Daily Alert Archives

Amnesty International Redefines "War Crimes"

[Jerusalem Post] Alan Dershowitz - Amnesty International has announced that Israel was guilty of a slew of war crimes for "widespread attacks against public civilian infrastructure, including power plants, bridges, main roads, seaports, and Beirut's international airport." But Amnesty is wrong about the law. Israel committed no war crimes by attacking parts of the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon. The strategy of destroying some infrastructure was particularly imperative against Hizballah. Israel first had to ensure that its kidnapped soldiers would not be smuggled out of the country, then it had to prevent Hizballah from being re-armed by Syria and Iran. As law professor David Bernstein has written: "The idea that a country at war can't attack the enemy's resupply routes has nothing to do with human rights or war crimes, and a lot to do with a pacifist attitude that seeks to make war, regardless of the justification for it or the restraint in prosecuting it, an international 'crime.'" In other words, if attacking the civilian infrastructure is a war crime, then modern warfare is entirely impermissible, and terrorists have a free hand in attacking democracies and hiding from retaliation among civilians. Terrorists become de facto immune from any consequences for their atrocities. The more troubling aspect of Amnesty's report is their inattention to Hizballah. If Israel is guilty of war crimes for targeting civilian infrastructure, imagine how much greater is Hizballah's moral responsibility for targeting civilians. But Amnesty has not issued a report accusing Hizballah of war crimes.
2006-09-01 01:00:00
Full Article