Hundreds of migrant workers seek evacuation assistance BEIRUT, 19 July (IRIN) - With mass evacuations ongoing in Lebanon as a result of escalating Israeli attacks, a number of governments have requested assistance from the International Organization of Migration (IOM) in getting their migrant workers out of the country. Some don't have the means or even the documents needed to leave. On behalf of the authorities of Sri Lanka, Philippines, Bangladesh, Moldova and Ghana, an IOM team arrived in Lebanon yesterday to assess the number of these foreign nationals who need help evacuating to a third country, namely Syria or Jordan. While many other nations have made their own provisions for the transportation of nationals out of Lebanon, these particular countries do not have the capability. "We are doing what we can to help them," says Jemini Pandya, spokesperson for IOM. "We have been asked to help an initial caseload of 300 Sri Lankans, but this is rising by around 100 people per day. As you know, there are no commercial flights out of Beirut so they would have to go to another country. And because of the situation and the demand, travel costs are rising. Their respective governments don't have the means to help." Pandya notes that 46 Sri Lankans are taking refuge in the Sri Lankan Embassy in Beirut while the remainder are in a shelter run by the NGO Caritas. With an estimated 90,000 Sri Lankan migrants in Lebanon, who are overwhelmingly single women employed as domestic workers, the Sri Lankan government expects the numbers of its nationals seeking evacuation assistance will reach the thousands.In addition, there are said to be around 30,000-40,000 people from the Philippines in the country, with more than 2,000 having registered with their embassy for evacuation and some 160 having taken refuge in a Catholic Church in the north of Beirut. While Bangladesh nationals have a 10,000-strong community in Lebanon, it is currently unknown exactly how many of the other migrant nationalities exist in Lebanon. In addition to the 300 Sri Lankans, IOM has received requests so far from 119 Filipinos, 240 Moldovans and 500 Ghanaians. Accentuating the problem is the fact that some migrant workers do not have the necessary documents to travel. "These migrants don't have the means to leave the country and some of them don't have identity papers either," says Pandya. "Those who don't are having new passports being made so they can travel." Pandya adds that IOM has also been asked to identify accommodation for Sri Lankan migrants until their evacuation to Syria or Jordan by land as well as a place there that could host the evacuees until their eventual repatriation to Sri Lanka.IOM is talking to donors in order to help finance the evacuation of the stranded foreign nationals as well as liaising on the ground with the Lebanese authorities, the UN, embassies and others. CHOUF MOUNTAINS, 19 July (IRIN) - For a moment there was panic in the school in Aley, the main city in the predominantly Druze-controlled Chouf Mountains, 17 kilometres south-east of Beirut. Packed with some 400 displaced people from the south of Lebanon, the cause for concern was just one man and his story of intense horror. The man, who preferred not to be named, had just arrived from Srifa, a village near the southern city of Tyre. He shed a light on how the war is being fought in the south, and how civilians, homes, roads, and bridges are the main victims. According to him, Hizbullah fighters had entered the village at night and fired rockets at Israel. Immediately afterwards, he says, Israeli artillery returned fire and people went into hiding. "More than 15 buildings were completely destroyed," says the man. "People got buried under the rubble and may be still there." He and four others tried to help, but the planes returned and bombed again. The man then decided to take his car and follow his family, which had left the village last week and now live with some 400 others in the emptied class rooms of the Aley primary school. Though not a particularly long journey in normal times, it took him about four hours to get to Aley. "Every time I took one road, I had to return and take another because either the road or the bridge was destroyed." People are heading to the Chouf Mountains because it's the only route out of the south that has not been bombed. Additionally, in the past the mountains have been a place of refuge in times of war. On hearing this story, many people in the school panicked, as they had relatives in the village. The man could not tell, however, who and how many people were killed. The village mayor told Al Jazeera TV: "There are dozens dead and there is massive destruction. Emergency services are putting out the fires, but they cannot reach the houses to recover bodies." On the numbers of people fleeing the attacks in the south, Zaher Radwa of local NGO Green Hand said: "We have nearly 400 people in this school, one of four main schools in the city that offers accommodation. There are also smaller institutions that offer help while a lot of people stay with friends or have rented apartments. We estimate there are some 20,000 to 25,000 displaced people in Aley alone and up to 150,000 in the whole of the Chouf region." Officials estimates suggest that half a million Lebanese have been displaced countrywide by the ongoing conflict.The relief effort in Aley is organised by the municipality and the Progressive Socialist Party led by Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, who is known as one of Hizbullah's fiercest critics. "So far, we have enough to offer," said Radwa, "but soon we expect to face shortages of food and fuel. I mean, there are now so many more people living in this area, while the south and the Bekaa Valley are cut off. And that's where most of Lebanon's food comes from." If the situation in Lebanon is not to change for the better soon, Radwa believes, the country will become dependent on foreign aid. Still the situation seems worse in the south of the country. Chadi Hamed fled with his mother and sister from Tyre on Monday, after Israeli forces bombed a Civil Defense Forces building killing some 20 people, as well as bombing a residential building in his neighbourhood killing five."The situation in Tyre is becoming very bad," he said. "The city is nearly cut off from the outside world. It is running out of bread and fuel, and no one is working the lands."Hamed had to take an alternative longer route before entering the Chouf Mountains. "There is destruction everywhere," he said, "and we were constantly followed by the sound of bomb explosions. Only after we entered the Chouf we were more relaxed." Some of his family remained in Tyre. While his father works abroad, his two uncles and their families refused to leave. "If we die, we die here," they said."Not me," said Hamed. "I don't care about politics and I hope to leave the country for Jordan, as I have a double nationality." Israeli attacks on Lebanon started on 12 July in response to the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah, who are demanding the release of Lebanese prisoners in Israel. The south of the country has been targeted in particular, as it is home to Hizbullah. At least 300 people, mostly civilians, have been killed in Lebanon so far, while hundreds of thousands have fled from south Beirut, south Lebanon and, to a lesser extent, the Bekaa Valley Syria Helps besieged Lebanese Refugees BEIRUT, 18 Jul 2006 (IRIN) - The number of people displaced countrywide due to ongoing Israeli attacks has been estimated by the government at 65,000, with most seeking shelter in Beirut and in the north of the country.?The last update we have from the authorities suggests 65,000 people could be displaced,? said Hicham Hassan, spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Beirut. ?But thousands of people are on the move to other areas and it?s difficult to track.? ?It?s now a more difficult situation because bombing has increased and there?s little information available,? said Hassan. ?People are stranded and villages in the south are isolated from one another and the rest of the country.? Aid workers continue to express serious concern for the welfare of those stuck in the country?s south, a Hizbullah stronghold that has borne the brunt of Israeli attacks since the bombing began on 12 July. According to aid agencies, the area is largely inaccessible due to the recent bombing of roads and bridges. ?People in the south are under siege ? they can?t move,? said Kamel Mohanna, head of local NGO Amel. ?We?re trying to coordinate with the ICRC and the UN to send a convoy to transport people out of the area.? ?There are people without food, water or medicine ? the situation is very dangerous,? Mohanna added. ?We need the international community to apply pressure for a ceasefire and help us distribute drugs and medical equipment.? Meanwhile, the Beirut-based Popular Aid for Relief and Development (PARD) urged both the local and international communities to help contribute to the relief effort. ?All types of assistance are needed: medical aid, food parcels, mattresses and blankets and cooking kits, as well as milk for children,? said PARD Director Rita Hamden. ?If the situation continues,? she added, ?they?ll need clothes too.? Some 500 families, approx 3,000 displaced people, are in the city of Sidon, living in some 10 schools, according to PARD. ?We have distributed sanitation kits for them to be able to bathe and clean rooms as prevention for disease,? she added. Some of the displaced are with relatives and according to Hamdan there is immense financial pressure on families as they cannot afford to pay for new arrivals and all are in need of relief items. Questions and Answers on Hostilities Between Israel and Hezbollah (Beirut, July 17, 2006) – On July 12, Hezbollah launched an attack on Israeli positions on the Israeli side of the Lebanese border, killing three Israeli soldiers and capturing two. In response, Israel launched air and artillery attacks against targets throughout Lebanon, including Beirut’s international airport, bridges and highways, and Hezbollah offices. It also instituted an air, sea, and land blockade. According to media reports at the time of writing, Israeli attacks have killed at least 110 civilians and wounded more than 235 in Lebanon. Hezbollah forces have launched more than 800 rockets across the border into northern Israel, as far south as Tiberias (35km/22 miles south of the border), killing 12 civilians and injuring more than 100. Lebanon: Hezbollah Rocket Attacks on Haifa Designed to Kill Civilians Anti-personnel Ball Bearings Meant to Harm “Soft” Targets (New York, July 18, 2006) – Hezbollah's attacks in Israel on Sunday and Monday were at best indiscriminate attacks in civilian areas, at worst the deliberate targeting of civilians. Either way, they were serious violations of international humanitarian law and probable war crimes, Human Rights Watch said today. In addition, the warheads used suggest a desire to maximize harm to civilians. Some of the rockets launched against Haifa over the past two days contained hundreds of metal ball bearings that are of limited use against military targets but cause great harm to civilians and civilian property. The ball bearings lodge in the body and cause serious harm. Hezbollah has reportedly fired more than 800 rockets into Israel from southern Lebanon over the past five days, killing 12 civilians and wounding many more. The vast majority of these rockets, as in past conflicts, have been Katyushas, which are small, have a range limited to the border area, and cannot be aimed with precision. Hezbollah has also fired some rockets in the current fighting that have landed up to 40 kilometers inside Israel. “Attacking civilian areas indiscriminately is a serious violation of international humanitarian law and can constitute a war crime,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of the Middle East and North Africa division at Human Rights Watch. “Hezbollah’s use of warheads that have limited military use and cause grievous suffering to the victims only makes the crime worse.” On Monday, Human Rights Watch researchers inspected a three-story apartment building in Haifa's Bat Galim neighborhood after it was struck by a rocket around 3:00 p.m., causing extensive damage to the top two floors and wounding six residents, one of them seriously. They collected metal ball bearings that had pierced the walls of the apartment building across the street and car windshields up to one block away. An Israeli ordinance removal expert at the scene told Human Rights Watch that the rocket used in the attack had a 240mm warhead. According to media reports, Hezbollah announced that it had fired dozens of Raad 2 and Raad 3 anti-tank missiles into Haifa in response to “aggressions against various Lebanese regions.” An Israeli military official told the press on Sunday that Hezbollah had fired at least three Syrian-made Fajr-3 missiles. On Sunday, a Hezbollah rocket killed eight workers in Haifa’s main railway depot. Doctors who treated the wounded told Human Rights Watch that the rockets contained metal ball bearings. The ball bearings have increased the number and seriousness of injuries from rocket fire, the doctors said. “In my medical opinion, they [these rockets] are supposed to injure as many people as possible,” said Dr. Eran Tal-Or, director of the Surgical Emergency Room at Haifa's Ramban Hospital. “If you wanted to bring down a building, you would make a weapon with a heavier blast. And you wouldn't bother with the balls inside that don't do much harm to buildings; just to people.” Human Rights Watch interviewed three railway workers at the hospital wounded by the ball bearings in Sunday’s lethal blast. “There were three loud booms and I started running out of the depot,” said Alek Vensbaum, 61, a worker at the Israel Train Authority. “One of the guys, Nissim, who was later killed, yelled at everyone to run to the shelter. The fourth boom got me when I was nearly at the door, and I was hit by shrapnel ... I was hit by ball bearing-like pieces of metal in my neck, hand, stomach and foot.” Sami Raz, 39, a railway electrician, said a ball bearing pierced his lung and lodged near his heart. “I had terrible difficulty breathing after I was hit,” he said. Twelve people were wounded in the attack, four of them seriously. Under international humanitarian law, parties to an armed conflict may not use weapons in civilian areas that are so inaccurate that they cannot be directed at military targets without imposing a substantial risk of civilian harm. Such attacks can constitute war crimes. Deliberately attacking civilians is in all circumstances prohibited and a war crime. Human Rights Watch has called on both Hezbollah and the Israeli military to respect the absolute prohibition against targeting civilians or conducting indiscriminate attacks in civilian areas. Since fighting began on July 12, Israeli attacks have reportedly killed 209 people in Lebanon, most of them civilians. On Monday, Human Rights Watch called on the Israeli government to provide details about a bombing on July 15 that killed 16 civilians in a convoy near the village of Marwahin. HRW : About the Lebanese-Hezbollah War The following questions and answers set out some of the legal rules governing the various actions taken by Israel and Hezbollah to date in this recent conflict. Human Rights Watch sets out these rules before it has been able to conduct extensive on-the-ground investigation. The purpose is to provide analytic guidance for those who are examining the fighting as well as for the parties to the conflict and those with the capacity to influence them. This Q & A addresses only the rules of international humanitarian law, known as jus in bello, which govern the way each party to the armed conflict must conduct itself in the course of the hostilities. It does not address whether Hezbollah was justified in attacking Israel, whether Israel was justified in attacking Lebanon for the conduct of Hezbollah, or other matters concerning the legitimacy of resorting to war. In accordance with its institutional mandate, Human Rights Watch maintains a position of strict neutrality on these issues of jus ad bellum because we find it the best way to promote our primary goal of encouraging both sides in the course of the conflict to respect international humanitarian law. What international humanitarian law applies to the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah? The current armed conflict between Hezbollah and Israel is governed by international treaty as well as the rules of customary international humanitarian law. The treaty, specifically, common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 to which Israel is a party, sets forth minimum standards for all parties to a conflict between a state party such as Israel and a non-state party such as Hezbollah. The customary rules are based on established state practice, and bind all parties to an armed conflict, whether state actors or non-state armed groups. International humanitarian law is designed mainly to protect civilians and other noncombatants from the hazards of armed conflict. Among the customary rules, parties that engage in hostilities must distinguish at all times between combatants and noncombatants. As discussed below, warring parties are required to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects and to refrain from attacks that would disproportionately harm the civilian population or fail to discriminate between combatants and civilians. Common Article 3 provides a number of fundamental protections for noncombatants, which include those who are no longer taking part in hostilities, such as captured combatants, and those who have surrendered or are unable to fight because of wounds or illness. The article prohibits violence against these noncombatants – particularly murder, cruel treatment and torture – as well as outrages against their personal dignity and degrading or humiliating treatment. It also prohibits the taking of hostages and “the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions” if basic judicial guarantees have not been observed. Israel has asserted on several occasions since hostilities began on July 12 that it considers itself to be responding to the actions of the sovereign state of Lebanon, not just Hezbollah. If Israel considers itself to be at war with another sovereign state – that is, if it considers itself involved in an interstate conflict – then it must accept being bound by the full scope of the Geneva Conventions with their far more extensive rules, not simply those of common Article 3. To the extent that Lebanese forces were to join the hostilities, they, too, would be bound by the full Geneva Conventions, to which Lebanon is also a party. However, this Q & A limits itself to the more focused requirements of customary law and common Article 3, since they have greatest relevance to the conflict as it so far has been waged. What is Hezbollah’s status in relation to the conflict? Hezbollah is an organized political Islamist group based in Lebanon, with a military arm and a civilian arm, and is represented in the Lebanese parliament and government. As such a group, and as a party to the conflict with Israel, it is bound to conduct hostilities in compliance with customary international humanitarian law and common Article 3, which as stated above applies to conflicts that are not interstate but between a state and a non-state actor. As is explicitly stated in common Article 3, and made clear by the commentaries of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the application of the provisions of common Article 3, as well as customary international law, to Hezbollah does not affect its legal status. Was Hezbollah's capture of Israeli soldiers lawful? The targeting and capture of enemy soldiers is allowed under international humanitarian law. However captured combatants must in all circumstances be treated humanely. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nassrallah has stated that the captured soldiers will be used to negotiate the release of Palestinian, Lebanese and other Arab prisoners from Israel. The use of captives who are no longer involved in the conflict for this purpose constitutes hostage-taking. Hostage-taking as part of an armed conflict is strictly forbidden under international law, by both common Article 3 and customary international law, and is a war crime. Which targets are Israel and Hezbollah entitled to attack under international humanitarian law? Two fundamental tenets of international humanitarian law are those of “civilian immunity” and the principle of “distinction.” They impose a duty to distinguish at all times in the conduct of hostilities between combatants and civilians, and to target only the former. It is forbidden in any circumstance to direct attacks against civilians; indeed, as noted, to do so intentionally amounts to a war crime. It is also generally forbidden to direct attacks against what are called “civilian objects,” such as homes and apartments, places of worship, hospitals, schools, or cultural monuments, unless they are being used for military purposes. Military objects that are legitimately subject to attack are those that make an “effective” contribution to military action and whose destruction, capture or neutralization offers a “definite military advantage.” Where there is doubt about the nature of an object, it must be presumed to be civilian. The mere fact that an object has civilian uses does not necessarily render it immune from attack. It, too, can be targeted if it makes an “effective” contribution to the enemy’s military activities and its destruction, capture or neutralization offers a “definite military advantage” to the attacking side. However, such “dual use” objects might also be protected by the principle of proportionality, described below. Even when a target is serving a military purpose, precautions must always be taken to protect civilians. Is Hezbollah’s firing of rockets into Israel lawful under international humanitarian law? As a party to the armed conflict, Hezbollah has a legal duty to protect the life, health and safety of civilians and other non-combatants. The targeting of military installations and other military objectives is permitted but Hezbollah must take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm and is prohibited from targeting civilians, launching indiscriminate attacks, or attacking military objects if the anticipated harm to civilians and other noncombatants will be disproportionate to the expected military advantage. Hezbollah’s commanders must choose the means of attack that can be directed at military targets and will minimize incidental harm to civilians. If the weapons used are so inaccurate that they cannot be directed at military targets without imposing a substantial risk of civilian harm, then they should not be deployed. Deliberately attacking civilians is in all circumstances prohibited and a war crime. While Human Rights Watch has not yet conducted a field examination to determine whether any of these attacks aimed to target a military object, preliminary information suggests that rockets fired by Hezbollah may be so inaccurate as to be incapable of being targeted, but are rather used to target a generalized area. As Human Rights Watch said in a 1997 report on Lebanon and Israel, “Katyushas are inaccurate weapons with an indiscriminate effect when fired into areas where civilians are concentrated. The use of such weapons in this manner is a blatant violation of international humanitarian law.” That is, their use in civilian areas violates the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks and would be a war crime. Customary international law prohibits such bombardment near or in any area containing a concentration of civilians, even if there are believed to be military objectives in the area. Does international humanitarian law permit Israel to bomb the Beirut airport? Airports in certain circumstances may be dual-use targets, in that they might be used both for military purposes such as military re-supply and to provide transport and provisions for the civilian population. However, as primarily a civilian object, the Beirut airport can become a military objective only if it is in fact providing an “effective” contribution to the enemy’s military activities and its destruction or neutralization provides “a definite military advantage.” Its status as a legitimate military objective would exist only for such time as it meets the foregoing criteria. International humanitarian law requires everything feasible to be done to verify that targets are in fact military objectives. Even if they are, the impact on civilians must be carefully weighed under the principle of proportionality against the military advantage served; all ways of minimizing the impact on civilians must be considered; and attacks should not be undertaken if the civilian harm outweighs the definite military advantage, or if a similar military advantage could be secured with less civilian harm. According to an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) statement, the justification for targeting the Beirut airport is that it “constitutes a station for the transport of arms and infrastructure used by Hezbollah” and as such “represents a serious threat.” It has also been suggested that the airport could be used to transport the captured Israeli soldiers out of the area. However, these justifications are at best debatable. Israel has not claimed that the transport of arms was current or underway. It is thus unclear why Israel could not have waited to see whether such supply operations actually began and only then targeted either particular flights or, if necessary, the airport at that time. Instead, Israel has attacked Beirut airport on a number of occasions, without any publicly available evidence that it has been used for any recent transport of arms or troops. As for the possible use of the airport to transport the captured Israeli soldiers out of Lebanon, the military advantage of destroying the airport is negligible in comparison with the civilian cost, given the many alternative routes out of Lebanon along its long border with Syria. On the other hand, the civilian cost of targeting the airport is high, since it impedes the ability of civilians in Lebanon to escape the fighting or those who remain to receive provisions. The real, unstated reason for Israel’s attack on the airport may be precisely to impose a cost on Lebanese civilians to encourage them to press their government to rein in Hezbollah. Leaving aside the question of whether the Lebanese government is militarily capable of reining in Hezbollah, it is illegal under international humanitarian law, as noted below, to use military force to squeeze the civilian population, to enhance its suffering, or to undermine its morale, regardless of the ultimate purpose. Under these circumstances, the attack on the Beirut airport does not appear to have been legitimate under the standards of international humanitarian law. Is Israel entitled to target Lebanese infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and power stations? Like airports, roads and bridges may be dual-use targets if actually used for military purposes. Even then, the same rule applies requiring the parties to the conflict to weigh carefully the impact on civilians against the military advantage served; they must consider all ways of minimizing the impact on civilians; and they should not undertake attacks if the civilian harm outweighs the definite military advantage. Human Rights Watch has not yet done the field research that would enable the organization to assess the legitimacy of Israeli attacks on Lebanese roads and bridges, but among the factors to be considered are whether the destruction of particular roads or bridges serve in fact to impede military transport in light of readily alternative routes – that is, whether the infrastructure attacked is making an “effective” contribution to Hezbollah’s military action and its destruction offers a “definite military advantage” – or whether its destruction seems aimed more at inconveniencing the civilian population and even preventing it from fleeing the fighting and seeking safety. As for electrical facilities supplying the civilian population, they almost never are legitimate military targets. On the one hand, they might be considered dual-use targets, given that both civilians and armies use electricity. On the other hand, the harm to civilians is often enormous, affecting refrigeration, sanitation, hospitals, and other necessities of modern life; in urban society, electricity is arguably “indispensable to the survival of the civilian population,” meaning that it can be attacked only in extremely narrow circumstances. Meanwhile, the military effect of targeting electrical facilities serving the civilian population often can be achieved in more focused ways, such as by attacking military facilities themselves or the portion of an electrical grid directly serving a military facility. Although final judgment must await a more detailed on-the-ground investigation, Israel faces a very high burden to justify these attacks. Is Israel entitled to use military force against the Lebanese population to encourage it to press its government to stop Hezbollah’s attacks and rescue Israel’s soldiers? Lawful attacks are only those where the targets 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.” As noted, attacks directed at civilian morale do not meet this test since civilians, by definition, are not contributing to military action. Indeed, attacks on civilian morale are inimical to the very purpose of international humanitarian law of protecting civilians. Military attacks on civilian morale undoubtedly can exert pressure on a government to pursue a particular course of action, but under international humanitarian law that is an inappropriate use of military force. Indeed, the logic of attacking civilian morale opens the door to deliberately attacking civilians and civilian objects themselves – in short, to terrorism. In addition, international humanitarian law explicitly prohibits attacks of which the primary purpose is to intimidate or instill terror in the civilian population. International humanitarian law would not prohibit attacks on Lebanese government military forces as a way of pressing the government to rein in Hezbollah, but in making that point, Human Rights Watch takes no position on whether the Lebanese government is capable of reining in Hezbollah or whether it would be an appropriate use of force under jus ad bellum standards to target the Lebanese government. Is Israel entitled to bomb the Hezbollah leader’s house and office? International law allows the targeting of military commanders in the course of armed conflict, provided that such attacks otherwise comply with the laws that protect civilians. Normally, political leaders, as civilians, would not be legitimate targets of attack. The only exception to this rule is if their role, as commander of troops, or their direct participation in military hostilities renders them effectively combatants. Civilians lose their protected status when they are engaged in hostilities. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, direct participation in hostilities means “acts of war which by their nature and purpose are likely to cause actual harm to the personnel and equipment of enemy armed forces” and includes acts of defense. Thus, Hezbollah political leaders who are effectively commanding belligerent forces would be legitimate targets. This conclusion does not apply to all Hezbollah leaders and in particular to those who could not be said to hold such command responsibilities or to be directly participating in hostilities. In principle, it is permitted to target the location where a combatant resides or works. However, as with any attack on an otherwise legitimate military target, the attacking force must refrain from attack if it would disproportionately harm the civilian population or be launched in a way that fails to discriminate between combatants and civilians. Can Israel attack neighborhoods that house Hezbollah leaders or offices? And what are Hezbollah’s obligations regarding the use of civilian areas for military activities? Where the targeting of a combatant takes place in an urban area, all parties must be aware of their obligations to protect the civilian population, as the bombing of urban areas significantly increases the risks to the civilian population. International humanitarian law obliges all belligerents to avoid harm to civilians or civilian objects. The defending party – in the case of Beirut, Hezbollah – must take all necessary precautions to protect civilians against the dangers resulting from armed hostilities, and must never use the presence of civilians to shield themselves from attack. That requires positioning its military assets, troops, and commanders as much as possible outside of populated areas. The use of human shields is a war crime. In calculating the legality of an attack on premises where a Hezbollah combatant is present, Israel must take the risk to civilians into account. It is not relieved from this obligation on the grounds that it considers Hezbollah responsible for having located legitimate military targets within or near populated areas or that Hezbollah may be using the civilian population as a shield. Even in situations of Hezbollah’s illegal location of military targets, or shielding, Israel must refrain from launching any attack that may be expected to cause excessive civilian loss in comparison to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. That is, a violation by Hezbollah in this regard does not justify Israeli forces ignoring the civilian consequences of a planned attack. The intentional launch of an attack in an area without regard to the civilian consequences or in the knowledge that the harm to civilians would be disproportionately high compared to any definite military benefit to be achieved would be a serious violation of international humanitarian law and a war crime. In any event, the presence of a Hezbollah commander or military facility in a populated area never justifies attacking the area as such rather than the particular military target. It is a prohibited indiscriminate attack, and a war crime, to treat an entire area as a military target instead of attacking the particular military facilities or personnel within that area. Can Israel attack Hezbollah radio and television stations? Military attacks on broadcast facilities used for military communications are legitimate under international humanitarian law, but such attacks on civilian television or radio stations are prohibited if they are designed primarily to undermine civilian morale or to psychologically harass the civilian population. Civilian television and radio stations are legitimate targets only if they meet the criteria for a legitimate military objective, that is, if they are used in a way that makes an “effective contribution to military action” and their destruction in the circumstances ruling at the time offers “a definite military advantage.” Specifically, Hezbollah-operated civilian broadcast facilities could become military targets if, for example, they are used to send military messages or otherwise concretely to advance Hezbollah’s armed campaign against Israel. However, civilian broadcasting facilities are not rendered legitimate military targets simply because they spout pro-Hezbollah or anti-Israel propaganda. For the same reason that it is unlawful to attack civilian morale, it is unlawful to attack facilities that merely shape civilian opinion; neither directly contributes to military operations. That Lebanese civilian opinion might influence how the Lebanese government responds to Hezbollah is not a sufficiently direct contribution to military action to render the media used to influence that opinion a legitimate military target. Rather, broadcasts should be met with competing broadcasts, propaganda with propaganda. Should stations become legitimate military objectives because of their use to transmit military communications, the principle of proportionality in attack must still be respected. This means that Israeli military planners and commanders should verify at all times that the risks to the civilian population in undertaking any such attack do not outweigh the anticipated military benefit. Special precautions should be taken in relation to buildings located in urban areas. Advance warning of an attack must be given whenever possible. The IDF have dropped leaflets in parts of Lebanon warning residents to evacuate – is this an appropriate precaution? International humanitarian law requires that if there is any risk to civilians in an attack, an effective warning be given where “circumstances permit.” Leaflet drops are one way to provide that warning. However, in some cases the IDF are reported to have dropped leaflets giving residents only two hours to evacuate. It is unclear how long Israel waited after the expiration of this two-hour period to launch an attack in these areas. Whether this length of notice is effective is a matter for factual evaluation from the ground, which Human Rights Watch is not yet in a position to undertake. An assessment will have to take into account the difficulties in movement caused by Israel’s bombing of some transportation infrastructure such as bridges. In any event, the giving of such warnings does not absolve the attacking party, in this case Israel, from its obligations not to target civilian objects and not to carry out attacks that fail to discriminate between combatants and civilians, or that would have a disproportionate impact on civilians. Examples of other precautions that parties should take to minimize civilian casualties include selecting a time of day for attack when the fewest civilians would be expected in the area; attacking a legitimate military target that is mobile when it is away from civilian areas; selecting weaponry and a method of attack that, if it misses its intended target, is least likely to harm nearby civilians; and refraining altogether from an attack even against a legitimate military target if the anticipated civilian harm will be disproportionately high – that is, “an attack which 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.” Is Israel’s blockade of Lebanon legitimate? Israel has targeted the country's only international airport, imposed a naval blockade, attacked ports, and bombed road links out of the country. Blockades as a tool of war are legitimate under international humanitarian law; however, their imposition is still subject to the principle of military necessity and proportionality. First, the blockade must not have as its primary purpose to intimidate, harass or starve the civilian population. Such actions are proscribed by international humanitarian law, which prohibits armed forces from deliberately causing the civilian population to suffer hunger, particularly by depriving it of its sources of food or supplies. Second, insofar as Israel attempts to justify the blockade on the grounds of restricting the re-supply of the Hezbollah military, that legitimate purpose must be weighed against the costs to the civilian population. Those costs can also shift over time, as shortages of necessities intensify. Even if a blockade were assumed lawful at the outset, it could become unlawful if mounting civilian costs became too high and outweighed the direct military advantage. In those circumstances – for example, if food or medical supplies ran low – Israel would be obliged to permit free passage of material that is essential for civilians and to protect humanitarian personnel delivering those supplies. The Israel Defense Forces should provide details about a bombing on Saturday that killed 16 people in a convoy of civilians fleeing a Lebanese village near Israel’s border, Human Rights Watch said today. Under international humanitarian law, all parties to an armed conflict must take all feasible precautions to protect civilians fleeing areas at risk. The IDF needs to investigate this attack on a civilian convoy and provide more details about the circumstances. Having warned civilians to evacuate their village, Israeli forces should have been aware that civilians would be using this road and should have taken great care to avoid harming them. On Saturday, a number of families fled the southern Lebanese village of Marwahin after the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) warned them to evacuate ahead of a threatened attack. On the road leading to the coast through Chamaa, however, Israeli missiles struck a convoy of the civilians. Maps of southern Lebanon show this road to be the only direct route for escaping the dangerous border area. “The IDF needs to investigate this attack on a civilian convoy and provide more details about the circumstances,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Having warned civilians to evacuate their village, Israeli forces should have been aware that civilians would be using this road and should have taken great care to avoid harming them.” In an official statement on the incident, the Israeli military said that “Israel Air Force targeted an area near the city of Tyre, in southern Lebanon, used as launching grounds for missiles fired by Hezbollah terror organization at Israel. The IDF regrets civilian casualties while targeting the missile launching area.” A photographer for an international news agency who arrived at the scene two hours after the attack told Human Rights Watch that he saw a white pick-up and a passenger car completely destroyed. He counted 16 dead bodies. This account was confirmed to Human Rights Watch by UNIFIL (the U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon), which had dispatched a vehicle to the scene to recover the bodies and transport them to the city of Tyre. Subsequent news reports placed the number of dead at 20, including 9 children. The photojournalist indicated that he saw two craters where the Israeli rockets had hit, one very close to the pick-up and another approximately 100 meters away. He was not able to identify the type of rocket used in the attack. UNIFIL did not provide any details about the rockets, as a spokesman for the mission indicated that they do not have an observation post in the vicinity. Journalists posted in southern Lebanon later reported that the attack appeared to be the result of rockets fired from helicopters. Eyewitnesses told Human Rights Watch that some of the bodies were completely burned and others cut-up, which was corroborated by photos of the scene. Most of the bodies were clustered around the pick-up. The photojournalist interviewed by Human Rights Watch said he saw the body of one girl 20 meters away from the pick-up and the bodies of one man and a child 100 meters away, close to where the second crater fell. He indicated that he did not see any armed person among the bodies. At 9 a.m. on Saturday, approximately 100 residents from the village sought refuge and humanitarian assistance at a U.N. peacekeepers position situated 1.5 kilometers from the village. The residents informed the U.N. peacekeepers that the IDF had ordered them to leave the village and that they had no means to escape besides fleeing on foot. According to a UNIFIL spokesperson, peacekeeping officers contacted their liaison officers at the IDF and the Lebanese army and did not receive confirmation of the evacuation order. Accordingly, the peacekeepers told the villagers to return to their village with the belief that this might be safer for them. At 11 a.m., a group from the village of Marwahin left the town in the convoy that was subsequently hit. UNIFIL told Human Rights Watch that the individuals in the convoy were not part of the group of 100 villagers who had sought refuge at UNIFIL’s post because that group did not have vehicles to leave the village. “The U.N. peacekeepers should not turn back a vulnerable group of people seeking shelter from imminent attack,” Whitson added. “The United Nations needs to make an official review of the decisions that led to this event. This is critical to prevent a repeat of such an incident.” In light of the physical isolation of Lebanese villages in southern Lebanon and the lack of means of transportation for many of these villagers, Human Rights Watch urges UNIFIL to provide shelter to civilians fleeing attack. Based on information provided by relatives, news sources identified the victims of the attack on the convoy as: `Ali Kamil Abdullah and his son `Ali, Sana’ Muhammad Abdullah, Subha Abdullah and the children: Hadi Muhammad Abdullah, Rym Ibrahim Abdullah, Kamil Abdullah, Hassan Kamil Abdullah, Muhammad Kamil Abdullah, Hussain Kamil Abdullah, Zahra Faris Abdullah Muhammad Musa Ghannam, his wife Suha, and their children: Qassim, Mustapha, Hussain, Zaynab, Da`a’, Amina `Ali Ghannam.