1559 is important to the israeli justification for its attacks.
but it is clear that they have a strange relationship to un resolutions, however: how many have they ignored relative to their treatment of palestinians?
no wait: the other ones serve no immediate political function.
forget them.
meanwhile, this from the daily star based in beirut:
Quote:
Assault on Lebanon makes mockery of Geneva Conventions
Daily Star staff
BEIRUT: Israeli actions in the past week appear to be in violation of international law regarding the conduct of war, which is regulated by the Geneva Conventions, a set of international agreements first formulated in 1949 that govern - among other things - the treatment of civilians. These cover all international conflict, whether declared or undeclared, meaning the current Israeli offensive against Lebanon is subject to international law.
Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and their 1977 Protocols, civilians are defined as all those who are not active participants in combat. Under Article 51 of Protocol I "the civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited." This would seem to indicate that the July 15 attack on a minibus full of civilians attempting to flee the village of Marwahin in the South, resulting in 18 deaths, constituted a breach of international law.
While Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations," Article 48 of Protocol I states that "the presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character." This means the presence of military targets, including arms caches, in civilian areas of Beirut and in villages in the South of Lebanon, does not render those areas acceptable military targets. This also indicates Hizbullah's attacks on civilian targets are illegal under international law. Warring parties are also prohibited under the First Protocol from using civilians to shield their military installations, as Israel has accused Hizbullah of doing.
Also prohibited under international law are attacks on "civilian objects." These include water-processing plants, such as the Yurin plant, and the grain silo in Beirut Port, both attacked Saturday by Israel. This also applies to the civilian power plants around the country which have come under deliberate attack. Attacks on civilian targets such as food and water storage facilities and power plants may also be considered to be reprisals, banned under Article 52 of Protocol I.
The type of weapon that may be used in war is also governed by international law. Article 35 of Protocol I states: "It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering." Witnesses have reported that on July 15, the Israeli Air Force dropped cluster bombs on the southern suburbs of Beirut. These bombs, which explode multiple times, distributing large amounts of shrapnel, are internationally banned, although this ban is not recognized by all countries.
Furthermore, according to a statement released by the Presidential Palace, on Saturday, in its attack on villages in the Arqoub area in the South, Israel made use of phosphorus weapons, also internationally banned.
In violation of Article 62 of Protocol I, Israel has attacked two Civil Defense buildings, which are considered protected civilian objects under international law. - The Daily Star
|
source:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article....icle_id=74043#
there is a way in which debates about this topic are repetitions of nearly every other kind of debate in here: they begin and end with different assumptions about what information does and does not count in attempting to understand an event. generally, folk simlpy assert a position based on an ordering of information--and a defining of relevance--rarely do you get arguments for why it makes sense that information is shaped as it is. particularly from folk whose positions run them toward an endorsement of state power, of state actions. it seems that part of such support is a willingness to swallow prefabricated assumptions and move from there to construction of your "own" position.
folk who identify as coming from the left politically routinely try to raise questions about these assumptions and these questions are routinely ignored.
not being able to work out why a particular way of framing an argument is legitimate is not a particularly strong endorsement of the position.
on what possible basis are folk who find themselves supporting israel's attack on the civilian population of lebanon able to pretend that the logic of this situation began with hezbollah's rocket attacks last week?
on what possible basis can anyone disconnect what hezbolah has done from what the israelis--with full american support--have been doing to the palestinans since--o let's take an easy starting point--hamas was elected to the government?
or does trying to understand what hezbollah might be doing amount to support for hezbollah? on what planet? for what reason? [[on this the effect of the discourse of "terrorism" that the bush administration has used to prop itself up for 5 years now can be seen in a kind of collective lobotomy]]
do folk really think that the geopolitical view==floated by the bush administration as much for obfuscation as for anything else--works to the exclusion of the question of israel's treatment of the palestinians?