An internal IDF investigation has found (or hasn't found--hasbara makes figuring things out difficult sometimes) that some Israeli officers authorized the attack on the United Nations school during the Cast Lead massacre. The attack apparently "jeopardized" the lives of others in an "unauthorized" manner, as opposed to authorized and legally sanctioned child killing. Some are saying that the government admitted using white phosphorus during this particular assault, a hard charge to deny, although Israel has been denying it with every exhalation since the beginning of the massacre, since white phosphorus is a little hard to miss. IDF spokespeople say otherwise. Coverage of Israeli war crimes military operations is obviously better than silence about Israeli military operations. But the genre, at least as practiced in Western newspapers, is still a bit problematic, at least insofar as their readers see it as adding to the "debate" about the legality of IDF policies [as proof of the tendency of the IDF to lie it's much more helpful insofar as it does help dismantle state propaganda]. These dispatches replicate the problems of the Goldstone Report on a microcosmic level--antiseptically legalistic micro-analysis.
I think this type of fact-based reporting so cleansed of historical context or ethical and moral judgment is potentially damaging, because it severely restricts our moral imagination to judgments based on procedural liberalism, analyzing this action to determine whether or not it violated Article 5 of one convention, examining that one and noting its disproportion relative to the provocation, usually a rocket made out of cherry-bombs and aluminum foil. Clearly, all the incidents add up to war crimes indictments of the sort that prevent Israeli officers from vacationing in Europe, and this is good. War criminals do not deserve freedom of movement. If they want to summer in Valencia, they should be thrown in the dock. There need to be consequences, and if the only way to do so is to work through institutions devoted to liberal jurisprudence, then that is the best way to proceed.
But even knowing nothing about any particular use of white phosphorus, we know that (a) any use of white phosphorus in a populated area is a priori illegal and (b) that the Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated areas on earth. And even knowing nothing of anything that went on in Gaza during Cast Lead, we know that the blockade is illegal and the incitement to violent resistance. Inevitably, one is drawn into this surreal debate--was X use of force justified, how could we make Y use in the future comport with accepted standards of international humanitarian law? The wrong questions.
A discourse locked in legalistic quibbling over whether this or that weapon--dense inert metal explosives, white phosphorus, flechette rounds, drones--are illegal both generally and in a given war-time scenario is ultimately a diversion. It makes us discuss legality of means vs focusing on the morality of ends, and we end up in a carnival of Swiss jurisprudential distraction while the occupation continues, the blockade [PDF] grows ever-tighter, and politicide continues apace, which I guess would be fine if Israeli were a bit more careful about making sure that it followed the Geneva and Hague Conventions while it bombs the shit out of Gaza.
Two senior Israeli army officers have been "disciplined" over the firing of artillery shells towards a United Nations compound in a crowded urban area during the war in Gaza last year.
It is the first acknowledgement by the Israeli military of any of the serious allegations raised by international human rights groups and two UN investigations, which have found grave breaches of international law and evidence of possible war crimes.
The UN compound was hit and its main warehouse burned to the ground, and three people were injured during the attack in Gaza City on 15 January last year. Several other buildings in the area were hit that day, including a Palestinian hospital.
The two officers were named in Israeli press reports today as Gaza Division Commander Brigadier General Eyal Eisenberg and Givati Brigade Commander Colonel Ilan Malka. It is not clear what form of discipline the men faced, but both were accused of "exceeding their authority in a manner that jeopardised the lives of others", according to an Israeli report on the conduct of the war that was submitted to the UN on Friday.
The report found Israeli troops "fired several artillery shells in violation of the rules of engagement prohibiting use of such artillery near populated areas". However, it also stated that Israel's military advocate general "found no basis" to order a criminal investigation into the incident in Tel al-Hawa. So far only one Israeli soldier has been prosecuted over the war – for stealing a credit card from a Palestinian house.
Last year, a UN Board of Inquiry report investigated Israeli attacks on UN buildings and staff in Gaza during the war and accused the Israeli military of "negligence or recklessness". It singled out several incidents, including the attack on the UN compound. The warehouse, run by the UN Relief and Works Agency which supports Palestinian refugees, was the biggest in Gaza and was full of food and aid for the population.
Related posts:
- A Dude Named Lumumba Said It Sudanese G77-chair Di-Aping Lumumba told IPS: Africa demands up to...
- Combatants vs. Non-Combatants: Some Spurious Shit Well, the recent B’Tselem report on the number of Palestinian...
- The Goldstone Report: Competing Comments On the one hand, we have the Angry Arab [thanks...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
