Libya : The homes of members of Gaddafi's government are not legitimate military targets or command and control centres

No amount of calling the houses of members of Gaddafi’s government and his advisers ‘Command and control centers’ will change the fact that in bombing them NATO know they’re likely to kill members of their families, like the airstrike that killed not only Gaddafi’s youngest son, but his three young children at the start of May ; and the more recent strike that missed one of Gaddafi’s advisers, but killed members of his family, including children – again in the family’s home (1) - (2). Those ordering attacks on the homes of members of Gaddafi’s government know they are likely to kill civilians.

If our enemies were attacking the homes of British officers or generals or members of government and killing members of their family, giving the justification that these people were part of the British command structure attacking Libya and killing civilians, would anyone take their claims that the attacks were legitimate attacks on military targets? Not for a second.

The homes and families of members of Gaddafi’s government are not the only people being killed by NATO air and missile strikes either – Libyan civilians with no connection to Gaddafi’s government or armed forces are being killed too (3).

The argument that the deaths are the fault of Gaddafi and members of his government for not sending their families somwhere safe are also empty. There is nowhere else safe for their families to go and no safe way to get there even if there was. There is fighting in the civil war and NATO air strikes across Libya. If they try to leave by plane they are likely to be shot down on suspicion that members of the regime are aboard. If they try and travel to other parts of Libya by car where will they go that's safe? - and how will they get there safely when NATO jets have even bombed convoys of rebel pick up trucks by mistake (and frequently civilians by mistake in Afghanistan)?

Strikes on ‘command and control centers’ defined as anyone involved in Gaddafi’s government or military, in the field or in their homes, should end. Rocket launchers, artillery and tanks are indisputably military targets. Houses are not. There has been a pattern in past US and NATO air campaigns from the 1991 Iraq war to Kosovo and Serbia in 1999 and Afghanistan today to redefine almost everything as a military target on spurious grounds. If this is not ended more civilians will die and no amount of deep regret expressed after each set of deaths will hide the fact that those ordering them knew the orders they had given were likely to result in deaths of civilians who would be alive if they had done the right thing and only targeted military targets. The mistaken identification of civilian targets as military is enough of a problem already – adding in civilian or grey area targets is too much.

Air strikes are almost never decisive in wars without ground forces stronger than those of the enemy to support them. Generals banned from using ground forces, as in Libya, are often tempted to forget this and think that by expanding the types of targets hit they can make air and missile strikes decisive. They can’t.

Even if civilian casualties are accidental, as in one Tripoli missile strike, they remain a reason to give a ceasefire and elections a chance – and to only target strictly military targets like tanks and artillery if the war continues (4).

(1) = Channel 4 news (UK)  01 May 2011 ‘Gaddafi’s youngest son killed in NATO airstrike’http://www.channel4.com/news/gaddafis-youngest-son-killed-in-nato-air-strike

(2) = Reuters 20 Jun 2011 ‘Fresh Libya civilian deaths pile pressure on NATO’,http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110620/wl_nm/us_libya

(3) = AFP 22 Jun 2011 ‘NATO backtracks on denials over killing of Libyan civilians’, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/nato-backtracks-on-denials-over-killing-of-civilians/story-e6frg6so-1226079527332

(4) = Sky News 20 Jun 2011 ‘Nato Admits Missile Killed Tripoli Civilians’,http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Libya-Weapon-Missed-Target-And-Killed-Civilians-In-Tripoli/Article/201106316014956

Time for peace negotiations in Libya - country wide airstrikes and an offensive on Tripoli will kill civilians, not protect them

The bombing in Libya was justified under UN Resolution 1973 in targeting tanks and artillery which were shelling Benghazi. It is not justified if it continues to bomb the entire country long after anti-aircraft batteries have been destroyed, nor is it justified in targeting non-military targets (such as Gaddafi’s compound in Tripoli) nor in supporting rebel assaults on towns or cities held by Gaddafi’s forces, as this will kill as many civilians through “collateral damage” from bombing as would be killed by artillery and tank shelling. The repeated bombing of Tripoli which has taken place despite the fact there is no fighting on the ground is not authorised by the UN resolution for the same reason – it is likely to be killing civilians, not protecting them (1) – (5).

Cameron and Sarkozy have made a great deal of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 authorising the use of “all necessary means” (i.e military force), while largely ignoring the “to protect civilians” part of the same sentence.This has a lot to do with the very poor poll ratings and high unemployment both politicians have in their own countries. Cameron would dearly like to repeat Margaret Thatcher’s Falklands ‘patriotic war’ bounce back by moving the media’s focus to foreign policy.

This explains his government’s claim that attempting a re-run of Reagan’s 1986 attempt to assassinate Gaddafi by airstrike (actually managing to killed a very young girl – Gaddafi’s adopted daughter - along with dozens of other people and hit the Austrian, Swiss and French embassies) would be within the remit of the UN resolution to “protect civilians” as Gaddafi has ordered the killing of unarmed protesters (6) – (8). It would not, because, as with the 1986 strike, it would be likely to kill civilians in large numbers itself. It already seems to have been attempted in an air-strike on an “administrative building” or “Gaddafi compound” in Tripoli (9). The likelihood is that, as in 1986, civilians will have been killed. (Some people claim that the girl killed in the 1986 strikes was only posthumously adopted as Gaddafi’s “daughter” for propaganda purposes. Even they admit that the strikes killed civilians including children though. The same people – the badly mis-named ‘Accuracy in Media’ also use the neo-con rag ‘The Weekly Standard’ as a source on Iraqi WMDs though. The Weekly Standard is so unable to separate what it wants to believe from rational thought that it once simultaneously claimed both that former CIA head George Tenet was a proven liar and that a book he wrote proved Saddam had WMDs and links to Al Qa’ida – a considerable feat of doublethink) (10) – (13).

British Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey and others have even suggested the possibility if deploying ground troops, claiming that if it wasn’t “a large deployment” it wouldn’t breach the Resolution. In fact the resolution clearly states that it involves “excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory” from “all necessary means”. Those suggesting the “necessity” for ground troops also ignore the fact that even the rebels say they would fight them “with more force than we are using against Gaddafi” if they are deployed - in order to avoid being occupied like Iraq or Afghanistan (14) – (15).

Not sending in ground troops will prevent an Iraq 2003 style war (though it still risks a long civil war if fighting continues – and even if Gaddafi is overthrown), but that still leaves the possibility of an Iraq 1991 – 2002 style air war in which tens of thousands of civilians are killed directly by bombing and hundreds of thousands killed by the indirect effects of it (e.g damage to water and sewage systems) (16) – (17).

Suggestions reported by Al Jazeera from some NATO governments that their takeover of the air campaign in Libya could involve preventing either side assaulting towns held by the other are welcome and – unlike some current strikes – would be enforcing the UN resolution by preventing civilian casualties, not going beyond it in a war of regime change.

These suggestions presumably come from the Turkish government, since the French and British have been following the opposite course – trying to “break the stalemate’ by supporting rebel offensives on Gaddafi held towns or those containing the forces of both sides (18).

While we know Gaddafi is a dictator and would very likely have killed or disappeared much of the population of Benghazi if he’d captured it, we know very little of the rebels, their past, their aims, who they are and who is funding and backing them. Gaddafi has the support of at the least a large minority of the population in the West and there is no guarantee that the rebels taking Tripoli would kill less people than Gaddafi would have if he’d taken Benghazi – especially if it involves air strikes.

We know from Kosovo, from Afghanistan and from Iraq that US and NATO air strikes are as likely to kill civilians as anyone else’s air or artillery strikes are. Given that the US military’s default line on air strikes killing civilians in Afghanistan being blanket denial (followed, months later, by admitting to killing half the number of civilians they actually did), the claims by NATO governments not to have killed any civilians in airstrikes in Libya are likely to be equally hollow (19) – (21).

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates claim that Gaddafi’s forces are killing civilians then moving their bodies about to pretend they were killed by air strikes is as ridiculous as his similar (and comprehensively disproven) claims on air strikes in Afghanistan and the Taliban in 2009.

The best outcome for avoiding civilian deaths would be a negotiated peace with an agreement that Benghazi and other rebel held towns will become a de facto autonomous zone like the Kurdish North in Iraq after the 1991 war and no fly zone, while Gaddafi will be left control of the rest. Both sides could agree not to attack the other and a UN air force (preferably including Turkish and Russian planes so both sides can trust it) will patrol it and order any  armed forces moving towards towns held by the other side to turn back or be bombed.

As long as fighting continues hundreds of thousands of stranded migrant workers and people in disputed cities will also continue to suffer from lack of food, water and medicines and many wounded who could have been saved if treated, will die. A ceasefire to allow humanitarian aid in has to be a priority.

Peace negotiations could involve negotiating Gaddafi standing down and going into exile, before further negotiations on a transition to democracy without further fighting and loss of lives

(1) = UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011), http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/268/39/PDF/N1126839.pdf?OpenElement

(2) = Channel 4 News 21 Mar 2011 ‘Libya: Gaddafi’s air defences ‘knocked out’’,http://www.channel4.com/news/libya-gaddafi-base-hit-in-second-night-of-allied-bombing

(3) = Reuters 28 Mar 2011 ‘Aided by air strikes, Libya's rebels push west’, http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20110325/tts-uk-libya-ca02f96.html

(4) = MSNBC 21 Mar 2011 ‘Blasts, anti-aircraft fire rock Tripoli’, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42189217/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/

(5) = Sky News 22 Mar 2011 ‘Explosions Rock Tripoli For Third Night’,http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Libya-Gaddafi-Compound-In-Tripoli-Hit-By-Missile-In-Second-Night-Of-Allied-Airstrikes/Article/201103315956752?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15956752_Libya%3A_Gaddafi_Compound_In_Tripoli_Hit_By_Missile_In_Second_Night_Of_Allied_Airstrikes

(6) = Guardian 22 Mar 2011 ‘Is Muammar Gaddafi a target? PM and military split over war aims’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/muammar-gaddafi-david-cameron-libya

(7) = Bovard, James (2003) ‘Terrorism and Tyranny’, Palgrave-MacMillan, NY,2003, Chapter 2, pages 24-26

(8) = Geoff Simons (2003) ‘Libya and the West’ Center for Libyan Studies, Oxford, UK, 2003,Chapter 7, pages 131-134 of hardback edition

(9) = See (3) and (4) above

(10) = Accuracy in Media 22 Feb 2011 ‘NBC’s Mitchell Regurgitates Gaddafi Lies’,http://www.aim.org/aim-column/nbc%E2%80%99s-mitchell-regurgitates-gaddafi-lies/

(11) = Accuracy in Media 28 Feb 2006 ‘Where are the WMD?’, http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/where-are-the-wmd-2/

(12) = Weekly Standard 29 April 2007 ‘"George Tenet's Imaginary Encounter... With Richard Perle. by William Kristol"’, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/593daqmw.asp

(13) = Weekly Standard 01 May 2007 ‘"More Than Enough Evidence" What George Tenet really says about Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. by Thomas Joscelyn"’, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/596texms.asp

(14) = Guardian News Blog 22 Mar 2011 ‘Libya: air strikes continue live updates’, 11.09 am, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/22/libya-no-fly-zone-air-strikes-live-updates#block-17 ‘My colleague Sam Jones writes that armed forces minister Nick Harvey has refused to rule out the deployment of British ground troops in Libya. But he did stress that there was a huge difference between a limited intervention and a full-scale occupation force, which is banned under the terms of the UN mandate. Asked whether British ground troops could be deployed in a defensive role to protect civilians, the armed forces minister did not discount the possibility, although he said he did not believe that any deployment would be on a "significant scale". He told BBC1's Breakfast programme: "I don't think we would at this stage rule anything in or rule anything out but I agree with the distinction that you draw between landing an occupying force and the use of anybody on the ground."

(15) = See (1) above

(16) = Bennis , Phyllis & Moushabeck  , Michael (Editors) (1992)  ‘Beyond the Storm’  ; Canongate Press , London , 1992, p326 – 355

(17) = Lee , Ian (1991) ‘Continuing Health Costs of the Gulf War’, Medical Educational Trust , London , 1991

(18) = See (3) above

(19) = HRW 26 Oct 2001 ‘Under Orders : War Crimes in Kosovo’, http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2001/10/26/under-orders-war-crimes-kosovo

(20) = BBC News 01 Jan 1999 ‘Nato's bombing blunders’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/340966.stm

(21) = Phillip Knightley (2000) ‘The First Casualty’, Prion Books Limited, London, 2000, Chapter 20 is on the Kosovo war and propaganda and NATO war crimes in it in general; pages 516-517, on bombing of Chinese and Indian embassies in Belgrade by NATO after they’d criticised NATO’s air war – and given NATO the addresses of their embassies at it’s request, supposedly to ensure they wouldn’t be hit

Hey Hamas : Do what we’re stopping you doing – and end all these ceasefire breaches by us and people you don’t control

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni claims “Hamas controls Gaza and is responsible for everything that happens” there (1), (2). YetYuval Diskin, head of Shin Bet, briefed Israel’s cabinet on January 6th, saying Israeli military strikes on Hamas’ leaders and infrastructure have made it increasingly difficult for it to govern (3).

There is very probably some truth in that since Israeli strikes have killed everyone from police and police cadets to ambulance crews and targeted everything from police stations to government buildings and factories including food processing plants. So how can the Israeli government demand Hamas control what’s going on in Gaza while simultaneously destroying it’s ability to do so? (4), (5), (6).

During the last ceasefire in 2008 Hamas did arrest members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, Fatah’s armed wing, who it accused of firing rockets out of Gaza (7). How can the Israeli government demand Hamas do what it’s deliberately stopping them doing?

The roadside bombing attack which “broke the ceasefire” on 27th January 2009 by killing an IDF soldier was not carried out by Hamas according to the Israeli government.Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak acknowledged that it was ‘not Hamas’, but a “breakway splinter group”, Al Qa’ida Affiliated Global Jihad (perhaps an attempt to link the Israeli campaign to the US ‘war on terror’). He then said that “We will continue with our response to the attack even though it was carried out by a group that is not Hamas…We hold Hamas responsible for everything that happens in Gaza.”. So they attacked Hamas (8), (9).

More recently rockets were fired out of Gaza into Israel by members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades – the armed wing of Fatah. The Israeli government again acknowledged this, but attacked Hamas in “retaliation” anyway (10).

If Israel’s aim is to prevent rocket fire why is it giving Hamas’ rivals a green light to fire at Israelis, knowing any counter-attack will hit Hamas?

Probably for the same reason that Israeli artillery repeatedly shelled the main UN aid depot in Gaza when, as UNWRA head Chris Ging said, there was no fighting in the area (11).

Claims that reducing rocket attacks is the priority are just electioneering. The aims of the blockade and attacks on Gaza are electioneering, overthrowing the elected Hamas government and dividing and conquering Palestinians to making annexing the West Bank easier.

The event that triggered the end of the previous ceasefire is also supposedly Hamas’ ‘crazy’ decision to “unilaterally” end the ceasefire by firing rockets into Israel in December 2008. It’s not so clear that that’s the case. On 5th November 2008 Israeli forces launched a raid into Gaza, killing several members of Hamas’ armed wing – the Al Qassam Brigades. They claimed this was necessary to destroy a tunnel which Hamas were digging to capture more Israeli soldiers, like Corporal Gilad Shalit, who was captured or kidnapped by Hamas and other groups in 2006. They didn’t explain why, if this was the case, it was necessary to attack a tunnel into Israel by attacking it on the Gaza side of the border? This was the event that triggered Hamas’ armed wing beginning rocket attacks again (12), (13).

Buying votes and a sense of perfect goodness with Palestinian and Israeli deaths

Perhaps the upcoming elections in Israel, the fact the government were trailing the opposition in the polls and the claims by the Israel opposition that the government parties were “weak” and “soft on terrorism” were a factor in the “election war”. As with so many attempts to pander to the worst beliefs in order to try to get votes it’s backfired. The right wing Likud party has increased it’s lead in the polls, though Palestinians in Gaza could be forgiven for wondering whether all this “vibrant democracy” made any difference to them when the “center” and “left” parties bomb and starve them just as much.

How can anyone seriously believe that a campaign killing 1,000 Palestinians in three weeks, including 250children, was a response to one Israeli civilian killed by rocket fire from Gaza in the previous six months (on Israeli foreign ministry figures)? – and that one death resulting from the Israeli raid on Gaza on 5th November 2008 which, along with Israel’s refusal to lift the blockade on Gaza, led to the breakdown of the ceasefire (14).

There have certainly been thousands of rockets and mortars fired from Gaza, but although rocket attacks on Israeli civilians are certainly wrong they have killed very few people, unlike the thousands of Israeli shells, bombs and missiles fired into Gaza.

Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak himself said in the past that “The Palestinians are the weakest of our enemies. As a military threat they are ludicrous.”(15)

If Israel’s government really wanted peace and to end the pointless cycle of deaths on both sides it didn’t need to do anything except accept offers of negotiation from the elected Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas.

The Israeli government routinely accuses Hamas of cynically risking civilians’ lives to gain support. In fact Israel’s government and main opposition parties are responsible for exactly the same on a much larger scale. Palestinians make a useful enemy and external ‘threat’ for Israeli governments to rally the public behind in nationalistic wars. Since in reality “as a military threat they are ludicrous” they can be repeatedly defeated with ease, allowing the government to point to “victories”. The opposition Likud party, whose leader Benjamin Netanyahu has called in the past for all Israeli Arabs and Palestinians to be expelled by force or ‘transfer’ can also deride the government for being weak in the face of the Arab threat. Israeli civilians and soldiers and a hundred times as many Palestinians may die each time, but that’s considered cheap in terms of votes gained.

Many Israelis have motives to buy the “Arab threat” propaganda too. Some of them are getting cheap houses and land in the West Bank from it. Others have been brought up to think of themselves as “proud Israelis” and Israel as an inherently morally good country.

For those who identify too closely with their government or don’t attempt to stay informed from multiple sources this leads them to see any criticism of their country as a personal attack on them. They can also see themselves as perfectly good and their enemies as inherently evil. This avoids having to face any uncomfortable doubts about whether they or their country are doing anything wrong. This is not unique to Israel. It’s true in every country, but also causes pointless deaths and wars in many – and Israel even more than most.

Palestinians are now seen not as people who vary and each of whom may be right or wrong in certain beliefs or actions but as inherently evil enemies who cannot be negotiated with. That was true of Arafat and Abbas of Fatah when they won Palestinian elections and its true now of Hamas and Haniyeh.

(1) = Independent 28 Jan 2009 ‘Gaza ceasefire strained as Mitchell flies in’,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-ceasefire-strained-as-mitchell-flies-in-1517852.html (5th paragraph)

(2) = Jerusalem Post 27 Jan 2009 ‘Barak cancels US trip due to Gaza border attack’,
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1233050191648
“"We will continue with our response to the attack even though it was carried out by a group that is not Hamas," Barak said in a speech before students at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center. "We hold Hamas responsible for everything that happens in Gaza.”

(3) = Guardian 06 Jan 2009 ‘Israel looks to drive out Hamas’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-hamas

(4) = Telegraph 27 Dec 2008 ‘Israel attack on Gaza: Fragile peace shattered again’,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/3981502/Israel-attack-on-Gaza-Fragile-peace-shattered-again.html

(5) = AFP 01 Feb 2009 ‘Israel bombs Gaza after new rocket fire’,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090201/ts_afp/mideastconflictgazaolmert

(6) = Guardian 26 Jan 2009 ‘Hamas offers $52m handouts to help hardest-hit Gazans’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/26/hamas-payout-gaza-infrastructure

(7) = Haaretz 10 July 2008 ‘Hamas arrests Gaza rocket squad after two Qassams hit Negev’, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1000881.html

(8) = Jerusalem Post 27 Jan 2009 ‘Barak cancels US trip due to Gaza border attack’,
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1233050191648

(9) = Haaretz 29 Jan 2009 ‘IAF bombs Gaza weapons manufacturing site after rocket strikes Negev’, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059457.html

(10) = AFP 01 Feb 2009 ‘Israel bombs Gaza after new rocket fire’,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090201/ts_afp/mideastconflictgazaolmert

(11) = CNN 15 Jan 2009 ‘Third-ranking Hamas leader in Gaza killed’,
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/15/gaza.aid.plea/
(13th paragraph reads ‘UNRWA Director John Ging denied there were any militants at the compound, and also said that at the time there was no fighting in the area.’)

(12) = Reuters 05 Nov 2008 ‘Israel-Hamas violence disrupts Gaza truce’,
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE4A37B520081105

(13) = Guardian 05 Nov 2008 ‘Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians

(14) = Israel Foreign Ministry ‘Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism since September 2000’, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Victims+of+Palestinian+Violence+and+Terrorism+sinc.htm

(15) = Ehud Barak in an interview published in Haaretz newspaper 18 June 1999 Cited by Avi Shlaim (2000) ‘The Iron Wall :Israel and the Arab World’ , Penguin paperback , London, 2001 , page xii