Israel's massive and indiscriminate use of cluster bombs in Lebanon is a war crime that must and will be prosecuted, writes Amr El-Bayoumi* I wonder if I've changed in the night? Let me think. Was I the same when I got up this morning? I almost think I can remember feeling a little different. -- Alice in Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll One long-lived imperialist "Wonderland" of unilateral war-mongering, military occupation, aggression and brutality was given an official overhaul in September 2002 in the form of the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America", better known as the Bush Doctrine. This doctrine perpetuates the efforts of imperialist powers to unilaterally rewrite the most basic principles of international law. Life for most in the wake of this Wonderland is not a pleasant reverie. It is a phantasmagorical but painfully real world of death, suffering and chaos for millions. The Bush Doctrine ratifies established principles of this imperialist world with new rhetoric. It ambiguously defines a "war on terror" that allows for "pre-emptive strikes" against assumed potential "threats" anywhere. Israel and its promoters have been active protagonists in this ruthless guild for decades, utilising rhetoric similar -- and more recently identical to -- the Bush Doctrine. Vital to their interests is to fatally blur the distinction between military and civilian targets. One weapon in their arsenal has permitted this deftly: cluster bombs. Recently, Israel used cluster bombs extensively, along with other lethal and devastating weapons, in its vicious and wholly unjustified attacks on Lebanon in July and August 2006. Just as the Bush Doctrine builds on and but makes obvious the foundations of imperialism, the use of cluster bombs is not unprecedented. Israel's actions follow like atrocities in Vietnam, Iraq and the former Yugoslavia. Regardless, from a legal perspective, the entire international community remains bound to international legal principles governing the use of force. Under existing standards, the use of force is expressly prohibited unless in self-defence, in response to an imminent threat, and must only be proportional to such a threat. These principles have been unequivocally established, reinforced and expanded upon, with special protection afforded to civilians, through the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, the UN and Nuremberg Charters following World War II, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 that codify the laws of war, and numerous multilateral treaties and fundamental principles of customary international law. In order to ensure the protection of civilians during armed conflict, international humanitarian law requires that all parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants. The Geneva Conventions and other sources of international humanitarian and human rights law expressly prohibit attacks on legitimate military targets that may be expected to cause excessive incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and/or damage to civilian objects relative to the defined military advantage anticipated. Furthermore, the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks set forth in Protocol II of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980 limits the use of certain weapons in situations where the civilian population will be affected. It is within the framework of these principles that the legality of the use of a particular weapon, such as cluster bombs, must be analysed. Simply stating that the use of cluster bombs -- or, for that matter, phosphorous bombs -- is "legal" or "not expressly prohibited" under international law, as has been stated numerous times by Israeli officials, is meaningless. No claim of "legality" of the use of a weapon can be valid unless there is clear evidence that the use of such weapons represents a proportionate act of self- defence in response to an imminent threat, and that the act did not, or would not, unduly risk civilian life and infrastructure in pursuit of a concrete military objective. The extent of the ruthless aggression unleashed by the Israeli army on civilians and infrastructure in Lebanon was substantial, if unfortunately not unprecedented. According to the Lebanese government, during Israel's war on Lebanon the Israeli air force flew more than 12,000 combat missions, its navy fired 2,500 shells, and its army fired over 100,000 shells, resulting in over 1,200 dead, 4,000 wounded, and approximately one million displaced civilians. An estimated 200,000 remained displaced as of November. Furthermore, the destruction of substantial parts of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure, including roads, bridges and thousands of other purely civilian objects such as Beirut International Airport, ports, electrical facilities, private residences, fuel stations, commercial structures, schools, hospitals, and water and sewage treatment plants, is clear and undeniable evidence of a purposive breach of the laws of war. Upon analysis of the facts and circumstances of Israel's aggression, it is definitively clear that Israel's response to the acts of Lebanese resistance fighters against legitimate Israeli military targets near the Israeli-Lebanese border on 12 July was far from being in accordance with the fundamental international legal principles of self-defence, imminent threat, and proportionality. Indeed, Israeli officials clearly stated in advance their intention to blatantly disregard these fundamental principles. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert promised a "very painful and far- reaching" response. Parallel to the rhetoric of the Bush Doctrine, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni attempted to weave the anticipated aggression against the people of Lebanon within the propaganda narrative of Bush's "war on terror" by promising that Israel would respond "aggressively and harshly" to "those who perpetrate terrorism and those who give it shelter", adding that, "Israel is fighting to eliminate the threat posed by the axis of terror and hate: Hizbullah, Hamas, Syria and Iran." Israel's Chief of Staff Dan Halutz stated Israel's illegal intention even more bluntly: "We will turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years" -- a statement that evokes memories of the threat once verbalised by former US secretary of state James Baker III to bomb Iraq "back into the Stone Age" in 1991. The head of Israel's Northern Command, Udi Adam, also confirmed plans for grossly disproportionate, and evidently pre- meditated, attacks: "Once it is inside Lebanon, everything is legitimate -- not just southern Lebanon, not just the line of Hizbullah posts." An advance copy of The UN Human Rights Council Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon report, dated 10 November, based on comprehensive meetings with Lebanese government representatives, UN agencies, NGOs and a broad range of representatives of the Lebanese private sector, revealed that Israel's actions amounted to numerous gross violations of international law: "The State of Lebanon was the subject of direct hostilities conducted by Israel, consisting of... a widespread and systematic campaign of direct and other attacks throughout its territory against its civilian population and civilian objects, as well as massive destruction of its public infrastructure, utilities, and other economic assets; armed attacks on its Armed Forces; hostile acts of interference within its internal affairs, territorial integrity and unity and acts constituting temporary occupation of Lebanese villages and towns by the IDF [Israeli Defence Forces]." Regarding the legality of these acts of mass destruction, the UN report reads: "The commission considers that the excessive, indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force by the IDF goes beyond reasonable arguments of military necessity and of proportionality, and clearly failed to distinguish between civilian and military targets, thus constituting a flagrant violation of [international humanitarian law]. The Commission has a clear view that, cumulatively, the deliberate and lethal attacks by the IDF on civilians and civilian objects amounted to collective punishment." Israel's indiscriminate use of cluster bombs during the conflict played a fundamental role in its clearly declared intentions to inflict pain and punishment on the country of Lebanon in its entirety, particularly via the injury, destabilisation and fatal blows inflicted on Lebanon's infrastructure and economy that will continue for months, if not years, as a result of their use. Cluster bombs or munitions are air-dropped or ground-launched shells that eject between three and many hundreds of explosive sub-munitions (or "bomblets") ranging in size from approximately 8-18 centimetres in length. A single bomblet can be fatal or can cause serious injury, including loss of limb. According to Handicap International, 98 per cent of cluster bomb victims are civilians. Cluster bombs can by no means be described as "precision" or "smart" weapons as they are designed to be dispersed over areas of hundreds of square metres in low-development regions. They typically land within approximately 250 to 300 metres of their targets, rendering whole areas dangerous, if not lethal, especially in moderately to highly populated locales. A cluster bomblet that fails to explode on impact -- a "dud" -- can remain active and potentially lethal for months, even years, effectively becoming a miniature land mine. Dud rates for "double-fused" cluster bomblets are unpredictable, but range between one per cent and 20 per cent, whereas dud rates for "single-fused" cluster bomblets can be as high as 40 per cent. In addition, the dispersed sub-munitions can appear curious, almost toy-like, lodged in trees, in fields and around buildings, and far from what an ordinary civilian -- particularly a child -- would understand as a lethal weapon. The characteristics of cluster bombs, the timing and manner of their dispersion by the Israeli army, and the fact that a high percentage of them remains active and lethal on the ground months, if not years, after the cessation of an armed conflict, renders them particularly destructive in light of international humanitarian legal principles, and a gross violation of the duty to protect civilians. These distinctive features are highlighted in the UN Human Rights Council report: "The use of cluster bombs suggests a degree of vindictiveness and an effort to punish the population as a whole, including those returning to town." According to testimony published in the Israeli daily, Haaretz, Israel fired at least 1.2 million cluster bomblets -- nearly all US manufactured -- during its aggression on Lebanon. These bomblets were propelled through the use of the Multiple Launch System Rocket (MLRS), which can fire up to 12 rockets, each containing several hundred cluster bomblets, in as little as 60 seconds. An Israeli commander was quoted as stating: "What we did was insane and monstrous; we covered entire towns in cluster bombs." Other sources have reported a much higher figure. According to UN estimates, as many as three million cluster bomblets were fired into Lebanon by the Israeli army. In its November report, the English humanitarian organisation, the Mines Advisory Group (MAG), estimated the dud rate of cluster bomblets fired into Lebanon at approximately 33 per cent, while the UN reports a dud rate of 40 per cent. In addition, MAG calculated that the contamination of cluster bomblets has affected 31.8 million square metres of land across South Lebanon, a concentration greater than that witnessed in the conflicts in Kosovo and Iraq. As of October last, over 20 Lebanese civilian deaths and 150 injuries resulted from cluster bomblet duds long after the cessation of intensive aggression by Israel in August. MAG representatives interviewed by the author in November indicated that these casualty figures are expected to increase substantially, since numerous new contaminated sites will not be cleared for months, or even years, despite ongoing bomblet clearing efforts. The fact that hundreds of agricultural areas in southern Lebanon are highly contaminated with cluster bomblets is expected to increase casualties further as farmers harvest their land to maintain their livelihoods. The timing of the cluster bomb strikes by Israel provides further confirmation of Israel's clearly illegal intent and actions. Jan Egeland, UN undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs stated: "What's shocking and, I would say to me, completely immoral, is that 90 per cent of the cluster-bomb strikes occurred in the last 72 hours of the conflict, when we knew there would be a resolution, when we really knew there would be an end to this." The conclusion in the UN Human Rights Council report regarding the Israeli army's use of cluster bombs is clear and unequivocal: "Considering the indiscriminate manner in which cluster munitions were used, in the absence of any reasonable explanation from the IDF, the Commission finds that their use was excessive and not justified by any reason of military necessity... These weapons were used deliberately to turn large areas of fertile agricultural land into 'no go' areas for the civilian population. Furthermore, in view of the foreseeable high dud rate, their use amounted to a de facto scattering of anti-personnel mines across wide tracts of Lebanese land." The use of cluster munitions by the Israeli army was of no military advantage and was in contradiction to the principles of distinction and proportionality. Their use was part of a widespread and systematic campaign of targeting civilians and their property, causing great suffering, injury and death during and after the conflict. The extent of the use of the munitions during the last 72 hours of the conflict points towards a clear plan by the Israeli army. In response to the overwhelming evidence of the illegal use of cluster bombs by the Israeli army in Lebanon, Israeli officials admitted, months after the aggression, that civilian locations in South Lebanon were indeed targeted with cluster bombs. However, they made a shameless attempt to attribute these actions to the failure of low ranking Israeli army officers to follow orders; charges vehemently denied by the officers. Aside from dodging responsibility, Israeli officials and supporters have also attempted to divert attention from other war crimes of Israel. Months after the brutality, Israeli representatives and supporters embarked on unsubstantiated attempts to equate Israel's heinous aggression with the legitimate acts of resistance staged by Lebanese fighters, which involved, at worst, relatively minor scale infractions of the international laws of war. Specifically, in December, Israeli officials embarked on a feeble publicity campaign to "expose" Hizbullah's "war crimes", based on suddenly declassified, and ambiguous, satellite photos and conjecture. Another tactic has been the tired "human shield" rationale whereby Hizbullah "terrorists" purportedly implanted themselves within civilian areas to avoid attack, although the risk to non-combatants is supposedly acceptable to the "terrorists" and civilians alike since both are willing to die as martyrs for a swift blessing by Allah. Aggressors have used this baseless excuse for murder and destruction following numerous massacres of civilians in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as previous massacres in Lebanon. Not one scintilla of hard evidence of "human shielding" by Hizbullah during Israel's aggression on Lebanon has been uncovered by any UN entity or consistently credible human rights organisation. The foregoing examples of Israel's outrageous violations of international law, epitomised by its blanket use of cluster bombs, and the heinous war crimes committed as a result, will not go unaddressed by international and local human rights activist organisations. For example, the Alexandria Association of Human Rights Advocates, the International Action Centre, Al-Awda and the Centre for Constitutional Rights have initiated numerous efforts to hold accountable the Israeli government, its supporters (including the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, and other "allies") and the suppliers of weapons of mass destruction, like cluster munitions, for the crimes committed during Israel's aggression on Lebanon. These efforts need the time and financial contributions of many volunteers and informed observers. * The writer is an attorney at law, Alexandria Association of Human Rights Advocates, Egypt.
