At a recent Pentagon press briefing U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, commenting on the expected use of human shields by Saddam Hussein, stated the action is a direct violation of Article 51 of the 1977 amendment to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. He went on to say, "International law draws a clear distinction between civilians and combatants. The principle that civilians must be protected lies at the heart of international law of armed conflict. It is the distinction between combatants and innocent civilians that terrorism, and practices like the use of human shields, so directly assaults." The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, added, "If death or serious injury to a noncombatant resulted from these efforts, the individuals responsible for deploying any innocent civilians as human shields could be guilty of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions."
Innocent civilians should be protected in the time of war. The process of war, unfortunately, makes it hard, if not impossible, to accomplish that goal one hundred percent of the time. Sometimes it cannot be avoided due to the nature of the battle, as happened throughout World War II and other wars. Many times it is the cowardliness of the enemy that makes it an impossible goal to attain. Saddam has stated on more than one occasion that he will place human shields around Baghdad as a 'defense' against allied troops. He has, in fact, a history of doing just that in other wars. It is proper then for the United States and its allies to be concerned about the use of human shields by Saddam Hussein.
The question though is why doesn't the United States say anything about this when the Arabs do the exact same exact thing to Israel? When the Arabs, in their cowardly manner, use women and children as human shields, drawing Israel into battle, the U.S. condemns Israel for trying to defend itself on its own soil. Yet the U.S. hardly ever condemns the terrorists (PA/PLO, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al) for using unwilling civilians as human shields as a regular method of warfare.
Israel does not have a choice. It must fight the terrorists who are waging war in their midst. Many times the lines are not clearly drawn. When men fight like cowards it is sometimes hard to follow ideal strategic planning. The enemy must be destroyed and, unfortunately, that sometimes means innocent people get killed. It is a basic life-and-death struggle.
The U.S., on the other hand, has the option of using different tactics. Its fight is 8,000 miles away from its own soil. While it is true that one of the main thrusts of the effort against Iraq is to stop terrorists from reaching and attacking the U.S., the battle is still on foreign soil. While that fact does not diminish the threat, it is, nonetheless, a very important difference between the two wars.
When the U.S. dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, thousands of innocent civilians were killed. In Hiroshima, with a civilian population of 250,000 it was estimated that 45,000 died on the first day and a further 19,000 during the subsequent four months. In Nagasaki, out of a population of 174,000, 22,000 died on the first day and another 17,000 within four months. Unrecorded deaths of military personnel and foreign workers may have added considerably to these figures. These two bombs continue, even up to the present, to kill and maim thousands of people due to the nuclear fallout and genetic damage. Was it worth it? That is for another discussion. The point here is that it was believed at the time, by the United States and its allies, that the move would put an end to the war and, in turn, would stop hundreds of thousands more deaths.
The main point of our discussion is that it seems that, as far as the U.S. is concerned, it is wrong for Saddam Hussein to use human shields in the war against the U.S. and its allies. We, of course, can all agree on that. This is not an indictment against the U.S. for going to war against Saddam Hussein. However, the question that begs an answer is why does the U.S. not condemn, and hold accountable, the Palestinian Authority (created by the U.S. and others) for the deaths of innocent civilians killed in combat against Israel? While many of the deaths are a direct result of other terrorist organizations, it is the Palestinian Authority who is responsible for the security in those areas. It refuses to police the Arab terrorist groups, including its own (i.e. Fatah, al Aqsa Martyrs). Why are they not "guilty of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions"?
And so, the hypocrisy continues...
--------------------------------------------------------
Lee Underwood is the Editor of Tzemach News Service.
--------------------------------------------------------
Spend Passover with Arutz Sheva at a resort in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv or Kfar Pines (near Hadera). Click here for info.
Innocent civilians should be protected in the time of war. The process of war, unfortunately, makes it hard, if not impossible, to accomplish that goal one hundred percent of the time. Sometimes it cannot be avoided due to the nature of the battle, as happened throughout World War II and other wars. Many times it is the cowardliness of the enemy that makes it an impossible goal to attain. Saddam has stated on more than one occasion that he will place human shields around Baghdad as a 'defense' against allied troops. He has, in fact, a history of doing just that in other wars. It is proper then for the United States and its allies to be concerned about the use of human shields by Saddam Hussein.
The question though is why doesn't the United States say anything about this when the Arabs do the exact same exact thing to Israel? When the Arabs, in their cowardly manner, use women and children as human shields, drawing Israel into battle, the U.S. condemns Israel for trying to defend itself on its own soil. Yet the U.S. hardly ever condemns the terrorists (PA/PLO, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al) for using unwilling civilians as human shields as a regular method of warfare.
Israel does not have a choice. It must fight the terrorists who are waging war in their midst. Many times the lines are not clearly drawn. When men fight like cowards it is sometimes hard to follow ideal strategic planning. The enemy must be destroyed and, unfortunately, that sometimes means innocent people get killed. It is a basic life-and-death struggle.
The U.S., on the other hand, has the option of using different tactics. Its fight is 8,000 miles away from its own soil. While it is true that one of the main thrusts of the effort against Iraq is to stop terrorists from reaching and attacking the U.S., the battle is still on foreign soil. While that fact does not diminish the threat, it is, nonetheless, a very important difference between the two wars.
When the U.S. dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, thousands of innocent civilians were killed. In Hiroshima, with a civilian population of 250,000 it was estimated that 45,000 died on the first day and a further 19,000 during the subsequent four months. In Nagasaki, out of a population of 174,000, 22,000 died on the first day and another 17,000 within four months. Unrecorded deaths of military personnel and foreign workers may have added considerably to these figures. These two bombs continue, even up to the present, to kill and maim thousands of people due to the nuclear fallout and genetic damage. Was it worth it? That is for another discussion. The point here is that it was believed at the time, by the United States and its allies, that the move would put an end to the war and, in turn, would stop hundreds of thousands more deaths.
The main point of our discussion is that it seems that, as far as the U.S. is concerned, it is wrong for Saddam Hussein to use human shields in the war against the U.S. and its allies. We, of course, can all agree on that. This is not an indictment against the U.S. for going to war against Saddam Hussein. However, the question that begs an answer is why does the U.S. not condemn, and hold accountable, the Palestinian Authority (created by the U.S. and others) for the deaths of innocent civilians killed in combat against Israel? While many of the deaths are a direct result of other terrorist organizations, it is the Palestinian Authority who is responsible for the security in those areas. It refuses to police the Arab terrorist groups, including its own (i.e. Fatah, al Aqsa Martyrs). Why are they not "guilty of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions"?
And so, the hypocrisy continues...
--------------------------------------------------------
Lee Underwood is the Editor of Tzemach News Service.
--------------------------------------------------------
Spend Passover with Arutz Sheva at a resort in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv or Kfar Pines (near Hadera). Click here for info.