Arlene Kushner on the Red Cross Honoring Terrorists and Other Matters

From Arlene Kushner:
May 12, 2013

Calling Your Attention...

To a variety of matters, each briefly. 

I begin with the Borovsky family -- the widow and five orphans left behind when Evyatar was brutally murdered by a terrorist at Tapuach Junction.  Murdered for no reason other than that he was Jewish.

Credit: IsraelToday

An appeal has gone out for funds for this family, and I ask you to consider helping, if you are moved to do so.  

The fund was established by Rabbi David Dudkevich, rabbi of Yitzhar (home of the Borowvskys; Rabbi Elyakim Levanon, rabbi of the Shomron Religious Council and others.

Visit the secure website Mekimi and learn about tax deductions and how to donate.  It is essential to specify Fund no. 1515 for the Borovsky family.  The website can be accessed in Hebrew or English (see upper left of homepage).

~~~~~~~~~~

And now a number of other issues to which you might want to direct your attention.  We'll start with this from Palestinian Media Watch:

Human Rights Watch and Red Cross on Kidnapped Israeli Soldiers: zzzzzzzzzzzz...

Israel Matzav notes how the Red Cross has yet to be able to visit Israel's kidnapped soldiers--nor has it raised a stink over it either.

Arutz Sheva asked the ICRC some questions:

Asked what public pressure the ICRC is exerting in order to get to see the three, the spokesperson noted the issuance of several press statements expressing the organization's concern over the plight of the abducted soldiers.

The last such press announcement was issued on August 9, stating that ICRC president Jacob Kelenberger had arrived in Israel and would discuss with Israeli officials "the humanitarian situation in northern Israel and in Lebanon, access to those in need, and the fate of captured soldiers and other people detained in connection with the conflict." [emphasis added]

...In response to the claim that no announcement on the matter had been issued in a month, and that the captives' issue seemed always to be buried among other issues, Yechezkel-Oron said, "The official announcements do not reflect the extent of our activity on the matter. There are behind-the-scenes contacts being made all the time. We are not a military organization, and we cannot force them."

Arutz-7 then asked why the ICRC does not hold a special press conference to declare that Hamas and Hizbullah refuse to allow visits to the captives. "Would this not keep the matter in the public eye, be the subject of newspaper articles, and force the world community to take note?" she was asked. The spokesperson responded that the ICRC and its demands had been mentioned in recent media articles regarding the captives.

Here isw an example of an ICRC press release, with the issue of Shalit's kidnapping buried among other issues. Maybe part of the problem is the Red Cross' sense of priorities. Take a look at this press release they put out on July 13:

ICRC gravely concerned about humanitarian situation in Gaza
Geneva (ICRC) – The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is alarmed about the deteriorating situation in the Gaza Strip.

The continuing escalation of violence, with military operations taking place in highly populated areas, has serious consequences for the civilian population.

Over the past two weeks, Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip have led to the deaths of dozens of people and the wounding of many more, among them a large number of civilians. In one single incident on 12 July, nine family members – including children – were killed in their home by an air strike in Gaza City. In some cases, people living near operations have been unable to leave their homes for several days.

The ICRC has urged and continues to urge Israel to respect the rules of international humanitarian law. In particular, in the conduct of hostilities, Israel must take all precautions to spare civilian life and property. It must also ensure that the wounded have access to medical facilities.

Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is continuing to deteriorate. The strike on Gaza's only power plant on 28 June reduced the power supply in the Strip by half, with direct and indirect effects on the population. Hospitals and a large part of the water and wastewater systems now depend on generators that consume considerable amounts of fuel, which is also in short supply owing to recurrent closures of the Strip. Furthermore, the strict controls imposed on the passage of basic items into the Strip have exacerbated the difficulties faced by residents, who were already living in precarious conditions. Under international humanitarian law, Israel is responsible for meeting the basic needs of the population, which include food, medical supplies and means of shelter.

As a further consequence of the ongoing situation in the Gaza Strip, hundreds of Palestinians have been stranded on the Egyptian side of the Rafah terminal, two of whom have reportedly died. The material and psychological conditions in which these people live are deteriorating day by day and no solution to their plight has been found by the parties concerned. The ICRC has already offered its services to facilitate their passage into the Gaza Strip. Meanwhile, together with the Egyptian Red Crescent, it is providing the affected people with assistance.

The ICRC is seriously concerned about the consequences of the repeated launching of rockets from the Gaza Strip against the civilian population in Israel. These attacks, which have wounded several people, are indiscriminate and thus prohibited by international humanitarian law.

Finally, the ICRC urges those detaining IDF corporal Gilad Shalit to treat him humanely and allow him to contact his family. It has informed all the parties that it stands ready to provide its services.

The Red Cross' 'humanitarian concern' places Shalit last as a priority. One wonders if ICRC's "behind the scenes" efforts are as buried as their casual reference to Shalit in their news release.

Arutz Sheva gives links for contacting the ICRC:

The ICRC can be emailed as follows:
The Washington office
The Geneva office
The Tel Aviv office

Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch has not exactly been banging the drums either about the kidnapped soldiers.

Part of the problem may be their contradictory message. On the one hand they have news releases that claim:

Since June 25, Palestinian armed groups have abducted and killed an Israeli settler in the West Bank and are currently holding Israeli soldier Corporal Gilad Shalit hostage, whom they have offered to release in exchange for some of the Palestinians imprisoned by Israel. A hostage is a person held in the power of an adversary in order to obtain specific actions, such as the release of prisoners, from the other party to the conflict. Holding persons as hostages and the summary execution of anyone held captive are war crimes. [emphasis added]

Clearing, the reference to the holding of hostages as a war crime is referring to Shalit.

But on July 26, in an open letter to Ahmadinejad, HRW helpfully writes:

On July 12, Hezbollah launched an attack on Israeli positions, killing three Israeli soldiers and capturing two. The targeting and capture of enemy soldiers is allowed under international humanitarian law. However captured combatants in all circumstances must be treated humanely.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nassrallah stated that Hezbollah will use the captured soldiers to negotiate the release of Palestinian, Lebanese and other Arab prisoners from Israel. The use of captives who are no longer involved in the conflict for this purpose constitutes hostage-taking. Hostage-taking as part of an armed conflict is strictly forbidden under international law, by both common Article 3 and customary international law, and is a war crime. [emphasis added]

So HRW wants Ahmadinejad to know that kidnapping the soldiers was OK, up to the point of demanding prisoners in return.

Questions:

So according to HRW, even though there was no state of war between Lebanon and Israel, it is OK for Hezbollah to attack Israel and create the conflict under which the soldier they set out to kidnap becomes an enemy soldier? How nice of them to send a letter to Ahmadinejad giving their seal of approval for the actions of his proxie.

But what about when the group doing the kidnapping is acting independently of the country which it inhabits? Or is HRW saying that Hezbollah attacked Israel on the authority of the Lebanese government? Is HRW claiming that Israel and Lebanon were enemies before the attack?

How about Human Rights Watch?

Note that like ICRC, HRW also never came out with an independent news release about the kidnapping of Goldwasser and Regev. Their first release addresses the issue of Israel's reaction to the kidnapping.

Likewise, the first HRW press release in response to the June 25 kidnapping of Shalit came on June 29, in response to Israel's destruction of the power station.

Where is the outcry?
Human Rights Watch can be contacted here.

Technorati Tag: Israel and HRW and Human Rights Watch and Red Cross and ICRC and Shalit and Goldwasser and Regev.

Journalists Blame Israel for War Coverage

Note: This post was based on an article at YNetNews.com.
There are other accounts at the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz that paint a different picture of the nature of the comments made.
Media Line will be providing a transcript of what was actually said.

In the meantime, it may be that the comments made here are based on incorrect information

That's the headline from an article from YNet News.com. Amazing.

A number of journalists claimed during a convention in Jerusalem Monday evening that Israel and the IDF were mostly to blame for the way the foreign media covered the Lebanon war.

The panel of journalists, largely from the international media, convened to discuss their coverage of the war, at a conference arranged by the Media Line agency's Mideast Press Club.

On the one hand you have claims by the Chairman of the Foreign Press Association, and Bureau Chief of ABC News, Simon McGregor-Wood that "Journalists' access to the battlefield is controlled exclusively by the IDF...We are very disappointed that the IDF didn't give us more opportunities."

Complaints like that are expected.

But on the other hand is Steven Erlanger, the New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief, who claimed to be surprised that Israel's view of the war differed from that of its critics, and seems to be under the impression that Israelis didn't "quite grasp how the war was perceived outside of Israel." [Erlanger apparently was not taking US opinion into account]

Left unclear is why Israel should give weight to her critics' opinions at a time that thousands of rockets are raining down on Israel's cities and setting her forests on fire. McGregor-Wood and Erlanger share a hubris bordering on petulance at not getting their way. Erlanger himself is still stuck on the concept of proportionality in war and seems genuinely surprised that Israel did not further limit her defence of her citizens.

At the same time, during the convention:

Erlanger added that during the war, he "took General Yadlin (who briefed the press on IDF operations) too seriously."

'You are free to say what you like about us'

Erlanger told the panel he turned down an offer by the IDF Spokesperson Unit to gain access to IDF efforts aimed at enabling humanitarian aid to reach Lebanon, saying he was not interested in the story.

Considering how little attention was paid by the media to the casualites in Israel and the effect of 3,000-4000 Kassam rockets falling on her cities, it is not unexpected that Erlanger would have no interest in an angle that might cast Israel in a favorable light. Thus, while some of his colleagues mentioned the strict control Hezbollah enforced on the media, Ernlanger insisted that the only threat his own colleague faced in Lebanon was from Israel's missiles.

Another revealing remark was made by the Associated Press' Chief Jerusalem Correspondent, Ravi Nessman, who admitted that it was impossible to confirm what the death toll was:

"All we can do is report what everyone's telling us."

That is a recipe for confusion and bias--not reporting. It goes back to the 'Katrina Complex'.

In the aftermath of Katrina, during a discussion of the reporting that was done, Keith Woods, former newspaper reporter and editor at the Times-Picayune in New Orleans and currently dean of the faculty at the Poynter Institute-- a school for journalists in Florida waxed eloquently on the great job done by the press:

Well, I did like the aggressiveness of the journalists throughout, I liked the fact that for a good part of this reporting the journalists brought themselves to the reporting a sense of passion, a sense of empathy, a sense of understanding that they were not telling an ordinary story any more than the Sept. 11 attacks were an ordinary story. So I like the fact that journalism understood the size of this story from the very beginning and brought to bear the kinds of resources and the kind of passion in the coverage that we saw.

This is a description that could easily sum up the attitude of journalists in Lebanon. In Mr. Woods case, Hugh Hewitt pointed out the "the lurid, the hysterical, the salaciousness of the reporting...they let in all the rumors, and all the innuendo, all the first-person story because they were caught up in this own emotionalism."

This was something Hezbollah recognized, was ready for, and manipulated to a degree that the media is still not willing to admit.

Woods' response sheds light not only on the exaggerated over-the-top reporting at Katrina, but in Lebanon as well:

The kind of reporting that journalists have to do during this time is revisionist. You have to keep telling the story until you get it right.

This is not so different from Nessman's claim that "All we can do is report what everyone's telling us."

Nessman though is less honest. If indeed all the media can do is report what eveyone is telling them, then the question arises why equal time was not given to the casualties in Israel with the reporting done in Lebanon. Likewise, the stories told by Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian stringers are accepted without question without equal time for the Israeli view. The reporting of manufactured stories of Israeli attacks on Red Cross ambulances and Reuters vehicles is a current example of accepting stories whole.

At the conclusion of the convention:
"You are free to say what you like about us, in the same way we are free to say what we like about you," the ABC's Simon Wood told the audience, which largely consisted of US immigrants to Israel.One would have hoped that journalists would report the facts and not just feel "free to say what we like about you," but yes, Mr. Wood--people are free to say what they think of the job of the media, to a far larger audience than ever before.

Glad you noticed.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Lebanon and Media Bias.

The Kyoto Conference is Over...Didn't You Hear?

The eighth World Assembly of Religions for Peace in Kyoto, Japan ended on Tuesday with the adoption of the Kyoto Declaration. According to the declaration, religious communities and leaders must cooperate on the basis of mutual respect in order to confront violence while building institutions for collaboration among governments, societies as well as religious communitie--by advancing the notion of shared security.

Nope. I don't know what that is supposed to mean either.

But among the interesting highlights was Prince Hassan of Jordon, who said

The Arab leaders stole billions of dollars from the Arab people and spent it on weapons to fight Israel, which they will never defeat, instead of using the money for health and education purposes to aid their people

Considering the lack of significant coverage by the media, I doubt if anyone will take much note of anything said--just as Arabs in general, and Palestinian Arabs in particular, are unlikely to get all excited over Prince Hassan's statement.

Apparently dealing with the minimal level of mutual respect required for kidnapped Israeli soldiers to at least be visited by the Red Cross was not on the agenda.

Or forcing journalists to convert to Islam

Technorati Tag: Israel and Kyoto Conference and Prince Hassan.

What is Kofi Annan doing for the kidnapped Israeli soldiers?

From the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page

Hostage Crisis
What is Kofi Annan doing for the kidnapped Israeli soldiers?

BY JUDEA PEARL AND RUTH PEARL
Monday, August 28, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

As the parents of Daniel Pearl, The Wall Street Journal's reporter who was kidnapped and brutally murdered in Pakistan in 2002, we share the anguish of the families of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers, and their frustration with the international community for failing to secure the release of their loved ones. For more than six weeks now, these soldiers and their families live each day tortured by unimaginable fears and shattered hopes, praying desperately for the nightmare to end; we relive this nightmare each time an innocent person falls victim to the inhumanity of terrorist abduction.

Whatever success the U.N. Security Council would presume to claim, it cannot be said that Resolution 1701 has effectively addressed the direct cause of the fighting--the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser, 31, and Eldad Regev, 26, by Hezbollah, and the earlier abduction of Gilad Shalit, 19, by Hamas. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's call for the unconditional release of these soldiers has been ignored. Moreover, in flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, the terrorists have not only seized the soldiers as hostages for political blackmail, they have not allowed the Red Cross to visit them. Their families do not know their physical condition; they have no proof they are even alive.

And so now these families of Ehud, Eldad and Gilad are asking to meet with Kofi Annan. They wish to plead with the secretary-general to use the full weight of his moral authority to mobilize and intensify the efforts of the international community he leads--an influential body that has managed to compel two fierce armies to cease hostilities--to address this flagrant violation of humanitarian law.

On that score, these families are correct: The time has come for Mr. Annan to personally and aggressively intervene, and to insist publicly that, at the minimum, the Red Cross, or his personal humanitarian representatives, be given immediate access to these soldiers.

Will he? It seems unlikely. Sadly, this is not the first time that concerned parents have turned to Mr. Annan in much the same circumstances. Six years ago, another delegation of distressed families came to the U.N. with a similar tragedy, following the abduction of three Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah from under the noses of Unifil and, by some accounts, with their help. The investigation that was subsequently conducted found that the U.N. had made "serious errors in judgment" by hiding information that "would have been helpful in an assessment of the condition of the three abducted soldiers." At that time, the U.N.'s interest in appearing "neutral" overshadowed its commitment to the preservation of human lives. The world cannot afford a repeat of such inaction and poor judgment.

Undoubtedly, the secretary-general will tell the families of Ehud, Eldad and Gilad that he has dispatched a high-level team to Beirut that will urge the release of their loved ones. But that team negotiates behind closed doors. And by not publicly demanding the unfettered access of humanitarian representatives to the kidnapped soldiers, Mr. Annan has deprived his team of the force of credibility and seriousness they need in those negotiations.

When our son Daniel was in captivity, millions of people around the world prayed for his safe return. In that prayer, they made a solemn pledge never to allow abductions of innocent people to become the norm of civilized society, no matter the political purpose, regardless of grievance or goal.

Kofi Annan's resolve against these acts of terrorism will determine to a great extent what norms will govern our society in generations to come, and whether organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas will gloat in unruly appetite or be reined in by moral principles. We urge Mr. Annan to make bold and brave efforts to ensure--as a legacy and gift--that we will not allow our children and our world be taken captive by terror. Mr. Secretary-General, this time, help bring the boys back home.

Mr. and Mrs. Pearl are co-founders of the Daniel Pearl Foundation (www.danielpearl.org), a U.N.-affiliated NGO.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Daniel Pearl and Kofi Annan and Gilad Shalit and Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev and Hezbollah and Hizbollah and Hamas and UNIFIL.

Human Rights Watch: Human Rights Vs. Human Life

On August 17, Kenneth Roth,Executive Director of Human Rights Watch in New York, wrote a column in the Jerusalem Post explaining HRW's position on Israel's war with Hezbollah. Roth's intent is clear from the start:

Why did so many Lebanese civilians lost their lives to Israeli bombing? The government line is that the IDF was doing the best it could, but these deaths were the result of Hizbullah hiding its rockets and fighters among civilians. But that assertion doesn't stand up to the facts.

Roth graciously grants that Hezbollah 'sometimes' hid among Lebanese civilians, and 'possibly' committed the war crime of using civilian shields, but insists that in the 2 dozen instances of Israeli bombings of Lebanon that they investigated--"in none of those cases was Hizbullah anywhere around at the time of the attack."

Roth insists HRW knows this based on their procedure:

We probed and cross-checked multiple eyewitnesses, many of whom talked openly of Hizbullah's presence elsewhere but were adamant that Hizbullah was not at the scene of the attack. We examined bombing sites for evidence of military activity such as trenches, destroyed rocket launchers and military equipment, or dead or wounded fighters. If we were unsure, we gave the IDF the benefit of the doubt.

The case of Kana shows how this works.

Kana is a solid example of how HRW works? OK, let's take a look at Kana. On July 30, HRW reported:

Responsibility for the Israeli airstrikes that killed at least 54 civilians sheltering in a home in the Lebanese village of Qana rests squarely with the Israeli military, Human Rights Watch said today. It is the latest product of an indiscriminate bombing campaign that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have waged in Lebanon over the past 18 days, leaving an estimated 750 people dead, the vast majority of them civilians.

Then, 3 days later, on August 2, HRW reports its correction:

A preliminary Human Rights Watch investigation into the July 30 Israeli air strike in Qana found that 28 people are confirmed dead thus far, among them 16 children, Human Rights Watch said today.

The initial estimate of 54 persons killed was based on a register of 63 persons who had sought shelter in the basement of the building that was struck, and rescue teams having located nine survivors. It now appears that at least 22 people escaped the basement, and 28 are confirmed dead, according to records from the Lebanese Red Cross and the government hospital in Tyre.

Questions:

o If the second report is preliminary, what was the first one 3 days earlier--the erroneous one that HRW widely circulated?

o According to Roth, HRW investigations are full of probes and cross-checking of eyewitnesses as well as the investigation of the physical evidence. But at Kana, Roth's prime example of HRW's methods, there was apparently no checking with survivors--or did survivors confirm the higher numbers?

o Reporters have noted Hezbollah's presence, control, and intimidation. Was Hezbollah present during HRW's investigations and influence those interviewed? Since Hezbollah does not wear uniforms, how would HRW know? For that matter, what steps are taken by HRW to insure that their own members are not manipulated by Hezbollah in the way reporters have admitted they were?

o Moreover, since Hezbollah does not wear a uniform, how does HRW determine which casualties are Hezbollah and which are not?

In another well-crafted paragraph, Roth says:

But under international humanitarian law, just as Israeli abuses in Lebanon did not justify reprisals against Israeli civilians, so Hizbullah's war crimes did not justify Israel shirking its duty to protect Lebanese civilians.

First, Roth combines the idea of law and humanitarianism, which he utilizes later when he reinterprets international law. But what Roth also slips in is the insinuation that Hezbollah's thousands of bombs sent indiscriminately into Israel were neither acts of war nor terror but merely reprisals in response to so-called Israeli abuses in Lebanon.

But this paragraph takes the cake:

But giving warning, as required by international humanitarian law, does not relieve the attacker of the duty to distinguish between civilians and combatants and to target only combatants. Otherwise, Palestinian militants might "warn" Israeli settlers to leave their West Bank settlements and then be justified in attacking anyone who remained. Hizbullah might have done the same in northern Israel.

What "international humanitarian law" is Roth referring to here? Not the Geneva Convention. Roth claims that even after warning, Israel has "the duty to distinguish between civilians and combatants and to target only combatants." [emphasis added]

Roth is deceptive. By inventing the term "international humanitarian law" Roth clouds the issue--the Geneva Convention is a set of rules for the ugly, but often unavoidable, conduct of war, and does not forbid attacks where civilian lives are at risk. The avoidance of injury and casualty to civilians is desireable, but is not always possible. Thus the Geneva Convention, Chapter IV, Article 57 includes:

...(ii) Take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;

(iii) Refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated; [in this case the prevention of the indiscriminate bombing of Israel, including the hospital in Haifa]
...

(c) Effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit.

3. When a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining a similar military advantage, the objective to be selected shall be that the attack on which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects. [as opposed to forbidding the attack altogether]

Of course one can argue about Israel's attacks in the context of the outline of Article 57 , but by deceptively muddying the waters with talk of an "international humanitarian law," Roth implies the existence of law that exceeds what the Geneva Convention itself recognizes as legitimate.

Roth digs deeper into absurdity in that same paragraph:

Otherwise, Palestinian militants might "warn" Israeli settlers to leave their West Bank settlements and then be justified in attacking anyone who remained. Hizbullah might have done the same in northern Israel.

Since Palestinian militants terrorists make a point of targeting innocent women and children, in direct contradistinction to Israel's targeting of terrorists, Roth's argument is faulty--and by implying a justification of Palestinian terrorist attacks, insulting as well.

Roth concludes with his personal interpretation of how Israel should conduct war according to "international humanitarian law," a term he uses 3 times but never identifies:

It means attacking civilian structures and vehicles only if there is evidence that Hizbullah is actually using them. Even then, it means making serious efforts to determine whether civilian structures and vehicles contain civilians, and attacking only if the definite military advantage is so powerful that it justifies their deaths.

Above all, it means treating Lebanese civilians as human beings whose lives are as valuable as Israelis'. Protecting Israelis from Hizbullah's deadly rockets is vital, but it does not justify indifference to the taking of civilian lives on the other side of the border.

Roth has an obligation to ground his assumptions about international law in actual sources. His failure to do so is a reflection of his flight into fantasy, where abstract ideas of Human Rights take precedence over real threats to Human Life.

See also The Decline of Amnesty International at the Volokh Conspiracy
and
Human Rights Watch's Credibility--Not So Good

Technorati Tag: Israel and HRW and Lebanon and Hizbollah and Hezbollah and Geneva Convention.

How Reliable Is HRW In Lebanon?

Hat tip: Israel Matzav

On Saturday, Human Rights Watch has a revelation:

Hezbollah must immediately stop firing rockets into civilian areas in Israel, Human Rights Watch said today. Entering the fourth week of attacks, such rockets have claimed 30 civilian lives, including six children, and wounded hundreds more.

“Lobbing rockets blindly into civilian areas is without doubt a war crime,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. ”Nothing can justify this assault on the most fundamental standards for sparing civilians the hazards of war.”

...Some of the rockets, such as those that killed eight rail workers in Haifa on July 16 and two young brothers in Nazareth on July 19, have warheads packed with thousands of metal ball bearings that spray out from the blast. Launched on civilian areas, the ball bearings are intended to inflict maximum harm. [emphasis added]

HRW has also been busy tracking Hamas war crimes too, as they relate to the their indiscriminate use of Kassam rockets and kidnapping soldiers.

HRW is also accusing Israel of war crimes as well, not only discounting the warnings that Israel gave to civilians to leave the area, but denying that Hizbollah uses human shields:

The Israeli government claims that it targets only Hezbollah, and that fighters from the group are using civilians as human shields, thereby placing them at risk. Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack. Hezbollah occasionally did store weapons in or near civilian homes and fighters placed rocket launchers within populated areas or near U.N. observers, which are serious violations of the laws of war because they violate the duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. However, those cases do not justify the IDF’s extensive use of indiscriminate force which has cost so many civilian lives. In none of the cases of civilian deaths documented in this report is there evidence to suggest that Hezbollah forces or weapons were in or near the area that the IDF targeted during or just prior to the attack. [emphasis added]

There is a very real question whether HRW is doing its homework. The National Post (Canada) manages to report on 4 examples of Hizbollah using human shields--using hospitals:

The surgeon led a group of journalists over what remained: mangled debris, shredded walls and a roof punched through by an Israeli shell.

"Look what they did to this place," Dr. Fatah said, shaking his head. "Why in the world would the Israelis target a hospital?"

The probable answer was found a few hours later in a field nearby. Hidden in the tall grass were the burned remnants of a rocket-launcher.

Confronted with the evidence, Dr. Fatah admitted his hospital could have been used as a site from which to fire rockets into Israel.

"What choice to we have? We need to fight back from somewhere," he said, tapping his foot on the ground.

"This is Hezbollah's heartland."

using border villages:

"We've been preparing ourselves for this fight for the last five years. We can fight this for much longer," said Abu Ismail, a local Hezbollah leader near the village of Bint Jbeil who uses a nom de guerre, like most of his fellow fighters.

Residents of the cluster of villages closest to the Israeli border, Hezbollah's most loyal supporters, helped stow the weapons away.

But as the conflict continues, there is an undercurrent of anger among some residents.

"Hezbollah are using [us] as human shields," said Rima Khouri, gesturing overhead as Israeli warplanes sliced through the sky.

The Lebanese Christian woman fled from her village of Ain Abel to one of the swelling refugee shelters in the city of Tyre.

She was one of few people to speak freely about her anger at Hezbollah and their strategy of firing rockets into Israel from civilian areas.

and using homes:

Nasser Kareem shared her sentiments.

During a pitched battle in his village of Bint Jbeil last Thursday, the 48-year-old dentist watched from his kitchen window as Hezbollah fighters dragged a rocket launcher across the torn street in front of his house.

A few minutes later, he heard four successive blasts. Kareem barely managed to cover his four-year-old son's ears before the rockets were fired. His own ears are still ringing.

"Five minutes after they fired the rockets, the Israelis started bombing," he recalled from the safety of a shelter in Beirut.

"They are making us magnets for the Israelis," he said.

And in a village near Qana:

Anger boiled over last week when a shelter in Qana was hit, killing 29 people, most of them children.

"What have they done to deserve this? Is this a military target?" wept Mohamad Chaloub, clutching the lifeless body of his daughter.

Local officials said there were no weapons or rockets in the house where the children slept in Qana, no warning before the bomb fell.

But the next day, the same Lebanese Red Cross team that dug out the children's bodies stumbled across the shreds of more rocket launchers in a village nearby.

One was found deep inside a fruit orchard. Another was found wedged between two houses.

Rich Lowry of The Corner noted during his visit to Israel that Hezbollah had an observation post right next to a UN post on the Lebanon-Israel border.

In the same report, HRW has also accused Israel of attacking ambulances:

Two Israeli air strikes are known to have hit humanitarian aid vehicles. On July 18 the IDF hit a convoy of the Red Crescent Society of the United Arab Emirates, destroying a vehicle with medicines, vegetable oil, sugar and rice, and killing the driver. On July 23, Israeli forces hit two clearly marked Red Cross ambulances in the village of Qana.

Elder of Ziyon has a post that raises substantial questions on the accuracy of that claim.

According to Human Rights Watch, Hamas, Hizbollah, and Israel are all equally guilty of War Crimes.

Is the term "War Crime" going to be used indiscriminately, going the way of the term "holocaust"--and robbing it of any meaning?

The other question is: who is watching the watchers?

Tom Gross reports on how Hizbollah has manipulated journalists.

Israel Insider has a report on how UNIFIL officers have been bribed by UNIFIL officers who stood by and allowed IDF officers to be kidnapped.

Without independent confirmation, why should HRW's claims about the results of Israeli attacks in Lebanon, under the watchful eye of Hizbullah be believed?

Technorati Tag: Israel and HRW and HIzbollah and Hezbollah and Lebanon.

The AP Doesn't Like Israeli Censorship

The media seems outraged at Israel--again. In an article entitled Israeli censor wielding great power, AP reports:

Here's some news you may never hear about Israel's war against Hezbollah: a missile falls into the sea, a strategic military installation is hit, a Cabinet minister plans to visit the front lines.

All these topics are subject to review by Israel's chief military censor, who has — in her own words — "extraordinary power." She can silence a broadcaster, block information and put journalists in jail.

In the 5th paragraph, the article gets to the reason for the censorship:

The range of issues subject to censorship in the latest conflict with Lebanese guerrillas are all related to the goal of preventing Hezbollah from using the media to help it better aim rockets at Israel.

Sound simple enough, but the AP finds fault with the policy of censorhip for 2 reasons:
1. Freedom of the Press--it should be up to the editors to police their own paper.
2. Inaccuracy of the rockets used--so what's the point of hiding information that in this day and age is easy to pass along.

As far as the media policing itself, Mitchell Bard points out that in the Middle East, the journalists inevitably become part of the propaganda war since as a rule they can always be counted on to repeat what they are told first and only later--if ever--check out the veracity of what they have already reported.

During the current war in Lebanon, Hizbollah has taken advantage of the media's eagerness to get a story. Bard notes:

A CNN reporter is taken to an area of Beirut and told that the rubble of buildings is a result of Israeli air strikes on civilian targets. The reporter repeats the allegation as fact. He has no way of knowing what was in the buildings, whether it was a rocket workshop, a hiding place for katyushas, the home of a Hizballah leader, or a command center. In fact, he doesn’t even know if the Israel was responsible for the destruction that he is shown.

...The Lebanese Prime Minister is trying this tactic again in 2006 by claiming that Israel has perpetrated massacres and has made 500,000 people homeless. No effort is made to confirm these claims, they are simply repeated by the media, thereby reinforcing the incentive for Arab propagandists to spread disinformation.

Bard provides other examples of what happens when the media polices itself:

1. In April 2002 the Palestinians claimed that over 500 were killed in the 'massacre' in Jenin--which is exactly how the press reported it. Only later did the truth come out that 56 were killed, of whom 34 were combatants, by which time Israel's reputation was tarnished.

2. During the last war in Lebanon the Washington post published in August 2, 1982 a photo of a 7-month old baby that had been severely burned and lost both of its arms as a result of an Israeli jet accidentally hitting a Christian residential area. It turned out that the baby had not lost its arms and the burns were from a PLO attack on East Beirut. But the photo was one of the reasons Reagan called on Israel to stop its attacks.

3. During the same time the media reported that Israel's efforts to put an end to the PLO threats to northern Israel resulted in 10,000 and 600,000 homeless in southern Lebanon. But the numbers came from the Palestine Red Crescent--headed by Yasser Arafat's brother Fathi. The International Committee of the Red Cross used those numbers and later admitted they were wrong--by then it was too late: the perception that Israel was responsible for mass killings had already been created.

On the second point, that Hizbollah's rockets are inaccurate anyway, the AP writes:

Fired blind, Hezbollah's thousands of mostly short-range, inaccurate munitions simply pose a random peril to Israeli citizens.

Munitions? The AP performs the impossible: it actually makes it sound as if Hizbollah is less of a threat than Hamas. Forgotten is that Hizbollah has:

• 7,000 to 8,000—of 107mm and 122mm Katyusha rockets
• 144 Haseb-type multi-barrel rocket launcher mobile systems
• The Fajr-3 with a range of 25 miles (200 lb. warhead)
• The Fajr-5 with a range of 45 miles (200 lb. warhead)
• Syrian reproductions of Soviet BM-27 220mm rocket systems (220 lb. warhead)
• Mirsad One unmanned aerial vehicles (which can scout out areas)

Regardless of accuracy, the sheer numbers of rockets aimed at an area can do immeasurable damage. In 1996 Hizbollah fired over 500 Katyushas into northern Israel, which over a 2 week period cost Israel approximately $100 million.

If the media really believes that Israel faces only a random peril, perhaps it is because of their eagerness to cover the casualties in Lebanon at the expense of covering the deaths and family tragedies in Israel.

A third argument used against the Israeli use of censorship is that it is undemocratic and a violation of free speech. This is priceless:

"People are entitled to get as much information as they can about what's happening in a conflict," says Rohan Jahasekera, associate editor of the London-based magazine, the Index of Censorship.

And don't forget: terrorists are people too.

Based on Bard's list of media mismanagement, it sounds as if Israel has not consistently imposed censorship in similar situations in the past. Pity.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hizbollah and Hezbollah and Lebanon and Media Bias.

Mitchell Bard Fact Sheets: Beware of Disinformation

Welcome all Lizaroids!
Please feel free to take a look around while you are here.

Fact Sheets

#48: Beware of Disinformation

(July 20, 2006)

A CNN reporter is taken to an area of Beirut and told that the rubble of buildings is a result of Israeli air strikes on civilian targets. The reporter repeats the allegation as fact. He has no way of knowing what was in the buildings, whether it was a rocket workshop, a hiding place for katyushas, the home of a Hizballah leader, or a command center. In fact, he doesn’t even know if the Israel was responsible for the destruction that he is shown.

In waging their propaganda war, Israel’s enemies count on journalists to report first and research later, if at all, and CNN and other media outlets have fallen into their trap.

Israel’s adversaries learned a long time ago that they can attract publicity and sympathy by fabricating statistics and screaming “massacre.” This was the case in April 2002 when Palestinians claimed that 500 people were “massacred” in Jenin. They could not produce any evidence to support the scurrilous charge, and their own review committee reported a death toll of 56, of whom 34 were combatants. By the time the truth was reported, the story had been repeated throughout the world media and Israel’s image was tarnished.

During the last war in Lebanon, disinformation was the norm. Perhaps the most dramatic example occurred when the Washington Post published a photograph (August 2, 1982) of a baby that appeared to have lost both its arms. The UPI caption said that the seven-month-old had been severely burned when an Israeli jet accidentally hit a Christian residential area. The photo disgusted President Reagan and was one reason he subsequently called for Israel to halt its attacks. The photo and the caption, however, were inaccurate. The baby, in fact, did not lose its arms, and the burns the child suffered were the result of a PLO attack on East Beirut.

The media also reported that Israel’s operation to end the PLO threats to northern Israel resulted in 10,000 deaths and 600,000 homeless in south Lebanon. The 600,000 homeless figure originated in mid-June 1982 with the Palestine Red Crescent, headed by Yasser Arafat’s brother Fathi. Francesco Noseda of the International Committee of the Red Cross, who had originally used the bogus number, later repudiated it. By then, however, it was too late and the perception had been created that Israel was responsible for the mass killing of civilians and the creation of a humanitarian disaster.

The Lebanese Prime Minister is trying this tactic again in 2006 by claiming that Israel has perpetrated massacres and has made 500,000 people homeless. No effort is made to confirm these claims, they are simply repeated by the media, thereby reinforcing the incentive for Arab propagandists to spread disinformation.

In the earlier war in Lebanon, there would have been zero dead or homeless if the PLO hadn’t used south Lebanon as a base from which to menace Israel. This same point can be made today, but is being ignored by the media in its obsession with casualty figures and its desire to find evidence of Israel attacking innocents. Not a single Lebanese civilian would be in danger, however, if Hizballah was not controlling southern Lebanon and attacking Israel. This fact appears lost on most journalists covering the current conflict.

The press is also spending a great deal of time talking to Lebanese civilians and their relatives in the United States and highlighting the difficult conditions they are enduring. This is no doubt the case since they are living in a war zone; however, the media has spent almost no time talking to the Israelis living under the constant threat of rocket attacks. Few reporters have gone into the bomb shelters to interview the frightened Israeli families. No one seems interested in how the relatives of Israelis in the United States feel about their loved ones being under siege.

Similarly, every report has focused on the Americans living in Lebanon while no one seems interested in the thousands of Americans living in Israel. It is terrible that tourists and students are having to be evacuated from Lebanon, but what about those same groups in Israel? What about the hundreds of students on summer tours and programs in Israel, many of whom were in the north when the violence escalated? While the complications of leaving the country may not be as severe as in Lebanon, it is still very difficult to arrange a quick exit from Israel, and many American parents are in a state of panic worrying about their children in Israel.

Wars are never easy to cover, and each side of a conflict wants to make its case through the media. A responsible press, however, does not repeat whatever it hears, it first makes every effort to insure the accuracy of its reporting. That is the standard expected of journalists covering the war between Israel and Hizballah.

See also: The AP Doesn't Like Israeli Censorship

Read all Fact Sheets

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hizbollah and Hezbollah and Lebanon and Media Bias.

Real Freedom Fighters Don't Use WMD

At least that's how it use to be. But now, the media whitewashes Palestinian terrorists when they use suicide belts and fire Kassams and now Katyushas. What's more--Al Aksa is now claiming to have WMD: chemical and biological weapons, and who in the media is reporting it so far?

• Jerusalem Post
• Arutz Sheva
• The Hindu News Update Service (see paragraph 8)

Reliapundit was on the story early and sees this claim, following on the heels of the kidnapping of an IDF soldier, Corporal Gilad Shalit, as an attempt--backed by Iran--to provoke war and divert attention from Iraq and Afghanistan on the one hand and Iran's nuclear program on the other.

According to Haaretz, Israel is asking Kofi Annan and Secretary of State Rice to apply pressure on Abbas to secure Shalit's release, the idea being that the abduction is a test of Abbas' leadership and he should stay in Gaza to see that the crisis is resolved.

Even if Abbas is able to pull this off, that still leaves the WMD claim. What are the chances that the West will then expect Israel to sit still with such a threat, even unverified, on its doorstep and rely once again on negotiations.

Captain's Quarters makes two interesting points:

1. Either Al Aksa is bluffing--big mistake, or they really have the weapons--in which case "they have just signed the death warrants of both Hamas and Fatah and quite possibly the Palestinian Authority," the idea being that faced with real Genocide, Israel has no option but to defend herself to the full extent possible. In such a case, according to the Captain, even the West will not stand in Israel's way.

2. According to Al Aksa, these weapons were 3 years in the making. Since they do not have the wherewithal to manufacture this stuff, it must have been acquired. That would point to Syria, rumored to having acquired stockpiles of WMD from Iraq prior to the American invasion. In that case:

The Palestinians have just tipped us off to where the WMD went, and now we know where at least some it may have ended up. The Israelis may not be alone in marching through Gaza and the West Bank.

A Blog For All notes that the various International Laws the Palestinian terrorists have broken don't seem to matter to them very much. Of course, for that matter, no one in the West seems to be making much of that point either--though Justice Minister Ramon's comments this past Thursday come to mind.

A different reaction comes from Riehl World View:

I wouldn't be surprised if the group claims this isn't their doing and it's actually an Israeli intelligence operation meant to justify any possible incursion into Gaza. In any event, I fail to see the wisdom in announcing one has such weaponry if you haven't or aren't intending to use it. It doesn't make sense.

Back in December 2003, in an article for Frontpage, Emanuel Winston wrote about the various possible consequences of the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state on the other side of the Security Fence:

6. WMD, Weapons of Mass Destruction. Since the territory abandoned by Sharon will now be free of Israelis patrols or the IDF's snap raids, the Arab Palestinians can import WMD - including NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical). Hezb-Allah, Al Qaeda, PFLP, PLO, Tanzim, Al Aksa Brigades, Hamas, et al will have no problem in acquiring NBC - WMD (Weapons of Mass Death) from Iran and Syria which would easily pass into Arab Palestinian hands - and may already have. Israeli intelligence definitely knows that of the 10,000 missiles on the Lebanese border in the zone abandoned by Barak, a substantial number have chemical warheads.

Didn't take long. The Palestinians don't even have a state yet and not only have they been recognized by the Red Cross, they also now claim to have the ability to destroy life en masse as well.

See also Jerusalem Post: Al-Aksa claims biological, chemical capabilities

Technorati Tag: Israel and Palestinians and Al-Aksa and WMD and Weapons of Mass Destruction