Amnesty International has issued a report which, while asking the UN to investigate violations by both Hezbollah and Israel, directly accuses Israel of War Crimes. Part of its evidence is this picture of south Beirut before and after the war.

The organisation calls for the immediate establishment of a comprehensive, independent and impartial UN inquiry into violations of international humanitarian law by both Hizbullah and Israel in the conflict. The inquiry should examine in particular the impact of this conflict on the civilian population. It should propose effective measures to hold accountable those responsible for crimes under international law, and to ensure that the victims receive full reparation.

What the damage looked like on the ground are available on the AI site (The full size pictures are very large files)

 THE REPORT ITSELF

International Humanitarian Law

Amnesty's report contains a lot of "colour" detail of the effects of the war on individuals. It does however also set out in some length the International Law that is relevant to its comments. Note that International Law as a body contains not only the Geneva Conventions themselves but also takes into account rulings by the international courts. This should be noted as Israelis will frequently point to the lack of some aspects of IL being in the treaties. Most notable of these is the concept of "proportionality". The report gives instances of where IL applies to certain circumstances but there is a large section giving the principles of International Humanitarian Law. I quote that passage almost in full as it gives an excellent exposition why certain Israeli responses do not conform to IL, particularly the use of "human shields".

International humanitarian law governs the conduct of war, and seeks to protect civilians, others not participating in the hostilities, and civilian objects. In an armed conflict, military forces must distinguish between civilian objects, which may not be attacked, and military objectives, which, subject to certain conditions, may be. The principle of distinction is a cornerstone of the laws of war.

Military objectives are those that: "by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage." Civilian objects are "all objects which are not military objectives". Objects which are normally considered "civilian objects" may, under certain circumstances, become legitimate military objectives if they are "being used to make an effective contribution to military action". However, in case of doubt about such use, the object must be presumed to be civilian.

Direct attacks against civilian objects are prohibited, as are indiscriminate attacks. Indiscriminate attacks are those which strike military objectives and civilian objects without distinction. One form of indiscriminate attack is treating clearly separate and distinct military objects located in a city, town, village or concentration of civilians, as a single military objective. If two buildings in a residential area are identified as containing fighters, bombardment of the entire area would be unlawful.

Disproportionate attacks, also prohibited, are those in which the "collateral damage" would be regarded as excessive in relation to the direct military advantage to be gained. Israel maintains that the military advantage in this context "is not of that specific attack but of the military operation as a whole".(13)

This interpretation is too wide. Overbroad interpretations of what constitutes a military objective or military advantage are often used to justify attacks aimed at harming the economy of a state or demoralizing the civilian population. Such interpretations undermine civilian immunity. A legitimate military advantage cannot be one that is merely "a potential or indeterminate advantage". If weakening the enemy population's resolve to fight were considered a legitimate objective of armed forces, there would be no limit to war.

Israel has launched widespread attacks against public civilian infrastructure, including power plants, bridges, main roads, seaports and Beirut's international airport. Such objects are presumed to be civilian. Israeli officials told Amnesty International that the potential military use of certain items, such as electricity and fuel, renders them legitimate military targets. However, even if it could be argued that some of these objects could qualify as military objectives (because they serve a dual purpose), Israel is obligated to ensure that attacking these objects would not violate the principle of proportionality. For example, a road that can be used for military transport is still primarily civilian in nature. The military advantage anticipated from destroying the road must be measured against the likely effect on civilians, especially the most vulnerable, such as those requiring urgent medical attention. The same considerations apply to electricity and fuel, among other items.

Similarly critical is the obligation that Israel take "constant care to spare civilians, the civilian population, civilian objects, from attack". This requirement to take precautionary measures in launching attacks includes choosing only 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".

It is also forbidden to use starvation as a method of warfare, or to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. Some of the targets chosen - water pumping stations and supermarkets, for example - raise the possibility that Israel may have violated the prohibition against targeting objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.

Israel has asserted that Hizbullah fighters have enmeshed themselves in the civilian population for the purpose of creating "human shields". While the use of civilians to shield a combatant from attack is a war crime, under international humanitarian law such use does not release the opposing party from its obligations towards the protection of the civilian population.

DAMAGE INFLICTED

Apart from their call for serious investigations of both side, the rest of the report goes into detail about the damage inflicted by the IDF.

Civilian Homes

Amnesty had their workers examine some of the damage in southern Lebanon. This passage is significant if you remember the events at Qana where the building was not directly hit but collapsed on top of sheltering refugees.

Amnesty International delegates visiting towns and villages in south Lebanon found that in village after village houses had been subject to heavy artillery shelling as well as having been destroyed by precision-guided, air-delivered munitions. The accuracy of these munitions and their trajectory were such that they struck one or more of the main support systems causing the building to collapse or partially collapse under its own weight. In Beirut a vast area of densely populated high-rise buildings, which were home to tens of thousands of people most of whom left apparently encouraged by Hizbullah for their own safety, was reduced to rubble by repeated air strikes.

Previously it had been generally accepted that the Qana collapse was due to a bomb hitting next to the building. This evidence may indicate that the building was directly targetted.

Water Facilities

There was extensive destruction of facilities such as pumping stations, wells,storage tanks, pipelines and treatment works in the South. The water infastructure for the whole country has been disrupted as mony water lines ran beneath the roads which were bombed.  Amnesty explains the IL in respect of these vital facilities.

As noted above, international humanitarian law seeks to protect objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. While water pipes might sustain collateral damage, it appears that storage tanks, pumping stations and water treatment plants have been directly targeted by Israeli forces, and it is difficult to understand how they could have been regarded as military objectives. Moreover, even if some objective were military, there is little evidence to suggest that Israel exercised the requisite level of precaution to take constant care to avoid the loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

Electricity and Fuel

As with the water infrastructure, the electricity system for the south has been virtually destroyed with the total cost of damage estimated at $208 million. The delivery of water is of course also dependent on power. In addition to the electricity infrastructure there had been attacks on fuel depots, some of which are well known but Amnesty also found evidence that individual gas stations had been deliberately destroyed or damaged. Amnesty quotes the Israeli statement of 14 July

IDF air and naval forces attacked three gasoline stations in southern Lebanon as part of the effort to damage the Lebanese infrastructure that works to support terror activity.

Environmental Damage

You will have seen the news coverave of the oil pollution caused by Israeli bombing (one report included the detail that a storage tank had been hit once, the fire put out by the Lebanese using their reserves of foam and a second attack re-ignited the blaze causing the containment walls to fail and fuel to spill into the sea.) Less obvious was the release of cancer causing PCBs and other chemicals like chlorine (the basis of WWI mustard gas) into the environment when electricty facilities and factories were bombed.

The Amnesty report details the IL on this.

Under international humanitarian law, care must be taken to protect the environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage. Methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause such damage are forbidden.

Roads and Bridges

The disruption caused to the road network has been extensively reported. While the IDF claimed this was to prevent hezbollah moving arms and personnel, the report contains some interesting details.

Amnesty International's delegates in Lebanon saw many roads hit by precision-guided munitions whose warheads created craters 4m - 5m deep and about 7m wide. This cratering has generally been justified as necessary to impede the movement of Hizbullah fighters, but more often than not the craters did not close the road, as they were to the side rather than in the middle of the road. Travel by car remained possible by simply driving around the craters, although it impeded trucks carrying supplies and aid.

This would seem to be a pattern and would tie in with the stated Israeli intention of preventing rocket attacks. These weapons require at least pick-up size vehicles to move the the launchers of even the smallest rockets used by Hezbollah. On the other hand the precision achieved by the IDF seems make more tenuous their claims that the UN Observers' base was accidentally hit.

The road network is vital for the distribution of food in ordinary circumstances. The destruction of bridges over the Litani made the delivery of humanitarian aid impossible. Amnesty quotes how Tyre (pop 100,000 plus refugees) was cut off from aid supplies and how Israel prevente aid reaching further inland.

On 6 August, officials of UNIFIL again attempted to secure a go-ahead from the Israeli authorities to build a new temporary bridge over the Litani river to facilitate the transport of vital humanitarian supplies to the beleaguered residents of the south. Israel denied permission, warning that any new bridge would also be blown up. According to UN officials, the Israeli military said that UNIFIL engineers would themselves become a target if they attempted any repairs to the bridge.

That was a violation of IHL as Amnesty explains:

Under international humanitarian law, the parties to a conflict must allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of all relief consignments, equipment and personnel, protect relief consignments and facilitate their rapid distribution. In addition, the personnel participating in humanitarian relief actions, as well as the objects used for humanitarian relief operations, must be respected and protected.

Airports and Ports

The report merely lists the damage which included a number of attacks on fuel storage. It notes the destruction of a modern lighthouse and "an antenna vital for maritime operations". I suspect the purpose of this in the report (although not explicit) is to further list the disproportionality of the Israeli attacks.

Hospitals

The reports details the effects of the Israeli attacks - two hospitals destroyed, three seriously damaged and 60% out of operation throgh attacks and fuel and electricity shortages. Cluster bombs had been fired around another.  Again they explain in more detail the IL.

Hospitals are by nature "civilian objects" and may not be attacked unless they are being used for military purposes. If Hizbullah was indeed using the al-Hikmah hospital as a headquarters or base, then they rendered it subject to attack, although Israel would still have been under an obligation to take precautions to protect civilians and avoid the loss of life or injury to civilians.

An attack on one hospital in the north bears particular attention as it illustrates one other aspect of the Israeli attacks that is just starting to emerge.

One hospital, alleged by Israel to be a Hizbullah headquarters, was directly attacked. On 2 August, Israeli commandos in helicopters, supported by fighter planes and drones, raided al-Hikmah hospital in Baalbak in the eastern Bekaa valley. The Israeli army said they captured five Hizbullah members there. However, according to local residents, the five were not captured at the hospital but in the home of one of them.(28) They added that one of those seized local merchant Hassan Nasrallah, had been confused with the Hizbullah leader who has the same name. Reuters reported that the supporting air strikes killed 19 people, including four children. A statement from the IDF said that "Hezbollah weapons, computers, computer storage media, and a large amount of vital intelligence materials were seized. Ten terrorists were killed during the operation and five others were captured by Israeli forces. There were no IDF or civilian casualties."

CNN reported yesterday on a number of attacks against people with the same name as the Hezbollah leader and cases where familes with the name have been found shot dead. The Israelis have admitted they made a mistake in this case and have released this Hassan Nasrallah, a shopkeeper (link to follow). The error was immediately apparent to the IDF as this Haaratz report  from 2 August confirms. Even  then the Chief of Staff was trying to cover up the mistake:

None of those seized were high-ranking Hezbollah officials, however, as the IDF had hoped. Halutz said Wednesday that the soldiers had not aimed to take any individuals in particular, but rather to demonstrate that the IDF could reach any part of Lebanon.

Communications

The Amnesty report noted the IDF attacks on Lebanese TV and radio transmitters other than those used by the Hezbollah stations. The conventional and mobile phone network had also been extensively attacked. The IDF had told Amnesty why they bombed transmiters.

Israeli forces have repeatedly targeted Hizbullah's al-Manar television station, for example with three strikes in as many days from 14 July. The transmitters and relay stations of several other Lebanese television stations have also been attacked. According to the IDF: "Al Manar has for many years served as the main tool for propaganda and incitement by Hezbollah, and has also helped the organization recruit people into its ranks. Hezbollah operates undisturbed from within Lebanon, and constitutes a severe terrorist threat to the people of Israel and to IDF soldiers." An IDF official told Amnesty International delegates that al-Manar was being used for military communications, but failed to provide any evidence to support this claim when questioned.

Again, Amnesty points out the relevant provisions of IL.

The fact that al-Manar television broadcasts propaganda in support of Hizbullah's attacks against Israel does not render it a legitimate military objective. Only if the television station were being used to transmit orders to Hizbullah fighters or for other clearly military purposes could it be considered to be making "an effective contribution to military action". Even then, Israel would need to take required precautions in attacking it and choose a manner aimed to avoid harm to civilians. Amnesty International is not aware of claims by Israel that the other stations were performing military functions.

Economic Infrastructure

The report goes into considerable detail into the destruction and damage to the civilian economic infrastructure such as:

The production facilities of companies in key industrial sectors, including Liban Lait in Baalbak, the country's largest dairy farm; the Maliban glass works in Ta'neil, Zahleh; the Sada al-Din plastics factory in Tyre; the Fine tissue paper mill in Kafr Jara, Sidon; the Tabara pharmaceutical plant in Showeifat, Aaliyah; the Transmed shipping warehouse on the outskirts of Beirut; and the Snow lumbermill in Showeifat, Aaliyah

The road network of course is vital for the transport of agricultural products and the damage noted above makes that impossible. Fruit is rotting on the tree and without the needed feed, an estimated 80% of the chicken flocks have died.  Even more worrying is the seeming deliberate destruction of small shops to "encourage" the local population to leave.

Amnesty International's delegates noted numerous attacks on commercial outlets such as supermarkets and automotive repair outlets. They found that supermarkets were targeted almost certainly with the same type of munition as aimed at houses, but seemingly delivered via a higher trajectory in order to inflict most damage to their interiors and to the products stored in them. In some cases, supermarkets were set on fire. There were similar attacks on automotive repair outlets, leading to fires. There was no evidence that such fires were caused by stored munitions. Shrapnel, casings and assorted debris indicated a common pattern of destruction in all the places visited. The destruction of supermarkets, often the single initial attack on a town or village, seems to have been intended to hasten the departure of the residents. The reasons behind the destruction of auto/electro/mechanic outlets remain the subject of speculation.

As well as putting the southern Lebanese, like the Gazans "on a diet", this of course exacerbated the shortage of potable water. If lack of food and water was not enough, the Israelis dropped leaflets including this one on 27 July.

"Rockets are being fired against the State of Israel from your area.

The IDF will operate at full force against these terrorist groups effective immediately.

For your own safety, you must leave the area immediately, and travel northwards. Anyone who remains is putting himself in danger."

Even those with cars would have found this difficult bearing in mind the attacks on the roads and gas stations.

Blockades

I have already noted the difficuties in getting food round the country and the sea blockade of the ports, together with the IDF's refusal to allow aid convoys to the south. The report details more effects of the blockades on the population and again provides an excellent summary of IL:

While blockades are not prohibited per se by international humanitarian law, they must not prevent foodstuffs and other essential supplies from reaching the civilian population. The parties to the conflict may not deny consent to relief operations on arbitrary grounds, and can only control the content and delivery of humanitarian aid to the extent necessary to ensure that aid convoys are not being used, for example, for military purposes.

Although the report calls for an investigation of both sides, breaches of IL by Hezbollah are not the subject of this report.