War Crimes in Gaza, Mogadishu
Jeffery Goldberg wonders if American troops committed war crimes in Somalia while fighting rebels in Mogadishu. The question seems ridiculous at first. What war crimes could be committed against murderous insurgents responsible for a civil war? Goldberg’s big gun, however, is astounding. According to Mark Bowden, author of Black Hawk Down, 80% of Somalia casualties were civilians. This number, if true, is alarming and news to me. I find it unbelievable, to be completely frank. Yet there it is. So is a battle such as the one in Mogadishu a crime if more civilians die than bad guys?
Bowden:
…gunmen in that battle hid behind walls of civilians and were aware of the restraint of the (Army) Rangers. These gunmen literally shot over the heads of civilians, or between their legs. They used women and children for this. It’s mind-boggling. Some of the Rangers shot civilians, some of them inadvertently and some of them advertently. They made the choice to shoot at crowds. When a ten-year-old is running at your vehicle with an AK-47, do you shoot the kid? Yes, you shoot the kid. You have to survive.
American waged war on the Somali rebels right enough. But the crimes were committed by the rebels who deliberately placed innocent lives in harms way because of their own lack of courage, equipment, skill.
Earlier Michael quoted Daniel Pipes, who I respect a lot, as saying that he doesn’t know what the Israelis hope to achieve in Gaza or if their army knows how to do the job there. With respect to Mr. Pipes, I don’t think the objective is in doubt – it is to hurt and hopefully cripple Hamas, a purely military action that’s overdue. As to whether the IDF knows how to do that cleanly…is such an outcome even possible?
Mark Bowden also has something useful to say about Gaza:
I believe that culpability for these casualties is very much with Hamas. Take this leader, Nizar Rayyan, who was killed with many of his children. He knew he was a target. If I knew that I was a target, I sure as hell wouldn’t have my children near me. It’s a horrible and cynical choice he made.
In other words, Rayyan was using his sworn enemy’s own sense of mercy and fair play as a weapon against them. It did not work and while we ought to mourn the innocent lives that have been lost, the objective is a good one.
To allow terrorists to hold hostage the civilian lives that are unfortunately entangled with their own is not an acceptable option for any nation at war with these people.
For a guide, consider the Moscow theatre hostage crisis engineered by Chechen terrorists in the Russian capital. Even though many hostages were killed, Russia’s choice to use force against the terrorists was the correct one.
Only the size of the stage and the number of hostages is different in Gaza.
When the “combatants” do not wear uniforms it is easy for their masters to claim that they are really “civilians” when they get killed.
Sheltering behind civilians, or placing weapons and troops in civilian locations like schools or hospitals is actually considered a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. I think the legalistic term for it is perfidy. This fact is often overlooked by the people expressing outrage over civilian deaths during a war.
The tragedy of civilian death during war is enormous. But it seems to me that we need to recognize that anyone placing arms or combatants among civilians is the party bearing the greatest responsibility for the death of civilians.
Many innocent children are dead. I agree that shooting of rockets into Israel is inexcusable, that being said, the violent actions of some people in Gaza does not justify killing innocent Palestinians on this level.
saying, “well, the combatants hide or intermingle behind or with innocents is not an excuse for taking the easy way out of “killing ‘em all and letting God or Allah sort it out”. There are other options, they are just not easy nor convenient, or apparently worth it to some.
There are other options, they are just not easy nor convenient, or apparently worth it to some.
What other options, Jay_C?
The terrible reality is that war is a brutal business. Brutal. Ugly. Merciless. General W. T. Sherman summarized it well: “War is Hell, it is unrefined cruelty.” I cannot improve on that statement. But that is the point – you cannot win a war with a determined enemy who refuses to recognize your humanity by treating him as another decent guy with a differing viewpoint.
People who shelter themselves behind noncombatants, who use them as human shields, are the most cruel, cynical people of all. This action is devoid of any shred of decency, it cynically preys upon the innate decency of the people they are fighting, knowing that those people who they fight, and the rest of the world value the lives of civilians. Those of us who are seeking peace need to understand that the options are not attractive in a war. They are particularly unattractive in a war where one side hides among the civilian population. I would join C. Stanley and ask Jay: “What options can you offer that stand a realistic chance of ending the current violence in Gaza?” Allowing rocket and mortar attacks on Israel is not an option. Allowing bombing of civilian neighborhoods for the purpose of killing civilians is wrong. But bombing the addresses of known Hamas leaders is NOT the same. it kills innocent civilians. But the purpose is to kill combatants, and the dead civilians are, alas, the cost of killing the combatants. I don’t like it. But I don’t see any realistic alternative that will end the rocket and mortar attacks. If you ask me, the guilty parties are the men hiding their arms caches and soldiers in homes, schools, and hospitals. These men are far more heartless than the military trying to kill them. And, despite the frequent claims of Israeli and Western ‘war crimes,’ the actions in Gaza which DO qualify as possible crimes under the Geneva Conventions are the actions of the Hamas and Palestinian militants.
I don’t want to see anyone lose a child, a spouse, a family member. But the people who are bringing the death upon the civilians are the militants who have decided to wage a guerrilla campaign from civilian neighborhoods. Please, let’s stop the sophistry. The ‘criminals’ are not the Israelis, but the Palestinian combatants.
Yes, I’ll give Jay_C the benefit of the doubt and assume that perhaps he didn’t see my question. However, as Jason also has mentioned, these questions never seem to be answered by those who hold Israel to the highest of standards. If one does accept that the Palestinian terrorists are exploiting the opinions of the civilized world, using the moral conventions of warfare against Israel by making it impossible for Israel to engage them without endangering the civilian population, then there has to be some alternative action prescribed for Israel to take to protect itself. Anyone who can’t propose alternative actions should at least admit that they are unsupportive of Israel’s right to exist, even if that isn’t their intention.
Sorry, C Stanley, yes I did not see your question (I had a sick kid at home yesterday). First off in response to the comment “these questions never seem to be answered by those who hold Israel to the highest of standards” Well if you were trying to referring to me, you are wrong there, I hold neither side to a higher standard as far as compassion and conscience toward children is concerned. In fact, the “They started it” argument, formed on either side of this is not an excuse for lobbing bombs into residential areas and killing kids in such numbers. The answer to “what other options” How about being more surgical methodical and careful? Yes, the argument against this may be that civilians will still die as a result, (and I am not naive enough to think Kids wont die) but certainly not in such numbers as the “kill ‘em all” strategy, and that is my point, the numbers, and the relative age of those that are dying. “Of course, War is Hell…unrefined cruelty” Did you assume I did not know that Orson? Rather than easily lobbing bombs over into congested neighborhoods, like Hammas is doing to Israel, If the whole point of Israel counter-attacking with general strikes is to defend itself, then why not a greater surgical ground contingent? And again, this goes for either side, but to me it seems that Israel has a little more at their disposal to be more surgical and hence compassionate. Since Israel is defending itself for a foreign attack, it actually wouldn’t be bad PR or compassionate towards the young children for Israel to put more skin (and less bombs) in their offense.
No problem, Jay_C, and thanks for responding now.
I just don’t think you are realistic about the option for ‘more surgical strikes.’ What seems to be happening, at least if one assumes that the IDF is not being completely dishonest, is that they are carrying out the kind of surgical strikes based on intel to take out terrorist leaders, but they are also having their troops respond to situations where they are under fire. Would you have the rules of engagement such that the soldiers can’t defend themselves?
And when they do respond, of course there is the question of what type of response and whether or not they are using minimal force to protect themselves while also considering the nearby civilians (esp children.) Well, again, if we believe the IDF accounts, in many of these cases they are responding with fire which THEN sets off booby traps in these buildings and facilities- and that is where most of the destruction and casualties come from. I don’t know if that is always the case, or if in some cases the soldiers themselves are using excessive firepower for the situation. But would you at least agree that if the former scenario occurs, that this is not the fault of the Israelis? And that really in those cases, there is no alternative for the IDF that would permit them to exercise defense without incurring collateral civilian casualties?
‘would you at least agree that if the former scenario occurs, that this is not the fault of the Israelis?”
If that “rube-goldberg” esque report is true (soldier, fires gun, bullet hits a trigger of sorts which then enacts a bomb that blows up the building in which combatants have then purposely surrounded themselves with children) , I would have to agree with that.
However, I tend to follow more the “occam’s-razor” principle. That sa you suggested as the alternative, that they are using excessive firepower for the situation.
Have you seen some of the video documenting the booby trapping though? I think Crimson Politics has a clip posted showing a school which is wired with explosives, and the detonator set up in the adjacent zoo.
I’ll have to take a look at that, thanks!
And that may be the case (without even looking I’ll give you that their is video of a school being wired for this), but there is the question of the ratio of this sort of thing to excessive firepower as well. I don’t see how one wired school accounts for all of this. I agree, where there is this once incident, there probably are others, but I guess I am saying we should wash our hands of this and say, it’s all becuase of wired schools. This may make us feel more justified in our assessment of the situation, but I just don’t know the facts to judge either way. Sorry, maybe it is just me, but when it comes to kids dying in such great numbers, I think a little more effort (by all of us) needs to be put into getting to the bottom of these things, at least at the media and our discussion level.
sorry, but I guess I am saying we *shouldn’t* wash our hands of this and say, it’s all becuase of wired
Jay_C- I agree that we shouldn’t harden ourselves to accept the death of large numbers of children. But the problem is that that makes it even more essential to determine whether those children actually died as a result of Isreali excessive force or Palestinian use of human shields and manipulation of world opinion.
I’m not into assigning blame just for the sake of directing anger and outrage- but in these cases, it’s essential to get to the source of the problem because whichever side is more directly responsible for those children’s lives needs to be held accountable. There’s simply no way to stop these acts from repeating themselves until the world knows how and why they are occurring. If the Isreali’s side of the story is true, then people in the rest of the world need to be able to resist the effect that the Palestinian militants desire, which would be for us to hold Isreal accountable and insist that Isreal stop the fighting because of it.
I can agree with that.
In fairness, however, what is your answer if Isreali’s side of the story is not true, or as true as they say?
Jay_C- I’m perfectly willing to say that Isreal may be distorting it’s side as well. I feel though that all we can do as observers is look at both sides as closely as possible. I will say that when I look at the pro-Palestinian side there has been so much falsification and fraud, and obvious propaganda- that I’m more dismissive of those media accounts and more likely to give Israel the benefit of the doubt. There’s obviously a danger to that, in that the Isrealis too may see that the propaganda from the other side is working and they may be trying to counter it with false reports as well. But given that Reuters has been unequivocably cooperative with pro-Palestinian propagandists, I can’t help but be submissive of ANYTHING that doesn’t pass the sniff test on that side of the equation while being more of a mild skeptic regarding the information given out by the pro-Isreali side.