radio Monday night and also Wednesday night. Stability has its utility. And I will be sure to mention it again Monday night when I am on the air. It is a damn good point.

The settler-state undoubtedly will stick to aerial bombardment because Israelis won't tolerate the heavy losses from urban hand-to-hand combat. Hezbollah, on the other hand, will accept whatever losses it takes to thrown back the invaders. But with the 34 children slaughtered today in Qana, international pressure may force Israel to call off its bombings, whether by artillery or by aircraft.

Meanwhile, the Arab world is erupting. Will its "moderate" (ie puppet governments with the US holding the strings) regimes be toppled by popular demand? Not if these puppets dance fast enough towards supporting Lebanon & Palestine. But could they even be toppled now, since this didn't happen 24 years ago when Lebanese casualties were 17,000 killed (approximately one half of these were Palestinians), compared to 600 so far this time around? Maybe, because in '82 the resistance to the IDF was very weak, whereas now it's ferocious to say the least. The Lebanese and Palestinian resistance, by holding their own against the IDF, could very well inspire the heretofore slumbering Arab/Islamic masses of the Middle East to take their destiny into their own hands and, if this happens, overthrowing their rulers will be at the top of their list..

And then it'll trun out that Israel along with its ally, America, will have changed the face of the Middle East. Nice going, President Bush. So what if the change turns out to be the opposite of what he had predicted? Al least there'll be a change. Won't that count for something? "Calm out of chaos." Where'd he come up with that, anyway?.

Israeli airstrikes destroyed three houses in the southern town of Qana. Lebanese officials said at least 20 bodies were pulled from the rubble, and dozens were trapped inside.

The Israeli army said it targeted the town because missiles have been repeatedly launched from the area. "We were attacking launchers that were firing missiles," said army spokesman Capt. Jacob Dallal, adding that the army had dropped leaflets several days before warning civilians to leave Qana.

A day earlier, warplanes struck outside the market town of Nabatiyeh, crushing a house and killing a woman, her five children, and a man in a nearby house, Lebanese security officials said. In the southern port city of Tyre, volunteers buried 31 victims of the bombardment in a mass grave, among them a 1-day-old girl.

update

Israeli forces destroy dozens of buildings in the village of Qana in southern Lebanon, killing at least 51 people, including 22 children

The Israeli army rejects responsibility for civilian deaths in the village of Qana, saying Hizbullah bears the blame because it uses the village as a rocket-launching site

By that logic, Hizballah could justify bombing all Israel, since Israel has been used to launch massive numbers of airstrikes and bomardments of Lebanon!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060730/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel

http://web.naharnet.com/default.asp

...to do with your position expressed here:

By that logic, Hizballah could justify bombing all Israel, since Israel has been used to launch massive numbers of airstrikes and bomardments of Lebanon!

The IDF rejects responsibility for the civilian deaths in the village of Qana because they assert that Hizbullah has consistently pursued a strategy of comingling their forces with civilians and because they did not know the civilians were present in the target area. This, from Human Rights Watch, would be a succinct summary:

In calculating the legality of an attack on premises where a Hezbollah combatant is present, Israel must take into account the risk to civilians. It is not relieved from this obligation on the grounds that it considers Hezbollah responsible for having located legitimate military targets within or near populated areas, or that Hezbollah may be using the civilian population as a shield. Even in situations of Hezbollah’s illegal location of military targets, or shielding, Israel must refrain from launching any attack that may be expected to cause excessive civilian loss in comparison to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. That is, a violation by Hezbollah in this regard does not justify Israeli forces ignoring the civilian consequences of a planned attack. The intentional launch of an attack in an area without regard to the civilian consequences or in the knowledge that the harm to civilians would be disproportionately high compared to any definite military benefit to be achieved would be a serious violation of international humanitarian law, and a war crime.

The relevant question here is whether the IAF knew that they were putting this large a number of civilians at risk - if they knew, then what they did was a crime, unless there was a lot more tangible military benefit from the strike than it appears there could possibly have been. That said, it's clear that there is nothing that could possibly justify bombing all of the territory of any party to the conflict, and such actions would unambiguously be war crimes of the highest order.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

Israel said the bombing of that locale--the whole village---was justified because that village--the whole locale--both 'perimeter' and the 'center' of it, had been repeatedly used to launch attacks on Israel. This was again stated on CNN by an Israeli Security Cabinet guy today, talking with Blitzer.

So, the officially stated Israeli position is that if territory is being used to launch attacks on Israel, that territory is a justifiable target since one knows the enemy is operating there. Of course, one must not deliberately and intentionally target non-combatant civilians there, though 'collateral damage' is reasonably foreseeable.

If that position is allowed, then Hizb'allah can use it too to launch missile attacks on Israeli territory, on the ground that that territory is being used as a locale, or set of locales, from which bombardments of Lebanon are being launched and/or logistically facilitated, where Israeli combat and logistics operatives are sheltering, etc. There are plenty of IDF soldiers and support personnel moving about on the streets of all Israeli cities and towns, not least in northern Galilee, Haifa, etc. Of course, one must not deliberately and intentionally target non-combatant civilians there.

Most of Israel--or all of it--is a logistical resource for IDF combat operations. Now, Israel has bombed roads, gas stations, bridges, buildings used by Hizb'allah politicians, etc. What is there to say that Hizb'allah's rockets are not allowed to target similar infrastructure, supply routes, etc, in Israel?

Sure, sometimes on both sides, weapons miss their intended targets. That's unfortunate, tragic, etc.

But Hizb'allah's weapons have killed far fewer civilians than Israel's.

Of course, I don't accept the stated Israeli position anyway, so I personally would not give Hizb'allah the benefit of the analogy either. But if one allows the Israeli position, then there's no principled basis for disallowing Hizb'allah the same combat 'privileges'.

Israeli tank and artillery fire, for example, have come from the outskirts of Kiryat Shmona. That locale has been targeted by Hizb'allah (with little loss of civilian life).

Railways and buses have been used to transport thousands of IDF personnel through the Haifa locale too. That locale too has been targeted by Hizb'allah.

Israeli command and control structures are all over Tel-Aviv. Should Hizb'allah not try to knock them out, if they have the weaponry that could do so? (Cf. the many hits on Tyre).

Your position would have the consequence of disallowing combat by one side with less precise--but also less deadly--weaponry.

I think that's just crap.

My analogy is a fair one.

Here's the transcript of the remarks you referred to:

BLITZER: Minister Herzog, thanks very much for joining us. The reaction, the condemnation of Israel coming in, including from some moderate Arab leaders. King Abdullah of Jordan saying, "This criminal aggression is an ugly crime that has been committed by the Israeli forces in the cities of Qana that is a gross violation of all international statutes."

How is it possible that Israel's formidable, highly efficient military could go ahead and commit this kind of civilian casualties?

ISAAC HERZOG, ISRAELI TOURISM MINISTER: First of all, it's a very tragic event. We are very sorry for it, and we made it clear that we are very, very sorry for it. However, one needs to know that out of the kind of village, out of that spot, out of the surrounding spots, hundreds of missiles were launched on Israel in the last few days.

BLITZER: How close to that building that was destroyed?

HERZOG: Very close, according to our identification. From that village were three spots, including the spots which are adjacent to that building...

BLITZER: When you say very close, what dose that mean? Ten feet, 30 feet, 100 feet?

HERZOG: It means that well, we've identified missile launchers which were used from that area constantly. Hundreds of missiles throughout the whole perimeter of that village and from the center of the village. We've warned the citizens all the time to move out so that we can handle these launchers.

And by the way, under all statutes of international law, we are permitted to attack such a village if there are attacks on Israel by aggressing forces. By the way, non-Lebanese, Hezbollah forces, that have been using this as a launch pad constantly on hundreds of thousands of Israelis in the last few days.

BLITZER: Do you have evidence, because there's some suggestion you're going to release photographs or some surveillance, aerial reconnaissance photography, to prove your point.

HERZOG: The military is exactly working on this right now. The whole area, the whole area, from the center of the village outside the village, was used constantly on Kiryat Shmona, on Afula, on the Jezrael Valley, on Kiim (ph), on Mrar, all our villages and others. And people have been wounded heavily. Today over 50 Israelis wounded by these types of missiles, horrible missiles. And let me tell you one more thing. It is now known by the whole world, including by human rights organizations which investigated the original Qana tragedy...

BLITZER: Back in 1996.

HERZOG: Yes, that the Hezbollah is using these villages as human shields. The Hezbollah has left them there as human shields.

BLITZER: Did you know...

HERZOG: And Hezbollah is fully responsible for this tragedy.

BLITZER: Did you know there were civilians, men, women and children, dozens of them, in this building that you targeted?

HERZOG: None at all. On the contrary, our instructions are always to the military, if they know of anything, not to carry out any operation. We are very cautious.

We are trying to do the highest morality, but you know yourself from Afghanistan, to Iraq, these things unfortunately occur when terrorist organizations use civilians as human shields, hiding them in all sorts of places and trying to use them as their protectors.

BLITZER: Is this a turning point in this crisis right now, as the Qana incident back in '96 clearly was a turning point?

HERZOG: It's a big in the chain of events. But the engines toward the contours of the exits from this conflict are clear. They are backed by the whole world. They are the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1559. They are the pullout of the Hezbollah from that area. The incapability for the future of the Hezbollah to attack Israel.

It's all there. By the way, they could have stopped these shootings and sending missiles, and things would have stopped. But they keep on sending missiles and they threaten to send more on the center of Israel.

And they sent today, a huge barrage of missiles in northern Israel. And therefore, what we are doing, we are protecting our citizens and we are trying to dismantle the infrastructure of one of the worst organizations on earth.

If by "attack such a village" he means literally to attack the village as a group target, rather than "attack specific targets, trying to destroy launchers or similar military targets within the village" then the IAF is clearly in the wrong. My read is that what he said isn't clear enough to be entirely sure which precisely he means, particularly if he's working in a non-native tongue (I don't know enough about the guy to know what his mother tongue is). However, if they were targeting the village generically, they would be violating Article 51 of Protocol 1:

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;

What you've suggested here:

Most of Israel--or all of it--is a logistical resource for IDF combat operations. Now, Israel has bombed roads, gas stations, bridges, buildings used by Hizb'allah politicians, etc. What is there to say that Hizb'allah's rockets are not allowed to target similar infrastructure, supply routes, etc, in Israel?"

...is also an example of an indiscriminate attack under Article 51:

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

[snip]

(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective;

Unguided rockets of the type Hizbullah has been using are not capable of being directed at a specific military objective of the type ypu've mentioned. To sum it up, the IAF has violated international law if they targetted the entire village without discrimination and may also have violated international law if they attacked without reference to proportionality, however Hizbullah has definitely violated international law just by virtue of using the weapons they have employed in the way they have.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

There are two things.

1. What international law says.

2. What Israel says (and does).

My analogy was explicitly based on 2, and made no reference to 1.

Previously the Israeli justice minister Ramon basically stated that south Lebanon would be treated as a free fire zone, and we saw the results in Qana.

A reductio ad absurdum of your interpretation is the fact that the vast majority of weapons used in all modern wars do not permit of complete precision. This would mean that almost all weapons use in modern warfare has violated Article 51. But that can't be what the Article means.

Moreover, even Katyusha rockets are 'guided' to some extent.

I also think your reading of Herzog is unreasonably charitable. He's clearly saying these weapons were fired from in and around these villages, so bombing in and around these villages is ok.

Hizb'allah could as easily say, artillery fire was directed at us from the Kiryat Shmona area, and we replied with rocket volleys.

In fact, Nasrallah the other night actually said that the long range rockets fired at Afula were fired at an IDF base in Afula.

...down, anyway. The law does not require complete precision - it requires sufficient precision to reliably strike a given target. Katyushas typically have a CEP of a couple percent (3-4%) of the target range. By extension, this means that if the firing point is 10,000 m from the target, 50% of the time the weapon will fall within a circle 800 metres across centred on the target. As the range of firing increases, so too does the size of the impact area. There aren't a whole lot of targets out there of the size required to make this a valid weapon in this mode of use and they sure as heck exclude the classes of targets that you mentioned previously (roads, gas stations, bridges, buildings, and supply routes).

While we're on the topic, Katyushas (and associated missile types like the Fajr series and and probably the Zelzal series) are not in any way guided weapons - they are ballistic missiles, you point them where you want them to go and shoot; once launched, no mid-course correction of the trajectory occurs. Guided weapons are weapons where mid-course corrections are possible. Artillery barrages (almost always) are also unguided, but due to the ballistic properties of artillery shells and the properties of the guns that fire them they are generally far more accurate than rockets, typically by around an order of magnitude.

As to your belief that Article 51 can't mean what I say it means, I would point out that the commentaries on Protocol I specifically identify unguided missile systems that can not be "aimed exactly at the objective" as an area of particular concern and something explicitly covered by the Article.

I agree - it is a real possibility that Herzog meant that by what he said; that's why I highlighted it. On the balance of probability I think it unlikely, because one doesn't generally up and say that one is clearly violating international law, but I am continually surprised in this regard, and particularly by the IDF.

Hizbullah and Nasrallah and you can all say those various things, and you are all still clearly on the wrong side of international law. If one fires a weapon at a given target but does not have a reasonable chance of hitting it and in doing so puts the civilian population at risk, one is in the wrong - it's just that simple.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

that Hizballah's actions were justified by international law. The analogy doesn't depend on what international law lays down. So your statement, Hizbullah and Nasrallah and you can all say those various things, and you are all still clearly on the wrong side of international law, is a misleading red herring.

Here's what I said:

The Israeli army rejects responsibility for civilian deaths in the village of Qana, saying Hizbullah bears the blame because it uses the village as a rocket-launching site

By that logic, Hizballah could justify bombing all Israel, since Israel has been used to launch massive numbers of airstrikes and bombardments of Lebanon!

(Emphasis added to the original.)

Note that I didn't say, By international law.

The analogies I drew depend not on international law, but on what the IDF claimed, as reported by the Israeli media.

The argument, in other words, is ad hominem, the homo in this case being the IDF.

...is that what you think and what I think personally are completely irrelevant, compared to what a bunch of folks who wrote this body of law thought. There's that body of international law and practice, or there's nothing. You don't want to see nothing - I've seen the aftermath of nothing, in Lebanon among other places, and it's not very nice. In fact, it makes this look like a church picnic. You want to continue advancing arguments because they make you feel good, fire away - I'll continue to point out what the law appears to be and using it to point out where your argument lacks merit. I will also say that your argument, applied and played out to its reasonably forseeable end leads to a civilian toll orders of magnitude higher than what we're seeing and I really don't give a shit how much latin you dress that up in.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

It's the IDF's.

My argument is that the IDF's argument, applied and played out to its reasonably forseeable end leads to a civilian toll orders of magnitude higher than what we're seeing.

"These places are not villages. They are military bases in which Hezbollah people are hiding and from which they are operating....All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah" - Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon 27/07/06

I'll leave you to do the math if a similar standard is applied by Hizballah towards Israel .

And I don't give a shit how disingenuously, gratuitously and pathetically you wish to keep on evading, distorting and misrepresenting my point.

I'm not manipulating or distorting your point. Frankly, I've already conceded that if the IDF is using the criteria you say they're using they are clearly in the wrong - if it's true, what they're doing is a crime. Period, full stop.

What I am saying is that the logic that you say has been used to justify this would not make it okay, and it does not make Hizbullah reprisals that apparently use the same logic okay. Clearly, if Israel's logic is as you say it is then both sides are using identical logic and should be equally condemned.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

previously in this exchange:

If that position is allowed, then Hizb'allah can use it too to launch missile attacks on Israeli territory. Of course, I don't accept the stated Israeli position anyway, so I personally would not give Hizb'allah the benefit of the analogy either.

(Emphasis added to the original.)

So I guess we're in agreement.

Splice the mainbrace and handshakes all round!

On Thursday, the Israeli military's Al-Mashriq radio that broadcasts into southern Lebanon warned residents that their villages would be "totally destroyed" if missiles were fired from them. Leaflets with similar messages were dropped in some areas Saturday.

LINK

...of Herzog's remarks is strengthened.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

posted any pictures of all these rocket launchers they have destroyed?

...some of the juicy truck-mounted multiple launch ones. The singletons, no - nothing much to see, I'd guess.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

using Hezbollah (Party of God) when it should be "Party of Civillian Killers"?

It's fine for you to use propganda in your own posts, but why do you complain when others don't go along with you?

It's called the IDF because that's what the english translation of its name is - according to Wikipedia, the literal translation of "Tsva HaHagana LeYisrael" is "Force for the Defense of Israel".

As to your question here:

My father was a freedom fighter in Denmark after Germany invaded.
How is Hezbollah any different?
Hezbollah was formed after Israel invaded Lebanon.
In WWII they were freedom fighters, now they are terrorists.

Did the Danish resistance deliberately kill civilians? Did they embrace terror as a principal element of a warfighting strategy? If they didn't and I'm pretty sure they didn't, that'd be how it's different. The notion that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter is sophistry, plain and simple.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.