Amnesty
International Report
August 23, 2006
www.amnesty.org
Israel/Lebanon
Deliberate Destruction or “collateral damage”?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
– Introduction
– Deliberate Destruction or ‘Collateral Damage’?
– International Humanitarian Law and War Crimes
– The Damage to the Infrastructure
– Civilian Homes
– Water Facilities
– Electricity and Fuel Supply
– Environmental Damage
– Roads and Bridges
– Airports
– Ports
– Hospitals
– Communications
– Economic Infrastructure
– Blockades
– The Need for an International Investigation
“The civilian population in Lebanon and in northern
Israel have been the biggest losers in this senseless cycle of violence
that is now exactly one month old...Civilians were supposed to be
spared and in this conflict they are not.”
Jan Egeland, UN Under Secretary–General for Humanitarian
Affairs, 10 August 2006
Introduction
Between 12 July and 14 August, a major military confrontation took
place between Hizbullah and Israel, following the capture of two
Israeli soldiers, and the killing of others, by Hizbullah in a raid
across the border between Israel and Lebanon. Israel conducted attacks
throughout Lebanon from land, sea and air, killing some 1,000 civilians.
Hizbullah launched thousands of rockets on northern Israel, killing
some 40 civilians. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in Israel
and Lebanon were displaced.
The briefing that follows summarizes Amnesty International’s
initial assessment and concerns on the massive destruction of civilian
infrastructure in Lebanon that has taken place during the conflict.
It is based on first–hand information from a field mission which
has visited Lebanon; interviews with dozens of victims of the attacks;
official statements and press accounts; discussions with UN, Israeli
military and Lebanese government officials; and talks with Israeli
and Lebanese non–governmental groups.
The briefing does not cover in any detail the broader implications
of the bombing campaign. It does not evaluate the extent of the
human rights impact, including violations of the rights to life
or economic, social and cultural rights such as the right to food,
health and housing, and does not address longer–term economic impact
and the massive internal and cross–border displacement. Nor does
it address the attacks by Hizbullah into Israel and their impact
on civilians – these are being addressed elsewhere. This briefing
highlights one aspect of the conflict, but underlines the need for
an urgent and comprehensive international inquiry into the conduct
of the hostilities by both parties.
Since the conflict began, Amnesty International has sent delegates
to both Israel and Lebanon and has publicly appealed to both the
Israeli government and Hizbullah to abide by the principles of international
humanitarian law. Amnesty International members and supporters around
the world have campaigned for a ceasefire, have called for safe
passage for trapped civilians and have urged Israel and Lebanon
to consent to an investigation by an independent and impartial body
into the pattern of attacks by both Israel and Hizbullah.
Deliberate Destruction or ‘Collateral Damage’?
During more than four weeks of ground and aerial bombardment of
Lebanon by the Israeli armed forces, the country’s infrastructure
suffered destruction on a catastrophic scale. Israeli forces pounded
buildings into the ground, reducing entire neighbourhoods to rubble
and turning villages and towns into ghost towns, as their inhabitants
fled the bombardments. Main roads, bridges and petrol stations were
blown to bits. Entire families were killed in air strikes on their
homes or in their vehicles while fleeing the aerial assaults on
their villages. Scores lay buried beneath the rubble of their houses
for weeks, as the Red Cross and other rescue workers were prevented
from accessing the areas by continuing Israeli strikes. The hundreds
of thousands of Lebanese who fled the bombardment now face the danger
of unexploded munitions as they head home.
The Israeli Air Force launched more than 7,000 air attacks on about
7,000 targets in Lebanon between 12 July and 14 August, while the
Navy conducted an additional 2,500 bombardments.[1] The attacks,
though widespread, particularly concentrated on certain areas. In
addition to the human toll – an estimated 1,183 fatalities,
about one third of whom have been children[2], 4,054 people injured
and 970,000Lebanese people displaced[3] – the civilian infrastructure
was severely damaged. The Lebanese government estimates that 31
“vital points” (such as airports, ports, water and sewage
treatment plants, electrical facilities) have been completely or
partially destroyed, as have around 80 bridges and 94 roads.[4]
More than 25 fuel stations[5] and around 900 commercial enterprises
were hit. The number of residential properties, offices and shops
completely destroyed exceeds 30,000.[6] Two government hospitals
– in Bint Jbeil and in Meis al–Jebel – were completely
destroyed in Israeli attacks and three others were seriously damaged.[7]
In a country of fewer than four million inhabitants, more than
25 per cent of them took to the roads as displaced persons. An estimated
500,000 people sought shelter in Beirut alone, many of them in parks
and public spaces, without water or washing facilities.
Amnesty International delegates in south Lebanon reported that
in village after village the pattern was similar: the streets, especially
main streets, were scarred with artillery craters along their length.
In some cases cluster bomb impacts were identified. Houses were
singled out for precision–guided missile attack and were destroyed,
totally or partially, as a result. Business premises such as supermarkets
or food stores and auto service stations and petrol stations were
targeted, often with precision–guided munitions and artillery that
started fires and destroyed their contents. With the electricity
cut off and food and other supplies not coming into the villages,
the destruction of supermarkets and petrol stations played a crucial
role in forcing local residents to leave. The lack of fuel also
stopped residents from getting water, as water pumps require electricity
or fuel–fed generators.
Israeli government spokespeople have insisted that they were targeting
Hizbullah positions and support facilities, and that damage to civilian
infrastructure was incidental or resulted from Hizbullah using the
civilian population as a “human shield”. However, the
pattern and scope of the attacks, as well as the number of civilian
casualties and the amount of damage sustained, makes the justification
ring hollow. The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction
of public works, power systems, civilian homes and industry was
deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather
than “collateral damage” – incidental damage to civilians
or civilian property resulting from targeting military objectives.
Statements by Israeli military officials seem to confirm that the
destruction of the infrastructure was indeed a goal of the military
campaign. On 13 July, shortly after the air strikes began, the Israel
Defence Force (IDF) Chief of Staff Lt–Gen Dan Halutz noted that
all Beirut could be included among the targets if Hizbullah rockets
continued to hit northern Israel: “Nothing is safe [in Lebanon],
as simple as that,”[8] he said. Three days later, according
to the Jerusalem Post newspaper, a high ranking IDF officer threatened
that Israel would destroy Lebanese power plants if Hizbullah fired
long–range missiles at strategic installations in northern Israel.[9]
On 24 July, at a briefing by a high–ranking Israeli Air Force officer,
reporters were told that the IDF Chief of Staff had ordered the
military to destroy 10 buildings in Beirut for every Katyusha rocket
strike on Haifa.[10] His comments were later condemned by the Association
for Civil Rights in Israel.[11] According to the New York Times,
the IDF Chief of Staff said the air strikes were aimed at keeping
pressure on Lebanese officials, and delivering a message to the
Lebanese government that they must take responsibility for Hizbullah’s
actions. He called Hizbullah “a cancer” that Lebanon must
get rid of, “because if they don’t their country will
pay a very high price.” [12]
The widespread destruction of apartments, houses, electricity and
water services, roads, bridges, factories and ports, in addition
to several statements by Israeli officials, suggests a policy of
punishing both the Lebanese government and the civilian population
in an effort to get them to turn against Hizbullah. Israeli attacks
did not diminish, nor did their pattern appear to change, even when
it became clear that the victims of the bombardment were predominantly
civilians, which was the case from the first days of the conflict.
International Humanitarian Law and War Crimes
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.
Many of the violations examined in this report are war crimes that
give rise to individual criminal responsibility. They include directly
attacking civilian objects and carrying out indiscriminate or disproportionate
attacks. People against whom there is prima facie evidence of responsibility
for the commission of these crimes are subject to criminal accountability
anywhere in the world through the exercise of universal jurisdiction.
The Damage to the Infrastructure
The long–term impact of the destruction of Lebanon’s infrastructure
on the lives of the country’s men, women and children is incalculable.
Many have lost their homes while having to cope with the deaths
of loved ones or struggling to overcome severe injuries. Many more
have lost their livelihoods. Records showing home and property ownership
have been destroyed, adding to the difficulties of rebuilding lives.
The head of the country’s Council for Development and Reconstruction,
Fadl Shalak, said on 16 August that the damage incurred amounted
to US $3.5 billion: US $2 billion for buildings and US $1.5 billion
for infrastructure such as bridges, roads, and power plants.[14]
A survey compiled by the Council, based on on–site inspections in
central and northern Lebanon and telephone calls to engineers and
municipal officials in the south, showed the worst damage to the
road network, with more than 120 bridges destroyed (a significantly
higher figure than that reported by the government). Fadl Shalak
said that replacing the bridge connecting Mount Lebanon to the Bekaa
Valley above the Sulfi River on the road to Damascus would cost
an estimated US $65 million. “A beautiful bridge, its columns
70 meters, it’s one of a kind in the whole Middle East. Why
would they destroy such a bridge?” he asked. “They could
have bombed the beginning and the end and stopped the traffic. But
they made a point to bomb this bridge several times.”[15] Another
observer said, “This bridge is not used by Hizbullah since
it lies in a mountain resort area of Mount Lebanon, far away from
the south of Lebanon. Hence it has no strategic value for the Israeli
fight against Hizbullah. But it was a beautiful bridge and was the
symbol of the reconstruction of Lebanon after the civil war.”[16]
Civilian Homes
“It was a modest house but it was the house in which
I was born and brought up [some70 years ago]; it was where all my
childhood memories were. I am very saddened to think that it has
been destroyed”.
Nehmeh Joumaa, a well–known human rights defender, talking to Amnesty
International soon after learning of the destruction of his family
home in Bint Jbeil.
Thousands of civilian houses were destroyed in the Israeli bombardment
in various parts of Lebanon – notably in villages and towns
south of the Litani river, in the suburbs of the capital Beirut
and in the town of Baalbak and its surroundings.
According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) fact sheet of 16 August, 15,000 civilian
homes – houses and apartments – were destroyed. This figure
is almost certainly an underestimate. The same document reports:
“An inter–agency assessment mission to the southern suburbs
of Beirut also observed extensive destruction although the full
extent is still being assessed. 2,500 housing units have reportedly
been destroyed in Haret Hreik and a further 5,000 damaged.”[17]
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.
According to the United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL),
on 15 August, 80 per cent of the civilian houses had been destroyed
in the village of Tayyabah, 50 per cent in the villages of Markaba
and Qantarah, 30 per cent in Mais al–Jebel, 20 per cent in Hula,
and 15 per cent in Talusha.[18] The following day, UNIFIL reported
that in the village of Ghanduriyah 80 per cent of the civilian houses
had been destroyed, 60 per cent in the village of Zibqin, 50 per
cent in Jabal al–Butm and Bayyadah, 30 per cent in Bayt Leif, and
25 per cent in Kafra.[19]
When Amnesty International delegates visited the town of Bint Jbeil,
in the far south of the country, the centre of the city, where there
had been a market and busy commercial streets leading from it, was
devastated. Every building on the streets was destroyed, extensively
damaged or beyond repair. The streets were strewn with the rubble
and in that rubble was clear evidence of the cause of the damage,
unexploded munitions, shrapnel and craters. The Israeli army seemed
to have used every type of munition in its arsenal, with air–delivered
munitions, artillery shelling and cluster bomb damage in evidence.
In nearby Ainata, the scene was no different: extensive destruction
of civilian houses. The bodies of some of those who had been killed
when their homes where destroyed in the second and third week of
July, remained under the rubble when Amnesty International delegates
visited on 1 August. Their bodies could not be recovered until 14–15
August, after the ceasefire came into effect.
Yousef Wehbe, an entrepreneur who lived for years in Latin America,
told Amnesty International[20] about the destruction of his family’s
house on 21 July: “Twenty three neighbours were sheltering
in my father’s house, as it was a more solid house than others
in the area. I had spoken to my father on the phone earlier that
day and he had said: ‘I am 85 and have lived through all the
wars but none were ever like this one; I don’t know where all
these bombs come from; it is like hell.”
“A few hours later, the house was shelled by the Israeli army
and he was killed and my sister’s husband was injured; luckily
he survived. But a neighbour who went over to the corner of the
room where my father was struck was also hit and killed. Until now
I don’t know if my own house, which is in a different part
of the village from my father’s house, is still standing; some
people said it was destroyed and others said it is still there.
I don’t know; and I can’t go to the village because of
the Israeli bombardments. I put a lot of effort and work into my
house and the garden. I have been building it since 2000 and I was
still adding and improving. And the garden is beautiful, I spend
much of my time in the garden when I go back to the village. If
the house is destroyed I will have to rebuild it. Our family home
had been destroyed once before in 1970 and we rebuilt it. Now it
has again been destroyed. And if my own house has also been destroyed
I’ll have to rebuild it.”
Water Facilities
Wells, water mains, storage tanks, pumping stations and water treatment
works have been destroyed throughout south Lebanon. The water service
in the entire country has also been disrupted, as water pipes running
beneath roads have been extensively damaged when the roads above
have been bombed. The cost of the damage to water facilities was
estimated by the Lebanese government to be more than US $70 million,
as of 8 August.
The damaged and destroyed water facilities include four wells at
Fakr al–Din, as well as the pipes between the Fakr al–Din station
and Wadi al–Rashid. Storage tanks in Sidon district, Bint Jbeil
and al–Wazani were damaged or destroyed. Two pumping stations were
destroyed in the Baalbak–al–Asseera region, as well as the water
line between Sebaat and al–Dulbi. In the al–Litani area, the al–Qasimiyya
channel, Channel 900 and the line from Joun to al–Awwali were hit.
Such extensive damage to water facilities carries a grave risk
of disease. Daniel Toole of the United Nations Children’s Fund,
noted that the lack of clean water was becoming life–threatening
in south Lebanon during the fighting, where Israel’s bombardment
of roads and bridges has also cut off outside water supplies. “Sanitation
is a big issue,” he said. “Without proper sanitation children
will get diarrhoea, they will get sick and they will die.”
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) also noted
that lack of access to villages in the south meant remaining inhabitants
had been largely without clean water. Some who had fled the border
village of Rmeish told ICRC delegates that local people were drinking
foul water from an irrigation ditch.
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 Supply
Electrical facilities, power plants and fuel stations have suffered
extensive damage. At least 20 fuel depots have been completely destroyed
in bombing raids and 25 petrol stations have been destroyed or severely
damaged. A statement of 14 July noted: “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.” [21]
The south of the country was completely without power by the time
the ceasefire was announced. Electrical lines and cables across
the country have been cut, and the destruction of the roads and
bridges, as well as access restrictions imposed by the Israeli military,
have prevented repair and assessment crews from working. Electrical
supply in Beirut remains intermittent, and averaged about 12 hours
a day at the close of the conflict. Israeli air strikes on the weekend
of 12 and 13 August, immediately before the ceasefire came into
effect, left the cities of Sidon and Tyre without electricity. The
cost of the damage to the electricity sector is estimated at about
US $208 million.
Environmental Damage
The attack on Lebanon’s largest power station at Jiyyeh had
both an immediate adverse impact on the population, and long–term
implications for the environment and the economy. Israeli forces
bombed the Jiyyeh power station, about 25km south of Beirut, and
its fuel tanks on 13 July and again on 15 July. The resulting fire,
which burned for three weeks, coated the surrounding areas with
a fine white dust of pulverized concrete and filled the air with
black soot. In addition, that attack caused 15,000 tonnes of heavy
fuel oil to leak into the sea. The oil slick has contaminated more
than 150km of the Lebanese coastline, and has spread north into
Syrian waters. The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) has
characterized it as one of the worst environmental disasters seen
in the region. The cost of a comprehensive clean–up was estimated
to be US $150 million, with work taking up to a year.
“The recent oil spill off the coast of Lebanon is an environmental
disaster, and may affect the livelihood, health and future prospect
of Lebanon and the surrounding countries,” said Stavros Dimas,
the European Commissioner in charge of efforts to contain the damage.[22]
According to the Lebanese environmental NGO Greenline: “The
fuel tanks released a cloud of polyaromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins
and particulate matter, and all of these could cause cancer, respiratory
problems and hormonal problems.”
Achim Steiner, Under Secretary General of the United Nations and
Executive Director of UNEP said: “It is … a sad fact that
the environment – so vividly underlined by the oil slick and the
blackened, damaged coastline – is also a victim with all the repercussions
for livelihoods, human health, economic development, ecosystems,
fisheries, tourism and rare and endangered wildlife.”[23] The
damage to two of the emerging sectors of the Lebanese economy –
tourism, which was projected before the conflict to generate 12
per cent of the nation’s gross domestic product this year,
and commercial fishing – has not yet been assessed.
The bombing of electricity transformers such as the one that was
hit in Sidon on 12 August released polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
into the atmosphere. Lebanon still uses transformers that contain
parts that were made with PCBs, despite an international ban on
the substance. Greenpeace has warned that PCBs “are chemicals
that are bio–accumulative and persistent so when you inhale them
they stay in your body, and they cause cancer”.
The bombing of factories that made products such as glass, foodstuffs
and plastics also released these chemicals and chlorine into the
atmosphere in central areas of Lebanon, potentially affecting up
to two million people.[24]
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
Roads and bridges, despite their use primarily by civilians, have
been declared a target by the Israeli military. The extensive damage
to the land transportation network during the first three weeks
of bombing alone has been estimated by the Lebanese government at
more than US $300 million. The Israeli government stated on 14 July
that: “The roads in Lebanon are used to transport terrorists
and weapons to the terror organizations operating from Lebanese
territory against civilians in Israel.”[25] The Lebanese government’s
list of roads damaged to 31 July indicates that repeated Israeli
shelling had put nearly 100 roads largely out of commission, with
some 200,000 square metres of road completely destroyed.
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.
The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization warned that damage
to roads and bridges interrupted the food supply chain in Lebanon,
providing the recipe for “a major food crisis”. When the
Israeli air force severed Lebanon’s last significant road link
to Syria on 4 August, it stopped a convoy carrying 150 tonnes of
relief and cut what the UN called its “umbilical cord”
for aid supplies. Israel said it had destroyed the bridges along
Lebanon’s main north–south coastal road to prevent Syria from
rearming Hizbullah.
The number of bridges destroyed has been put at about 80 by the
Lebanese government, and 120 by the Council for Development and
Reconstruction. Some bridges were repaired, only to be bombed again.
On 7 August OCHA reported that Israeli forces had again bombed a
temporary bridge over the Litani River, cutting off road access
between Tyre, Sidon and Beirut. The original bridge had already
been destroyed by Israeli strikes. As a result, Tyre, Lebanon’s
fourth largest city with a population of more than 100,000 and sheltering
additional tens of thousands more displaced people, was cut off
from relief supplies.
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. The Israeli military also warned that any
movement south of the Litani River would be prohibited, with the
exception of UNIFIL and Red Cross vehicles, and that any other moving
object would be attacked. A Médecins sans Frontières
(MSF) convoy transporting emergency medical supplies and fuel was
stuck north of the Litani on 7 August, and had to pass four tonnes
of supplies via a human chain over a distance of 500m. A tree trunk
was used as a makeshift bridge.
“Because the crossing is out, we had to transfer by hand,
which left us very exposed,” said Christopher Stokes, MSF Coordinator
in Lebanon. “Although we had not received any security guarantees,
the decision was taken to go ahead because the convoy contained
very urgently needed medical and surgical supplies, especially if
fighting near Sour [Tyre] keeps increasing… And our convoy
travelling from Sour [Tyre] had a close escape when two explosions
occurred just 100m away from them. [Surveillance] drones and jets
could be heard all along the trip.”
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
All of Lebanon’s airports have been attacked, some repeatedly,
including Beirut’s international airport. The Beirut airport
was one of the first targets to be struck; a first aerial attack
turned the airport’s fuel tanks into fireballs, while a second
wave left craters in the three main runways. While the central facilities,
including the control tower, were spared, the airport was rendered
inoperative. Two days later, according to CNN: “In an unusual
deal that the United States helped broker, a runway at the Beirut
airport was repaired long enough to enable six planes – one
carrying former Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Miqati – to take
off. Israeli forces soon after bombed the runway again.” The
damage as of 31 July was estimated at US $55 million by the Lebanese
government.
An IDF statement issued on 14 July noted that the airport and its
fuel tanks had been targeted because it “is used as a central
hub for the transfer of weapons and supplies to Hizbullah”.
However, the statement suggested that the attacks were also intended
as part of the policy of making the Lebanese government “pay
a high price” for hosting Hizbullah: “The Lebanese government
is blatantly violating the resolution of the UN Security Council
which calls, among other things, for the removal of the Hizbullah
terrorist organization from the Lebanese border, and is therefore
fully responsible for the current situation.”
Ports
Israeli forces attacked seaports along the coast, including three
of the country’s main ones – in Beirut, Tripoli and Sidon.
A missile from an Israeli combat helicopter put out of use Beirut’s
modern lighthouse on 15 July, and an antenna vital for maritime
operations was hit in Tripoli on 18 July. The old lighthouse was
also hit. It is difficult to see what legitimate purpose these attacks
could have had, given that the Israeli Navy was blockading the port
anyway.
On 17 July, the Israeli Air Force launched a pre–dawn attack on
the port of Beirut, striking a fuel tank, which exploded, killing
two workers. The port of Beirut, which had been badly damaged in
previous conflicts, had recently undergone an extensive reconstruction
programme.
The Israeli Air Force also struck at the seaport in Tripoli, Lebanon’s
second–largest city, also in the north of the country.
Hospitals
Hospitals in many parts of the country have sustained shelling
damage, particularly in the south, but the main threat to their
continued operation came from fuel shortages, road destruction and
the ongoing blockade. Two government hospitals – in Bint Jbeil
and in Meis al–Jebel – were completely destroyed in Israeli
attacks and three others were seriously damaged.[26]
The Lebanese Ministry of Public Health estimated that around 60
per cent of the country’s hospitals had ceased to function
as of 12 August due to fuel shortages. Eight hospitals, including
three in the southern suburbs of Beirut, were forced to close because
bombs were falling around them daily.[27]
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.”
There were reports that al–Hikmah hospital was subsequently razed
in an air strike, but journalists who visited five days later found
the building still standing, although they noted that “there
is no question there was a fight. The rear of the hospital showed
heavy damage, and much of it is pockmarked with bullets and small
mortars. There are burned–out cars in the hospital parking lot,
and a field just beyond is burned down to scorched grasses.”.[29]
The hospital was reportedly financed by an Iranian charity with
links to Hizbullah. A Hizbullah official in Beirut was cited as
saying the hospital had been evacuated several days earlier as a
precaution after Israeli forces attempted an earlier, similar operation.
In the village of Tebnine, in South Lebanon, only hours before
the ceasefire came into effect on 14 August, Israeli forces fired
cluster bombs all around the government hospital, where hundreds
of civilians were sheltering, damaging its outer walls. Residents
of nearby villages, including elderly and disabled people who had
not been able to reach the next main town of Tyre, had sought shelter
there. The Israeli army had been shelling the surrounding of the
hospital since the end of July and those sheltering in the hospital
were afraid to leave.
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.
Communications
Israeli air raids on 22 July hit several transmission stations
used by Lebanese television and radio stations. These included Future
TV, New TV, and the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (LBCI), none
of which had any links with Hizbullah, as well as the Hizbullah–backed
al–Manar TV. They were also used by mobile phone networks. One LBCI
official, Suleyman Shidiac, Chief Engineer at the relay station
at Fatqa in the Kesrwan mountains north–east of Beirut, was killed
and two others were injured.
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.
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.
Dozens of mobile telephone masts have been struck, disabling many
mobile telephone networks, and ordinary telephone lines and exchanges
have suffered extensive damage, estimated at US $99 million.
Economic Infrastructure
Privately owned factories and businesses across the country –
economic entities whose destruction could not be seen to offer a
military advantage outweighing the damage to civilians – have
also been subjected to a series of debilitating air strikes, dealing
a further crippling blow to the shattered economy. The Lebanese
government estimated that unemployment in the country has now reached
an approximate figure of 75 per cent.[30]
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, have been disabled or
completely destroyed. Industry minister Pierre Gemayel said that
nearly two thirds of the industrial sector had been damaged, and
at least 23 large factories and dozens of small and medium–sized
factories had been bombed.
Waji al–Bisri, acting head of the Association of Lebanese Industrialists,
estimated that US $200 million in direct damage was inflicted on
the industrial sector, with dairy, cement, glass and prefab housing
factories hit hardest.[31] Nearly all shops and small businesses
close to the Israeli border have reportedly received direct hits
from artillery and air strikes.
Even before the latest attack, large–scale factories were a rarity
in Lebanon. Maliban, the second largest glassworks in the Middle
East, was an exception, with production reaching some 200 tonnes
a day for sale around the region. It was one of five Bekaa factories
destroyed. A journalist who visited the ruined factory floor said:
“It’s impossible to discern what this space was used for.
All that’s visible is churned–up soil with twisted metal, powdered
glass and wrecked machinery. It is possible to discern the cause
of the disruption, though: four distinct craters have been gouged
out of the factory floor.”[32]
One of the plant managers said: “The planes came around 12:45
so most people were at lunch, fortunately. Two people were killed,
both Indians, and two injured. If they had come an hour earlier
or later it would have been a massacre… they even destroyed
the workers’ residence.”[33]
The Liban Lait dairy farm and plant in the Bekaa valley, the leading
producer of milk and dairy products in Lebanon, was completely destroyed
in an aerial attack on 17 July. According to a local dairy farmer,
the dairy factory was hit at 3am by a barrage of missiles, and the
plant was completely destroyed. The dairy, whose products were distributed
all over the country, employed about 400 local staff. At least 1,500
Bekaa residents have reportedly lost their source of livelihood.
According to the Catholic charity Caritas in Lebanon: “The
Israeli Army is making the situation even worse for Lebanese civilians
by targeting warehouses and factories. In fact, food storage houses
in particular have become the target.”[34]
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.
For example, in the village of Hanaway, where the pattern of damage
was similar to other villages, major commercial outlets were destroyed,
including supermarkets and also car and automotive repair workshops.
Streets were cratered, the craters being of a size probably caused
by air strikes rather than artillery. Other craters along streets
indicated heavy artillery.
Lebanese agricultural production has likewise been badly hit, partly
because the produce cannot be transported by road, and partly due
to the danger of bombing and shelling for those working in the fields.
On 4 August, for example, missiles from Israeli aircraft hit a fruit–packing
warehouse near the Syrian border, killing at least 23 mainly Kurdish
farm workers. Citrus crops on the coastal plains of southern Lebanon
have been left to rot, while poultry farms have been unable to obtain
chicken feed due to the blockade and as much as 80 per cent of the
stock has died.
Blockades
“Any vehicle of any kind travelling south of the Litani
River will be bombarded, on suspicion of transporting rockets, military
equipment and terrorists.”
– leaflet addressed to “the Lebanese people”, signed
the “State of Israel”, 7 August 2006[35]
Israel incapacitated Beirut’s airports, bombarded most of
the country’s bridges and arterial roads, and imposed a naval
and air blockade. Access to the south of the country even for humanitarian
agencies, was severely disrupted. With land routes cut, the naval
blockade made bringing aid shipments in by sea impossible without
military approval, which proved extremely difficult to secure. An
ICRC ship full of supplies destined for Tyre was “red–lighted”
for several days before being allowed to dock on 12 August. Israel
claims that the blockade was necessary to cut off weapons and supplies
to Hizbullah.
“The time for improved access is long overdue,” insisted
ICRC head Jakob Kellenberger on 11 August. “Even life–saving,
emergency evacuations so desperately needed are, at best, delayed
for days. We also face enormous obstacles to bringing in aid convoys
loaded with essential foodstuffs, water and medicines for trapped
civilians.”
During the conflict, around 100,000 civilians were trapped in southern
Lebanon, afraid to flee following Israeli threats to target all
moving vehicles, and in light of Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon’s
widely reported remark: “All those now in south Lebanon are
terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah.” Some
were unable to move because of their age or disability, or simply
because they had no access to transport. Residents were rapidly
running out of food, water and medicines, and the ICRC reported
that those who had managed to escape the region were arriving at
aid stations in increasingly desperate conditions.
By 13 August, according to the Associated Press: “Aid convoys
were stuck in ports or at warehouses because Israel refused to guarantee
their safety on the roads. Thousands of people trapped in southern
villages were believed to have run out of food and medicine and
were drinking unsafe water.”
A few days earlier, the UN’s Jan Egeland had warned that fuel
supplies would run out within days, paralysing hospitals and shutting
down electricity across the country. “The fuel situation is
the single most worrying humanitarian crisis at the moment,”
he said. “If there’s one thing that will be the most critical
– even more critical than food – over the next days and weeks, it’s
fuel.” At the time, two tankers with 87,000 tonnes of fuel
oil and diesel were docked outside of Israel’s naval blockade
off Lebanon’s Mediterranean coast, but they had refused to
bring the supplies in without a written guarantee of safety.
Due to the incapacitation of electricity supply stations, hospitals
and other health centres were relying on fuel to run generators.
Power is essential to run operating theatres, life–saving equipment
including incubators for newborns, and refrigeration for vaccines
and treatments including insulin. It is also essential for safe
water provision and hygiene.
Even north of the Litani river, provision of much–needed food and
medical assistance was difficult to coordinate. Damage to roads
and bridges by bombardment necessitated taking lengthy detours along
minor roads or dirt tracks, through which big trucks can only pass
with difficulty.
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.
Within days of the ceasefire, an estimated 200,000 Lebanese had
returned home, according to the Lebanese Higher Relief Council on
16 August, including 40 per cent of people who had been sheltering
in schools and public places.
The Need for an International Investigation
Over the many years of the conflict between Hizbullah and Israel,
both sides have repeatedly committed grave violations of international
humanitarian law without any accountability. The Israeli authorities
have investigated a few incidents, and have stated that they are
still investigating some of the incidents in the latest outbreak
of hostilities, but the methods and outcomes of these investigations
have never been properly disclosed. They fall far short of the standards
required. No investigation on violations of international humanitarian
law by Hizbullah is known to have been conducted by the Lebanese
authorities. If respect for rules of war is ever to be taken seriously,
a proper investigation of their violation by both parties of the
recent conflict is imperative.
Amnesty International calls for the immediate establishment of
a comprehensive, independent and impartial 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.
Amnesty International has asked the UN Security Council and the
UN Human Rights Council to request the UN Secretary General to establish
a panel of independent experts to conduct this inquiry. They should
include experts with proven expertise in investigating compliance
with international humanitarian and human rights law, in military
matters, as well as in forensics and ballistics. The experts should
receive all necessary assistance and resources. The outcome of the
inquiry should be made public and include recommendations aimed
at ending and preventing further violations.
(1)
Israel Defence Force website ^
(2) Middle East Crisis UNICEF Situation
Report No. 26 ^
(3) Figures from Lebanese Higher Relief
Council:
Within hours of the ceasefire, thousands of Lebanese began returning
to their homes: according to UNHCR, as of the evening of 15 August,
around 522,000 remained displaced. ^
(4) Lebanon: Higher Relief Commission Daily Situation Report No. 25, 18 Aug 2006 ^
(5) Lebanese Higher Relief Council,
16 August 2006 ^
(6) Figures of the Engineers Syndicate,
released in Lebanese media 17 August 2006. ^
(7) Report of the Council for Development
and Reconstruction. ^
(8) The Times, "Our aim is to win
– nothing is safe, Israeli chiefs declare", Stephen Farrell,
14 July 2006. ^
(9) Jerusalem Post, "IAF continues
attack on Lebanon", 17 July 2006 ^
(10) Jerusalem Post, "High-ranking
officer: Halutz ordered retaliation policy", 24 July 2006. ^
(11) http://www.acri.org.il/english-acri/engine/story.asp?id=324 ^
(12) New York Times, "Israel Vowing
to Rout Hezbollah", 15 July 2006. ^
(13) Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Responding to Hizbullah attacks from Lebanon: Issues of proportionality,
25 July 2006 ^
(14) Relief Web: Source: Radio Free
Europe / Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), 16/08/06. ^
(15) Los Angeles Times, 13 August
2006. ^
(16) http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2006/07/israel_destroys.php ^
(17) http://ochaonline.un.org/DocView.asp?DocID=4820 ^
(18) http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/EVOD-6SPHZY ^
(19) http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/EGUA-6SQMXZ ^
(20) Interview on 9 August 2006. ^
(21) Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Summary of IDF operations against Hizbullah in Lebanon, 14 July
2006 ^
(22) European Commission, 17 August
2006, Reference: IP/06/1106. ^
(23) UNEP, 17 August 2006 ^
(24) United Nations Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Integrated Regional
Information Network (IRIN), 16 August 2006. ^
(25) Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Summary of IDF operations against Hizbullah in Lebanon, 14 July
2006 ^
(26) Report of the Council for Development
and Reconstruction. ^
(27) Los Angeles Times, 13 August
2006. ^
(28) The five are Hassan Nasrallah,
his son Bilal, his daughter’s husband Hassan al–Buraji, his
sister’s husband Hassan al–‘Outa, and his neighbour
Mohammad Ali Dhiab. Amnesty International delegates interviewed
Hassan Nasrallah’s family, who testified that the five were
taken from the home of Hassan al ‘Outa, where they were sheltering
as they thought it was in a safer part of town. A sixth member of
the family, 14–year–old Mohammad Nasrallah, the son of Hassan Nasrallah,
was also captured at the same time but was released after a few
hours, seemingly because of his young age. Amnesty International
delegate visited the house where the five were captured, in the
al–‘Ousaira suburb of Baalbak. It had been ransacked and virtually
every item of furniture smashed. Several neighbouring houses had
also been completely or partially destroyed. ^
(29) Betsy Pisik, "Mystery cloaks
raid on ’empty’ hospital", Washington Times, 7 August 2006. ^
(30) Lebanon: Higher Relief Commission Daily Situation Report No. 23, 16 Aug 2006 ^
(31) Daily Star, 18 August 2006. ^
(32) Jim Quilty, "Israel strikes major
blow to Bekaa working class", Lebanon Daily Star, 5 August 2006. ^
(33) Jim Quilty, "Israel strikes major
blow to Bekaa working class", Lebanon Daily Star, 5 August 2006. ^
(34) http://www.caritas.org/jumpNews.asp?idChannel=3&idLang=ENG&idUser=0&idNews=4264 ^
(35)
Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
IDF warns Lebanese civilians to leave danger zones, 25 July 2006 ^
AI Index: MDE 18/007/2006 23 August 2006
Subject Headings
|
