One War Crime Does Not Excuse Another

From Voice of America.

Human Rights Watch is calling on Hezbollah militants in Lebanon to immediately stop firing rockets into civilian areas in Israel, referring to the attacks as "war crimes."

A statement issued Saturday by the New York-based organization says militants have launched 2,500 rockets into mostly civilian areas in northern Israel since July 12.

The organization has also documented the Israeli military's use of force that has killed hundreds of Lebanese civilians. But it says crimes by one side in a conflict never justify crimes by another.

Human Rights Watch said Hezbollah militants claim that some of their attacks are aimed at military bases in Israel. But the rights organization says most attacks appear to be directed at civilian areas such as hospitals, schools and businesses

This is an important story, but I feel it may be likely to get less play than it should - by bloggers in particular. The right, who overwhelmingly favor the neocon plan being enacted by Israel, will ignore it becasue Human Rights Watch are "damn lib'ruls". The left, where most are now sympathetic to Lebanon's plight (rather than sympathetic to Hizboullah as the right would claim) as well as sympathetic to Israel's right to live without the shadow of terror, may well ignore it too - simply because of a reluctance to hand Israel's rabid right supporters any excuse to foam further and a reluctance to appear to be condoning Israel's own war crimes after Qana, ambulances attacked and UN observers murdered.

But progressives should be telling this report's underlying story far and wide. When it comes to atrocities, it doesn't matter who started it and there are no extenuating circumstances - a war crime is wrong. "Crimes by one side in a conflict never justify crimes by another."

Which brings me to a related issue. Progressives and, hopefully, Democrat leaders, should be saying that it is time to bring the Geneva Conventions up to date. They were written at a time when fourth generation warfare was in its infancy and no group could aspire to the power of a State. That's changed. It is more and more likely that in future conflicts one side will not be a nation, and thus will not be (and may well not aspire to be) a party to the Geneva Conventions. We need to decide what to do about that. As a first step, my own preference would be amending the current conventions so that signatory nations must apply them even if their opponent does not. That is the civilized, moral, high ground that must be claimed.

A new Convention also needs to be convened to clear up once and for all the bastard concept of "enemy combatants" on an international stage, to agree on humane treatment of all prisoners and to set out a framework of legal due process for those captured in fourth generation conflicts. That Convention should hold even non-signators to its terms - and if you need a legal justification for that then say it is by dint of the sheer will of the masses of humanity that it be done. It should also have some power to punish those who break it, by immediate referal to the UN Security Council (no vetos allowed in such matters) and by eventual war crimes trials at the International Court...no matter who it is breaking it. No nation or group should be able to unilaterally legislate away or hide from it's obligations to act in a civilized way, nor shield its citizens/members from their obligations to do likewise.

Endnote: Thanks to Kat for demangling my early morning grammatical error - C