacious reasoning. 1)Civilians use bridges. 2)The IDF is blowing up bridges. 3) Israel is committing a war crime in this picture.

Do you not see where you are missing a “2.5”?

“The picture is of an Israeli missile destroying a bridge — civilian infrastructure of no “fundamental military importance”.”

So Chris, were the British guys in that one movie committing a war crime when they blew up “The Civilian Infrastructure on the River Kwai”?

No. The bridge over the river kwai was being built with forced labor as part of a rail line specifically for military use to support Japan’s occupation of Burma.

I do, yes. Assuming you are admitting that there is targetting of Lebanese civilian infrastructure as is being reported, well, everywhere; that such action does indeed constitute a war crime; and further that the sum of your objection now has basically been reduced to “well, maybe that particular bridge in the picture isn’t one of the many bridges being destroyed along with water and power grids – like maybe it was some special Hezbollah bridge that only Israel knew about, therefore that SPECIFIC picture isn’t an example of Israel committing the war crimes”, well, uh, then.. point taken. Touche?

Neither Israel or Lebanon are my allies. It’s a shame the U.S. sees fit to take sides there. Nothing good will come of it.

The U.S. can’t help but jump into the middle, we are the world’s referee, whether they want us or not.

Read the first damn comment. My argument hasn’t been reduced at all. It is still the same. Your claim was that THIS photo was of Israel committing a war crime. My question: “Please explain how this photo demonstrates an Israeli war crime.”

You’ve given examples of possible war crimes and a general opposition to the Israeli action. You have assumed that the bridge was part of the punitive action of leaving S. Lebanon as a zone of destruction, but can cite no source that backs up your point that this is a picture of a war crime. You provide no context other than a bridge being blown up.

Instead of it being a “special Hezbollah bridge”, maybe, it is a bridge used by Hezbollah to weapons, supplies and men. Perhaps it is a possible avenue of approach to the Israeli flanks and they are securing their position by eliminating that avenue of approach. Both are legit military reasons why the bridge had to go bye-bye.

Wait, is this one of those Wage deals where anything that Israel does is a “war crime”? Fine. Then it is a war crime, despite the lack of any info outside of a blurb on Yahoo!. Hell, the Yahoo! blurb at least says that Israel is sealing the country by blowing up routes out of the country.

I think most of you are missing the point. If you are letting a murderer live in your house, don’t complain when the police kick in the door to arrest him.

A referee is generally regarded as a fair, impartial arbiter. In this case, the U.S. so overwhelmingly favors Israel that it’s more than specious to use that term.

So maybe referee was the wrong word to use. Sorry. My point was the U.S. seems to have to stick its nose into so many places that it isn’t required to be. The middle east has been fighting since the beginning of time and the U.S. thinking we are just going to go in there and fix everything, which isn’t going to happen unless the countries want us there fixing it. I agree with you nothing good will come of this if we jump in, on whatever side we jump in.

But when the police start killing the non-threatening, non-murderous guy sitting on the couch I do have a right to complain.

Sorry Misty, but you should not be hanging with murderers.

Guilt by association.