Unfair treatment for Israel
Lauren Bernton
Issue date: 11/12/09 Section: Op/Ed
Amnesty International (AI) has repeatedly referred to Israel's use of force in the Gaza Strip as "disproportionate." AI's support of this claim has legitimized it and has been detrimental to Israel's public image in the eyes of human rights activists across the world-some even here at the College. Maybe it's time for an in depth look at how AI defines "disproportionate."
Donatella Rovera is an Amnesty International Middle East researcher and spokesperson. When asked how "disproportionate" was defined, she replied, "Under IHL, an attack is disproportionate if it may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Many of the attacks by Israeli forces match this definition." Yes, many of Israel's attacks do unfortunately involve civilian casualties. Yet Israel aims to target the armed, scarcely unified, entirely dispersed aggressors, while the Gaza Strip is 25 miles long, 4.8 miles wide, and home to 1.4 million people; the possibility of any retaliation without substantial collateral damage is virtually impossible. That aside, let us for a moment consider how Palestinian aggression falls into this definition. First and foremost, Kassam rockets fired in Israeli villages do not stray and hit civilians-they are aimed at civilians. This is unjustified. The "concrete military advantage anticipated" has to be close to zero in this case. In addition, the chance of "incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof" is not only likely here but is the sole intention. In order for a legitimate investigation of human rights violations, there must first be uniform application of terms.
Let's talk a little bit more about "disproportionate." Earlier this month Amnesty International released a 525-page human rights investigation on the Gaza Strip. (a one-sided condemnation of Israel.) The result of which has been allegations of water restrictions and more allegations of human rights violations. If I had a world enough in time I would have read the whole 525 pages. In the 67 pages I did read, I came across the methodology for collecting the facts which led to these condemnations. It reads:
Donatella Rovera is an Amnesty International Middle East researcher and spokesperson. When asked how "disproportionate" was defined, she replied, "Under IHL, an attack is disproportionate if it may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Many of the attacks by Israeli forces match this definition." Yes, many of Israel's attacks do unfortunately involve civilian casualties. Yet Israel aims to target the armed, scarcely unified, entirely dispersed aggressors, while the Gaza Strip is 25 miles long, 4.8 miles wide, and home to 1.4 million people; the possibility of any retaliation without substantial collateral damage is virtually impossible. That aside, let us for a moment consider how Palestinian aggression falls into this definition. First and foremost, Kassam rockets fired in Israeli villages do not stray and hit civilians-they are aimed at civilians. This is unjustified. The "concrete military advantage anticipated" has to be close to zero in this case. In addition, the chance of "incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof" is not only likely here but is the sole intention. In order for a legitimate investigation of human rights violations, there must first be uniform application of terms.
Let's talk a little bit more about "disproportionate." Earlier this month Amnesty International released a 525-page human rights investigation on the Gaza Strip. (a one-sided condemnation of Israel.) The result of which has been allegations of water restrictions and more allegations of human rights violations. If I had a world enough in time I would have read the whole 525 pages. In the 67 pages I did read, I came across the methodology for collecting the facts which led to these condemnations. It reads: