31 dec 2008
Israel claims success in the PR war
Fewer military officers; more women; tightly controlled messages; and ministers kept on a short leash. This was Israel’s new media game-plan in Operation Cast Lead.
The Gaza attack is the first major demonstration of Israel’s total overhaul of its ‘hasbara’ operation following the Second Lebanon War.
While the military aspects of the operation were meticulously planned, a new forum of press advisers was also established which has been working for the past six months on a PR strategy specifically geared to dealing with the media during warfare in Gaza.
“Whenever Israel is bombing, it is hard to explain our position to the world,” said Avi Pazner, Israel’s former ambassador to Italy and France, and one of the officials drafted in to present Israel’s case to the world media. “But at least this time everything was ready and in place.”
One of the decisions taken following Israel’s failure to explain its case during the Lebanon War was the formation of a National Information Directorate within the Prime Minister’s Office, tasked with coordinating the efforts of the press bureaus in the various government departments.
The Directorate, which has been up and running for eight months, began planning six months ago for a Gaza operation. A forum with representatives of the press offices of the Foreign and Defence ministries, the IDF Spokesman Unit and other agencies held numerous meetings to decide on the message.
The forum held two system-wide exercises in the past two months, one aimed at foreign media and, last week, one dedicated to the Israeli press.
“One of our lessons from the Lebanon War was that there were too many uniforms in the coverage,” says Yarden Vatikay, director of the National Information Directorate, “and that doesn’t come over very positively.”
The international media were directed to a press centre set up by the Foreign Ministry in Sderot itself so that foreign reporters would spend as much time as possible in the main civilian area affected by Hamas rockets. When the IDF was represented on the international TV networks, it was by Major Avital Leibovich to project a feminine and softer image.
Ministers have been ordered by the Cabinet Secretary not to give interviews without authorisation so as not to repeat the PR disaster of a year ago, when Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai threatened the Palestinians with a “holocaust”.
So far, the two cabinet members without direct responsibility who have been most regularly interviewed have been Social Affairs Minister Yitzhak Herzog and Interior Security Minister Avi Dichter.
For the first time, sufficient numbers of spokespeople in a range of languages were appointed and briefed in advance. Mr Pazner gave close to 100 interviews in the first three days of the operation, in English, French, Spanish and Italian.
In his view, the toughest and most hostile questioning was “definitely by the Spanish interviewers, and also the French, especially the Canadian French”.
Israeli diplomats and spokespeople working with the British media have said that so far “most of the hostility has been in the print media, especially in The Guardian and The Independent. The electronic media, including also the BBC, have made more of an effort to seem even-handed.
“The coverage is definitely less hostile to Israel than what we saw during the Second Lebanon War two-and-a-half years ago.”
Both the Prime Minister’s Office and the Foreign Ministry ran monitoring services to view foreign media coverage and pass the results back to press officers to enable them to address the claims being put forward by reporters and Palestinian interviewees.
The months of preparation and the increased intensity of the media efforts have also shown results in Britain.
Senior diplomats in the London Embassy, headed by Ambassador Ron Prosor gave an unprecedented 25 interviews to national television and radio channels, in the first three days of the operation.
The Gaza attack is the first major demonstration of Israel’s total overhaul of its ‘hasbara’ operation following the Second Lebanon War.
While the military aspects of the operation were meticulously planned, a new forum of press advisers was also established which has been working for the past six months on a PR strategy specifically geared to dealing with the media during warfare in Gaza.
“Whenever Israel is bombing, it is hard to explain our position to the world,” said Avi Pazner, Israel’s former ambassador to Italy and France, and one of the officials drafted in to present Israel’s case to the world media. “But at least this time everything was ready and in place.”
One of the decisions taken following Israel’s failure to explain its case during the Lebanon War was the formation of a National Information Directorate within the Prime Minister’s Office, tasked with coordinating the efforts of the press bureaus in the various government departments.
The Directorate, which has been up and running for eight months, began planning six months ago for a Gaza operation. A forum with representatives of the press offices of the Foreign and Defence ministries, the IDF Spokesman Unit and other agencies held numerous meetings to decide on the message.
The forum held two system-wide exercises in the past two months, one aimed at foreign media and, last week, one dedicated to the Israeli press.
“One of our lessons from the Lebanon War was that there were too many uniforms in the coverage,” says Yarden Vatikay, director of the National Information Directorate, “and that doesn’t come over very positively.”
The international media were directed to a press centre set up by the Foreign Ministry in Sderot itself so that foreign reporters would spend as much time as possible in the main civilian area affected by Hamas rockets. When the IDF was represented on the international TV networks, it was by Major Avital Leibovich to project a feminine and softer image.
Ministers have been ordered by the Cabinet Secretary not to give interviews without authorisation so as not to repeat the PR disaster of a year ago, when Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai threatened the Palestinians with a “holocaust”.
So far, the two cabinet members without direct responsibility who have been most regularly interviewed have been Social Affairs Minister Yitzhak Herzog and Interior Security Minister Avi Dichter.
For the first time, sufficient numbers of spokespeople in a range of languages were appointed and briefed in advance. Mr Pazner gave close to 100 interviews in the first three days of the operation, in English, French, Spanish and Italian.
In his view, the toughest and most hostile questioning was “definitely by the Spanish interviewers, and also the French, especially the Canadian French”.
Israeli diplomats and spokespeople working with the British media have said that so far “most of the hostility has been in the print media, especially in The Guardian and The Independent. The electronic media, including also the BBC, have made more of an effort to seem even-handed.
“The coverage is definitely less hostile to Israel than what we saw during the Second Lebanon War two-and-a-half years ago.”
Both the Prime Minister’s Office and the Foreign Ministry ran monitoring services to view foreign media coverage and pass the results back to press officers to enable them to address the claims being put forward by reporters and Palestinian interviewees.
The months of preparation and the increased intensity of the media efforts have also shown results in Britain.
Senior diplomats in the London Embassy, headed by Ambassador Ron Prosor gave an unprecedented 25 interviews to national television and radio channels, in the first three days of the operation.
The Facts about Israel’s War on Gaza
Adam Sheets
It is crucial that one has her/his facts straight about Israel’s war on Gaza. What events brought about this dreadful situation? What needs to be done to make it stop? These questions will be answered in the content of this article, using concrete facts from a variety of news sources.
Let’s first investigate the recent cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. The cease-fire began in June 2008. The terms were as follows:
It is crucial that one has her/his facts straight about Israel’s war on Gaza. What events brought about this dreadful situation? What needs to be done to make it stop? These questions will be answered in the content of this article, using concrete facts from a variety of news sources.
Let’s first investigate the recent cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. The cease-fire began in June 2008. The terms were as follows:
- Israel would drastically reduce its military blockade of Gaza.
- Israel would halt all military incursions into Gaza.
- Hamas would halt all rocket attacks into Israel.
- Gaza faces a humanitarian "catastrophe" if Israel continues to prevent aid reaching the territory by blocking crossing points, the head of the main UN aid agency for the Palestinians said on Friday... Israel had restricted goods into Gaza despite the truce, which calls on militants to halt rocket attacks in return for Israel easing its embargo on the territory... Israel also held up deliveries of European Union-funded fuel for the power plant, which generates about a third of the electricity consumed by Gazans... Ailments associated with insufficient food were surfacing among the impoverished coastal strip's 1.5 million population, including growing malnutrition.
--Haaretz Israel News, Nov. 21, 2008 (1) - A former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, has told the BBC she was taken aback by the "terrible" conditions in Gaza on a recent visit. Mrs Robinson said it was "almost unbelievable" that the world did not care about what she called "a shocking violation of so many human rights"... Israel tightened a blockade on Gaza after Hamas took control there in 2007... "Their whole civilisation has been destroyed, I'm not exaggerating," said Mrs Robinson...Israel says the blockade, under which it has allowed little more than basic humanitarian aid into Gaza, is needed to isolate the militant group and stop it and other militants from firing rockets into Israel. Israel came to a truce with Palestinian groups in June this year, but Mrs Robinson said this had had little effect on people's lives and "just brought a bitter taste in the mouth".
--BBC News, Nov. 4, 2008 (2) - The UN in the Gaza Strip says it will run out of food aid in two days unless Israel's blockade – which it describes as "shameful and unacceptable" – eases. The UN refugee agency UNWRA, which distributes food to half of Gaza's 1.5m people, called the blockade "a physical as well as a mental punishment". Israel is now allowing a limited amount of fuel across the border, but it is still blocking food deliveries... In a statement, UNWRA spokesman Christopher Gunness said food distribution operations would end on Thursday unless Israeli authorities allowed deliveries of wheat, luncheon meat, powdered milk and cooking oil without delay. "This is both a physical as well as a mental punishment of the population – of mothers and parents trying to feed their children – who are being forced to live hand to mouth," he said... "It is a further illustration of the barbarity of this inhuman blockade."... "It is also shameful and unacceptable that the largest humanitarian actor in Gaza is being forced into yet another cycle of crisis management," Mr Gunness added.
--BBC News, Nov. 11, 2008 (3) - International aid agencies, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, have said virtually no medical supplies were reaching Gaza.
--Haaretz Israel News, Nov. 9, 2008 (14) - The UN has no more food to distribute in the Gaza Strip, the head of relief efforts in the area has warned. John Ging said handouts for 750,000 Gazans would have to be suspended until Saturday at the earliest, and called Gaza's economic situation "a disaster". Israel earlier denied entry to a convoy carrying humanitarian supplies... The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) distributes emergency aid to about half of Gaza's 1.5m population. "We have run out [of food aid] this evening," said Mr Ging, UNRWA's senior official in Gaza. "Unless the crossing points open... we won't be able to get that food into Gaza," he told Reuters news agency... Also on Thursday, Israel refused permission for a group of senior European diplomats to visit the coastal enclave. It has also prevented journalists, including those from the BBC, from entering the territory.
--BBC News, Nov. 13, 2008 (4) - Since June 2007, Israel has allowed little more than basic humanitarian aid to enter the Gaza Strip. Many there hoped that policy would change, five months ago, when Hamas and Israel agreed to a truce. But while there were some increases in the amount of aid allowed in, Israel's strict restrictions on the movement of goods and people into and out of Gaza largely remained... Serious fuel shortages have led to widespread power cuts across Gaza City. That, in turn, has caused problems in pumping water to homes, and sewage to treatment plants. Israel is preventing many aid workers, and all journalists from entering Gaza too... "I never thought we would see days like this," says Monther Shublak, head of Gaza's water authority. "The water system was severely stretched even before this crisis, but now, things are much worse. For the last four days, around 40% of people in Gaza City have had no access to running water in their homes at all."... "But we are putting all of our resources into sewage pumping. The health consequences of that system totally failing are too worrying to think about, but it could happen unless things change."
--BBC News, Nov. 20, 2008 (5) - Israel has refused to allow cash to enter Gaza in recent weeks to ratchet up pressure on the ruling Hamas militant group. With the supply of currency dwindling, banks have limited withdrawals over the past two weeks, and some have posted signs telling customers they cannot take out any more money... The United Nations halted cash handouts to 98,000 of Gaza's poorest residents last week, and economists and bank officials warn that tens of thousands of civil servants won't be able to cash their paychecks next month... "No society can operate without money, but that's the situation we are reaching in Gaza," said Gaza economist Omar Shaban... Israel and Egypt have restricted movement through Gaza's border crossings since the Islamic militants of Hamas violently seized control of the coastal territory in June 2007. Since then, closures have been eased or tightened, depending on the security situation. But even in quiet times, when Gaza militants refrained from firing rockets at Israeli border towns, only limited shipments of food, medicine and commercial goods were allowed in... Shlomo Dror, an Israel Defense Ministry spokesman, questioned the seriousness of the currency shortage. "We are used to the Palestinians inventing things and we are looking into their claim,” he said.
--Washington Post, Nov. 24, 2008 (6)
- At least six Hamas militants have been killed after Israel's first incursion into the Gaza Strip since June's truce. Israel said its troops had uncovered a tunnel along central Gaza's frontier which had been dug by militants intending to abduct Israeli soldiers. Clashes ensued when troops were sent to thwart the threat, Israel said. One militant died, Palestinian reports say. A subsequent Israeli air strike on Hamas positions in southern Gaza killed at least five fighters, medics said. An Israeli army spokeswoman said the air strike targeted militants who had fired mortars at Israeli forces... Tuesday evening's fighting broke out after Israeli tanks and a bulldozer moved 250m into the central part of the coastal enclave, backed by military aircraft, says the BBC's Aleem Maqbool in Ramallah. Residents of central Gaza's el-Bureij refugee camp said a missile fired from an unmanned Israeli drone flying over the area injured another three Hamas gunmen. A truce between the two sides had held since it was declared on 19 June. Israel said the raid was not a violation of the ceasefire, but rather a legitimate step to remove an immediate threat.
--BBC News, Nov. 5, 2008 (7) - An Israel Air Force air strike in the southern Gaza Strip killed at least five militants and wounded several others on Tuesday, Palestinians said. Earlier, Israel Defense Forces soldiers killed a Hamas gunman and wounded two others on Tuesday in the first armed clash in the Gaza Strip since a ceasefire was declared in the territory in June, Palestinian medics said... An Egypt-brokered cease-fire agreement between Israel and the Gaza Strip was signed earlier this year, and went into effect on June 19. The IDF argued that the raid did not constitute a violation of the cease fire, but instead was a legitimate step to remove an immediate threat to Israel from Gaza, which is controlled by the Islamic militant group Hamas.
--Haaretz Israel News, Nov. 5, 2008 (8) - Two weeks ago, an already fragile humanitarian situation resulting from the mounting effects of months of shortages, saw a dramatic downturn. The fighting resumed, with an Israeli army incursion into Gaza and a retaliatory barrage of militant rocket fire.
--BBC News, Nov. 20, 2008 (5)
- Palestinian armed groups in Gaza remain committed to a truce with Israel if Jerusalem reciprocates, Hamas's Gaza leader said on Friday, even as militants launched more attacks from the coastal territory... "I have met with armed factions over the past two days and they stated their position clearly: they are committed to calm as long as (Israel) abides by it," said Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas's most senior representative in Gaza.
--Haaretz Israel News, Nov. 21, 2008 (9) - Hamas announced on Sunday that militant groups in Gaza have agreed to cease cross-border attacks if Israel opens crossings into the coastal territory, Ma'an news reported.
--Haaretz Israel News, Nov. 24, 2008 (10) - After expressing contradictory positions on Sunday, Hamas' leadership on Monday adopted a united stance: The cease-fire with Israel, which expires this Friday, will not be extended... Hamas' spokesman in the Gaza Strip, Ayman Taha, said the movement had concluded that there was no point in extending the truce "as long as Israel isn't abiding by its terms" – though he added that talks on continuing the cease-fire were still taking place. Specifically, Taha said, Israel was supposed to have expanded the truce to the West Bank – something Hamas demanded but Israel in fact never promised – and opened the Gaza border crossings, and "this hasn't happened."
--Haaretz Israel News, Dec. 16, 2008 (11)
- Barak told the assembled lawmakers that the defense establishment spent months preparing for the Gaza operation.
--Haaretz Israel News, Dec. 29, 2008 (16)
- On June 6, 2006, Haniyeh met Dr. Jerome Segal of the University of Maryland in the Gaza Strip... At the end of the meeting, Haniyeh dictated a short message he asked Segal to transmit to President Bush... In the second paragraph, Haniyeh laid out the political platform he maintains to this day. "We are so concerned about stability and security in the area that we don't mind having a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders and offering a truce for many years," he wrote... Haniyeh called on Bush to launch a dialogue with the Hamas government. "We are not warmongers, we are peace makers and we call on the American government to have direct negotiations with the elected government," he wrote... In his own letter, Segal emphasized that a state within the 1967 borders and a truce for many years could be considered Hamas' de facto recognition of Israel. He noted that in a separate meeting, Youssuf suggested that the Palestinian Authority and Israel might exchange ambassadors during that truce period. This was not the only covert message from Hamas to senior Bush administration officials. However, Washington did not reply to these messages and maintained its boycott of the Hamas government.
--Haaretz Israel News, Nov. 14, 2008 (12) - The Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, said on Saturday his government was willing to accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel within the 1967 borders... Haniyeh told his guests Israel rejected his initiative... He said the Hamas government had agreed to accept a Palestinian state that followed the 1967 borders and to offer Israel a long-term hudna, or truce, if Israel recognized the Palestinians' national rights... In response to a question about the international community's impression that there are two Palestinian states, Haniyeh said: "We don't have a state, neither in Gaza nor in the West Bank. Gaza is under siege and the West Bank is occupied. What we have in the Gaza Strip is not a state, but rather a regime of an elected government. A Palestinian state will not be created at this time except in the territories of 1967."... “Our conflict is not with the Jews, our problem is with the occupation," Haniyeh said.
--Haaretz Israel News, Nov. 9, 2008 (14) - The Palestinian Authority has placed a full-page advert in Israel's Hebrew newspapers to promote an Arab peace plan first proposed in 2002. The Saudi-backed initiative offers Arab recognition of Israel in exchange for an end to Israel's occupation of land captured in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. It also proposes what it calls a just solution for Palestinian refugees. The Israeli government has noted "positive aspects" in the plan but has not formally accepted it... Peace Now, and Israeli campaign group, welcomed the publication of the adverts. "On behalf of a majority of Israeli citizens who support peace with the Palestinian people on the basis of a two state solution – we embrace the Arab Peace Initiative and urge both governments to endorse it and negotiate the final status agreement in its spirit," a statement from the group said... The text reads: "Fifty-seven Arab and Muslim countries will establish diplomatic relations with Israel in exchange for a full peace accord and the end of the occupation."
--BBC News, Nov. 20, 2008 (13) - U.S. President-elect Barack Obama proclaimed himself "very impressed" with the Arab League's peace plan when he discussed it with President Shimon Peres during a brief visit to Israel four months ago, Peres said Tuesday... The plan, originally proposed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in 2002 and later adopted by the Arab League, states that Israel would receive full relations with the entire Arab world in exchange for a full withdrawal from all the territory it captured in 1967, including East Jerusalem, plus a solution to the refugee problem. The Bush Administration has said it views the plan positively, but its own road map peace plan and the understandings reached at last year's Annapolis summit have served as the basis of its diplomatic program.
--Haaretz Israel News, Nov. 19, 2008 (15)
- "In order for the violence to stop, Hamas must stop firing rockets into Israel and agree to respect a sustainable and durable ceasefire," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.
--BBC News, Dec. 29, 2008 (17) - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has rejected international calls for a 48-hour truce in the Gaza Strip to allow in more humanitarian aid... The 48-hour ceasefire plan to allow more aid into Gaza, was proposed by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. Hamas spokesman Ayman Taha told AFP news agency that his group was open to any ceasefire propositions as long as they meant an end to the air strikes and a lifting of the Israeli blockade of Gaza.
--BBC News, Dec. 31, 2008 (18)
Israel rejects Gaza truce calls
Gaza wakes up to another day of air strikes
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has rejected international calls for a 48-hour truce in the Gaza Strip to allow in more humanitarian aid.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has threatened to stop peace talks with the Israelis if the strikes continued.
The UN Security Council is to meet shortly to discuss the crisis as calls grow for an end to the violence.
Israeli air strikes on Gaza have continued for a fifth day, while more Hamas rockets have landed in Israel.
The town of Beersheba was hit, the deepest penetration by rockets so far.
In the last five days, Israeli jets and attack helicopters have hit Hamas targets, including security compounds, government buildings, smuggling tunnels under the border with Egypt and homes belonging to militant leaders.
Palestinian officials say 391 Palestinians have died in the Israeli air strikes; four Israelis have been killed by rockets fired from Gaza, which is under Hamas control.
After meeting his cabinet, Prime Minister Olmert said conditions were not right for a ceasefire, but he did not rule one out in the future.
"If conditions will ripen, and we think there can be a diplomatic solution that will ensure a better security reality in the south, we will consider it. But at the moment, it's not there," he was quoted by aides as telling the cabinet.
Any ceasefire with Hamas had to be permanent, he said, adding that there was international consensus that Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel had to stop.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, meanwhile, said he "would not hesitate to stop" peace talks with the Israelis "if they go against our interests and offer a support to aggression".
He called the Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip "barbaric and criminal aggression".
International appeals
Hamas spokesman Ayman Taha told AFP news agency that his group was open to any ceasefire propositions as long as they meant an end to the air strikes and a lifting of the Israeli blockade of Gaza.
The BBC's Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen, says that if Hamas is open to a ceasefire, it will increase international calls for talks to at least investigate what is possible.
But Israel's leaders are not yet ready to stop their attacks because they need to show that they have won a permanent end to rocket fire from Gaza, adds our correspondent.
International appeals for Israel to end its bombing campaign against Gaza have been mounting.
A European Union statement called for an "unconditional" halt to Hamas rocket attacks.
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown urged an "immediate and urgent ceasefire" to stem a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza.
But US President George W Bush repeated earlier statements that Hamas should take the first step to ending hostilities by halting rocket fire into Israel.
White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Mr Bush had been assured by Mr Olmert that only Hamas sites in Gaza were being targeted and that "appropriate steps" to avoid civilian casualties were being taken.
Hospitals depleted
While Israeli air raids continued on Wednesday, rockets fired by Palestinian militants landed in and around the southern Israeli town of Beersheba, about 40km (24 miles) from Gaza.
Although no serious casualties were reported, this is the deepest that Palestinian rockets have penetrated inside Israel - something that will only increase Israeli public support for continued military action, observers say.
A police spokesman said 860,000 Israelis were now in range of Palestinian rockets.
The UN says at least 62 Palestinian women and children have died since Saturday. Palestinian medical officials say more than 1,700 people have been injured, overwhelming Gaza's hospitals.
"In particular the hospitals have been depleted and stretched to the maximum because of the closure imposed," the Red Cross spokesman in Gaza, Iyad Nasr, told the BBC.
Israel said it was allowing 106 lorries carrying humanitarian aid - including medical supplies - from a variety of international organisations into Gaza on Wednesday.
Israel has massed forces along the boundary with Gaza and has declared the area around it a "closed military zone".
Correspondents say this could be a prelude to ground operations, but could also be intended to build pressure on Hamas.
A statement by Hamas has warned any invasion would see "the children of Gaza collecting the body parts of Israeli soldiers and the ruins of tanks".
The Israeli air strikes began less than a week after the expiry of a six-month-long ceasefire deal with Hamas.
Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 but has kept tight control over access in and out of Gaza and its airspace.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has rejected international calls for a 48-hour truce in the Gaza Strip to allow in more humanitarian aid.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has threatened to stop peace talks with the Israelis if the strikes continued.
The UN Security Council is to meet shortly to discuss the crisis as calls grow for an end to the violence.
Israeli air strikes on Gaza have continued for a fifth day, while more Hamas rockets have landed in Israel.
The town of Beersheba was hit, the deepest penetration by rockets so far.
In the last five days, Israeli jets and attack helicopters have hit Hamas targets, including security compounds, government buildings, smuggling tunnels under the border with Egypt and homes belonging to militant leaders.
Palestinian officials say 391 Palestinians have died in the Israeli air strikes; four Israelis have been killed by rockets fired from Gaza, which is under Hamas control.
After meeting his cabinet, Prime Minister Olmert said conditions were not right for a ceasefire, but he did not rule one out in the future.
"If conditions will ripen, and we think there can be a diplomatic solution that will ensure a better security reality in the south, we will consider it. But at the moment, it's not there," he was quoted by aides as telling the cabinet.
Any ceasefire with Hamas had to be permanent, he said, adding that there was international consensus that Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel had to stop.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, meanwhile, said he "would not hesitate to stop" peace talks with the Israelis "if they go against our interests and offer a support to aggression".
He called the Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip "barbaric and criminal aggression".
International appeals
Hamas spokesman Ayman Taha told AFP news agency that his group was open to any ceasefire propositions as long as they meant an end to the air strikes and a lifting of the Israeli blockade of Gaza.
The BBC's Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen, says that if Hamas is open to a ceasefire, it will increase international calls for talks to at least investigate what is possible.
But Israel's leaders are not yet ready to stop their attacks because they need to show that they have won a permanent end to rocket fire from Gaza, adds our correspondent.
International appeals for Israel to end its bombing campaign against Gaza have been mounting.
A European Union statement called for an "unconditional" halt to Hamas rocket attacks.
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown urged an "immediate and urgent ceasefire" to stem a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza.
But US President George W Bush repeated earlier statements that Hamas should take the first step to ending hostilities by halting rocket fire into Israel.
White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Mr Bush had been assured by Mr Olmert that only Hamas sites in Gaza were being targeted and that "appropriate steps" to avoid civilian casualties were being taken.
Hospitals depleted
While Israeli air raids continued on Wednesday, rockets fired by Palestinian militants landed in and around the southern Israeli town of Beersheba, about 40km (24 miles) from Gaza.
Although no serious casualties were reported, this is the deepest that Palestinian rockets have penetrated inside Israel - something that will only increase Israeli public support for continued military action, observers say.
A police spokesman said 860,000 Israelis were now in range of Palestinian rockets.
The UN says at least 62 Palestinian women and children have died since Saturday. Palestinian medical officials say more than 1,700 people have been injured, overwhelming Gaza's hospitals.
"In particular the hospitals have been depleted and stretched to the maximum because of the closure imposed," the Red Cross spokesman in Gaza, Iyad Nasr, told the BBC.
Israel said it was allowing 106 lorries carrying humanitarian aid - including medical supplies - from a variety of international organisations into Gaza on Wednesday.
Israel has massed forces along the boundary with Gaza and has declared the area around it a "closed military zone".
Correspondents say this could be a prelude to ground operations, but could also be intended to build pressure on Hamas.
A statement by Hamas has warned any invasion would see "the children of Gaza collecting the body parts of Israeli soldiers and the ruins of tanks".
The Israeli air strikes began less than a week after the expiry of a six-month-long ceasefire deal with Hamas.
Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 but has kept tight control over access in and out of Gaza and its airspace.
Gaza hospitals under huge pressure
Palestinian medical officials say more than 1,700 people have been injured
Israel has carried out air strikes on Gaza for a fifth day, while more Hamas rockets have landed in southern Israel.
Here, two Palestinian doctors explain the difficulties faced by medics in Gaza dealing with the mass casualties.
Egypt has opened its border to allow some medical supplies to come into Gaza. A few medicines, fluids and blood bank requirements have come through. But this material is very minimal and does not cover the requirements of our hospital, which is trying to cope with mass casualties.
We have shortages of everything - medicines, medical equipment, sterilising equipment, blood reagents.
Our blood bank is not adequate - we don't have the material to test the blood for blood types.
There are power cuts for 18 hours at a time. The hospital is using back-up generators but these are running out of fuel.
The hospital is focused on emergency care. All the beds are occupied and we have had to send some injured patients home.
Some have been sent across the Egyptian border.
For the whole of our 12-hour shifts doctors are treating people with all manner of injuries. There are patients who have been crushed under buildings, with multiple fractures and internal haemorrhages.
We treat injured soldiers and civilians, about 20% of the casualties are women and children.
The doctors are working as hard as they can despite the situation.
We have gone back 100 years: we lack electricity, equipment, fluids.
MADHAT ABBAS, PALESTINIAN MINISTRY OF HEALTH, GAZA
We have been able to send some patients to Egypt. But the borders are open or closed depending on the temperament of the government or the whim of the soldiers on the gate.
Sometimes they say they will allow patients through, we stabilise them but by the time they arrive at the border they are sent back to us.
We have the same problems with medical supplies. They arrive at the airport near the Egyptian border and then will take two hours to get into Gaza. We don't know why.
We have received more supplies in the last 48 hours. But the medical teams can't cope.
I will never forget, I was at Shifa hospital on the first day of the attacks and I saw patients lying on the ground, some without limbs. And the doctors were running around like headless chickens because they had so many to deal with.
We did not have enough bandages to stop the bleeding so we had to use bed linen instead.
There will never be enough medical staff - we need more surgeons and specialists. We have over 20 patients on ventilators in one hospital. Our intensive care units are full.
How can we deal with new cases? Should we ask for new ventilators or should we ask for the attacks to stop?
Many of our ambulances are out of order because spare parts have not been allowed through because of one-and-a-half years of blockades.
It is a miserable situation here in Gaza.
Israel has carried out air strikes on Gaza for a fifth day, while more Hamas rockets have landed in southern Israel.
Here, two Palestinian doctors explain the difficulties faced by medics in Gaza dealing with the mass casualties.
Egypt has opened its border to allow some medical supplies to come into Gaza. A few medicines, fluids and blood bank requirements have come through. But this material is very minimal and does not cover the requirements of our hospital, which is trying to cope with mass casualties.
We have shortages of everything - medicines, medical equipment, sterilising equipment, blood reagents.
Our blood bank is not adequate - we don't have the material to test the blood for blood types.
There are power cuts for 18 hours at a time. The hospital is using back-up generators but these are running out of fuel.
The hospital is focused on emergency care. All the beds are occupied and we have had to send some injured patients home.
Some have been sent across the Egyptian border.
For the whole of our 12-hour shifts doctors are treating people with all manner of injuries. There are patients who have been crushed under buildings, with multiple fractures and internal haemorrhages.
We treat injured soldiers and civilians, about 20% of the casualties are women and children.
The doctors are working as hard as they can despite the situation.
We have gone back 100 years: we lack electricity, equipment, fluids.
MADHAT ABBAS, PALESTINIAN MINISTRY OF HEALTH, GAZA
We have been able to send some patients to Egypt. But the borders are open or closed depending on the temperament of the government or the whim of the soldiers on the gate.
Sometimes they say they will allow patients through, we stabilise them but by the time they arrive at the border they are sent back to us.
We have the same problems with medical supplies. They arrive at the airport near the Egyptian border and then will take two hours to get into Gaza. We don't know why.
We have received more supplies in the last 48 hours. But the medical teams can't cope.
I will never forget, I was at Shifa hospital on the first day of the attacks and I saw patients lying on the ground, some without limbs. And the doctors were running around like headless chickens because they had so many to deal with.
We did not have enough bandages to stop the bleeding so we had to use bed linen instead.
There will never be enough medical staff - we need more surgeons and specialists. We have over 20 patients on ventilators in one hospital. Our intensive care units are full.
How can we deal with new cases? Should we ask for new ventilators or should we ask for the attacks to stop?
Many of our ambulances are out of order because spare parts have not been allowed through because of one-and-a-half years of blockades.
It is a miserable situation here in Gaza.
Q & A on Hostilities between Israel and Hamas
The following questions and answers address issues relating to international humanitarian law (the laws of war) governing the current conflict between Israel and Hamas to date in Gaza. Due to security concerns and limitations on access, Human Rights Watch has not yet undertaken a significant on-the-ground investigation in Gaza. The purpose here 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 focuses on international law governing the conduct of hostilities by each party to the conflict. It does not address whether Hamas or Israel was justified in its attacks, or other matters concerning the legitimacy of resorting to war. In accordance with its institutional mandate, Human Rights Watch maintains a position of neutrality on these issues of jus ad bellum (law concerning acceptable justifications to use armed force), because we believe it is the best way to promote our primary goal of encouraging all sides in armed conflicts to respect international humanitarian law, or jus in bello (law concerning acceptable conduct in war).
What international humanitarian law applies to the current conflict between Israel and Hamas?
Who is subject to military attack?
What are the obligations of Israel and Hamas with respect to fighting in populated areas?
Should belligerent parties give warnings to civilians in advance of attacks? What constitutes an "effective" warning?
May Israel lawfully attack police stations and police personnel in Gaza?
May Israel attack mosques in Gaza?
Is Hamas's firing of rockets at Israel lawful?
Is it lawful to target leaders of Hamas and their offices and homes?
May Israel attack Hamas radio and television stations?
Is Israel's blockade of Gaza lawful?
What are Israel's and Hamas's obligations to humanitarian agencies?
Who can be held responsible for violations of international humanitarian law?
What international humanitarian law applies to the current conflict between Israel and Hamas? The current armed conflict between Israel and Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups is governed by international treaty as well as the rules of customary international humanitarian law. The treaty law, most importantly Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, to which Israel is a party, sets forth minimum standards for all parties to a non-international armed conflict - that is, between a state and a non-state armed group. Also relevant is law on occupation found in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which remains applicable in Gaza because of Israel's ongoing control of many aspects of life there despite the withdrawal of its troops. In addition, the customary rules of humanitarian law, based on established state practice, bind all parties to an armed conflict, whether states or non-state armed groups.
International humanitarian law provides protections to civilians and other noncombatants, from the hazards of armed conflict. It addresses the conduct of hostilities - the means and methods of warfare - by all sides to a conflict. Foremost is the rule that parties to a conflict must distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians. Civilians may never be the deliberate target of attacks. 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 fail to discriminate between combatants and civilians, or would cause disproportionate harm to the civilian population.
Common Article 3 provides a number of fundamental protections for civilians and persons 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. It prohibits violence against such persons - particularly murder, cruel treatment, and torture - as well as outrages against their personal dignity and degrading or humiliating treatment.
The Fourth Geneva Convention (and the Hague Regulations of 1907) on the law of occupation address such issues as humanitarian access and the detention of civilians for security reasons. As noted, Human Rights Watch considers the situation in Gaza to continue to be an occupation, despite the pullout of Israeli forces and settlers in 2005, because Israel still exercises control over Gaza's airspace, sea space, and land borders, as well as its electricity, water, sewage, and telecommunications networks and population registry.
Who is subject to military attack? International humanitarian law limits permissible means and methods of warfare by parties to an armed conflict and requires them to respect and protect civilians and captured combatants. The fundamental tenets of this law are "civilian immunity" and the principle of "distinction." While humanitarian law recognizes that some civilian casualties are inevitable during armed conflict, it imposes a duty on warring parties at all times to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and to target only combatants and other military objectives. Civilians lose their immunity from attack when and only for such time as they are directly participating in hostilities.
Humanitarian law also protects civilian objects, which are defined as anything not considered a military objective. Prohibited are direct attacks against civilian objects, such as homes and apartments, places of worship, hospitals, schools, and cultural monuments - unless they are being used for military purposes. Civilian objects become subject to legitimate attack when they become military objectives - that is, when they are making an effective contribution to military action and their destruction, capture, or neutralization offers a definite military advantage. This would include the deployment of military forces in what are normally civilian objects. Where there is doubt about the nature of an object, it must be presumed to be civilian.
Humanitarian law prohibits indiscriminate attacks. Indiscriminate attacks are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. Examples of indiscriminate attacks are those that are not directed at a specific military objective or that use weapons that cannot be directed at a specific military objective. Prohibited indiscriminate attacks include area bombardment, which are attacks by artillery or other means that treat as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in an area containing a concentration of civilians and civilian objects.
Also prohibited are attacks that violate the principle of proportionality. Disproportionate attacks are those that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack.
What are the obligations of Israel and Hamas with respect to fighting in populated areas? Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. International humanitarian law does not prohibit fighting in urban areas, although the presence of many civilians places greater obligations on warring parties to take steps to minimize harm to civilians.
Humanitarian law requires that the parties to a conflict take constant care during military operations to spare the civilian population and to "take all feasible precautions" to avoid or minimize the incidental loss of civilian life and damage to civilian objects. These precautions include doing everything feasible to verify that the objects of attack are military objectives and not civilians or civilian objects, and giving "effective advance warning" of attacks when circumstances permit.
Forces deployed in populated areas must avoid locating military objectives near densely populated areas, and endeavor to remove civilians from the vicinity of military objectives. Belligerents are prohibited from using civilians to shield military objectives or operations from attack. "Shielding" refers to purposefully using the presence of civilians to render military forces or areas immune from attack. Taking over a family's home and not permitting the family to leave for safety so as to deter the enemy from attacking is a simple example of using "human shields."
At the same time, the attacking party is not relieved from its obligation to take into account the risk to civilians simply because it considers the defending party responsible for having located legitimate military targets within or near populated areas. That is, the presence of a Hamas commander or military facility in a populated area would not justify attacking the area without regard to the threatened civilian population.
Should belligerent parties give warnings to civilians in advance of attacks? What constitutes an "effective" warning? Since the beginning of the Israeli air offensive on December 27, 2008, Israel has issued purported warnings of attacks to the civilian population in Gaza. These have taken the form of flyers dropped from fighter jets and messages conveyed by telephone. The flyers addressed to "Inhabitants of the Area" from IDF Command, state that "For the sake of your safety you are asked to evacuate the area immediately." Telephone warnings, either from a live caller addressing the recipient by name or a pre-recorded message, inform Gaza residents that they should leave their homes because there has been "terrorist activity" in the area.
International humanitarian law requires, so long as circumstances permit, that warring parties give "effective advance warning" of attacks that may affect the civilian population. What constitutes an "effective" warning will depend on the circumstances. Such an assessment would take into account the timing of the warning and the ability of the civilians to leave the area. The Israeli warnings to date appear to be too general - providing no specific information on time or place -- to be considered "effective."
Civilians who do not evacuate following warnings are still fully protected by international law. Otherwise, warring parties could use warnings to cause forced displacement, threatening civilians with deliberate harm if they did not heed them. So, even after warnings have been given, attacking forces must still take all feasible precautions to avoid loss of civilian life and property. This includes canceling an attack when it becomes apparent that the target is civilian or that the civilian loss would be disproportionate to the expected military gain.
International humanitarian law also prohibits "acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population." Statements calling for the evacuation of areas that are not genuine warnings, but are primarily intended to cause panic among residents or compel them to leave their homes for reasons other than their safety, would fall under this prohibition. This prohibition does not attempt to address the effects of lawful attacks, which ordinarily cause fear, but rather those threats or attacks on civilians that have this specific purpose.
May Israel lawfully attack police stations and police personnel in Gaza? Israel has launched repeated attacks on police stations in Gaza, killing and injuring large numbers of police. The legality of such attacks depends on a number of factors; it is incorrect to assert that police and police stations in Gaza are automatically valid military targets.
Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian - and thus immune from attack - unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. Thus, police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack, while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted. Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities.
Police stations are presumptively civilian objects. However, if a police station is being used for military purposes, such as a Hamas military headquarters or a place to store weapons for use in fighting, that station could be subject to lawful attack. Such attacks in any case must not cause disproportionate civilian loss, and so must factor in any reasonably anticipated harm to police or others who are not participating in the hostilities. Without further research on the ground, it is not yet possible to determine whether the police stations struck by Israel served any military purpose, and were therefore legitimate objects of attack.
May Israel attack mosques in Gaza? Mosques, like all houses of worship, are presumptively civilian objects that may not be attacked unless they are being used for military purposes, such as a military headquarters or a location for storing weapons and ammunition. All sides must take special care in military operations to avoid damage to houses of worship and other cultural property.
Is Hamas's firing of rockets at Israel lawful? As parties to the armed conflict, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have an obligation to abide by international humanitarian law. The targeting of military installations and other military objectives is permitted, but Hamas must take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm and is prohibited from targeting civilians, or launching indiscriminate attacks or attacks that would cause disproportionate harm to civilians compared to the expected military advantage. Hamas commanders must choose such means of attack that it can direct at military targets and minimize incidental harm to civilians. If the weapons it uses are so inaccurate that it cannot direct them at military targets without imposing a substantial risk of civilian harm, then it should not deploy them. Deliberately attacking civilians is in all circumstances prohibited.
The rockets fired by Hamas - locally made Qassam rockets and some more advanced Russian-designed "Grad" rockets - are considered to be so inaccurate as to be incapable of being aimed in a manner to discriminate between military targets and civilian objects, at least when, as has been the case, they are targeting populated areas. Statements from Hamas officials indicate that they are directing their rockets at Israeli population centers. The use of such rockets against civilian areas violates the prohibition on deliberate and indiscriminate attacks. Likewise, a party that launches rockets from populated areas - thus making civilians vulnerable to counterattacks - violates the requirement to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians under its control against the effects of attacks.
Is it lawful to target leaders of Hamas and their offices and homes? International humanitarian 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 includes commanding troops, planning attacks or otherwise directly participating in hostilities, during which time they become subject to lawful attack.
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, Hamas political leaders who are commanding belligerent forces would be legitimate targets. However, merely being a Hamas leader does not in itself make an individual lawfully subject to military attack.
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. Purusant to its duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm, the attacking force should also consider whether there may be alternative sites where the combatant can be targeted without endangering civilians.
May Israel attack Hamas 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, Hamas-operated civilian broadcast facilities could become military targets if, for example, they are used to send military orders or otherwise concretely to advance Hamas's armed campaign against Israel. However, civilian broadcasting facilities are not rendered legitimate military targets simply because they spout pro-Hamas or anti-Israel propaganda. Just as it is unlawful to attack the civilian population to lower its morale, it is unlawful to attack facilities that merely shape civilian opinion; neither directly contributes to military operations.
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 forces should verify at all times that the risks to the civilian population in undertaking any such attack do not outweigh the anticipated military benefit. They should take special precautions in relation to buildings located in urban areas, including giving advance warning of an attack whenever possible.
Is Israel's blockade of Gaza lawful? Under international humanitarian law, Israel remains the occupying power in Gaza even though it withdrew its permanent military forces and settlers in 2005, because it continues to exercise effective day-to-day control over most aspects of Gaza life. As noted, in addition to its effective control over Gaza's land, air, and sea borders, Israel controls most of the territory's electricity, water, and sewage capacity, and its telecommunications networks and population registry. Israel's continuing blockade of the Gaza Strip, a measure that is depriving its population of food, fuel, and basic services, constitutes a form of collective punishment in violation of international humanitarian law.
What are Israel's and Hamas's obligations to humanitarian agencies? Under international humanitarian law, parties to a conflict must allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of impartially distributed humanitarian aid to the population in need. The belligerent parties must consent to allowing relief operations to take place and may not refuse such consent on arbitrary grounds. They can take steps to control the content and delivery of humanitarian aid, such as to ensure that consignments do not include weapons. However, deliberately impeding relief supplies is prohibited.
In addition, international humanitarian law requires that belligerent parties ensure the freedom of movement of humanitarian relief personnel essential to the exercise of their functions. This movement can be restricted only temporarily for reasons of imperative military necessity.
Who can be held responsible for violations of international humanitarian law? Serious violations of international humanitarian law that are committed with criminal intent are war crimes. War crimes, listed in the "grave breaches" provisions of the Geneva Conventions and as customary law in the International Criminal Court statute and other sources, include a wide array of offenses, including deliberate, indiscriminate, and disproportionate attacks harming civilians, hostage taking, using human shields, and imposing collective punishments, among others. Individuals also may be held criminally liable for attempting to commit a war crime, as well as assisting in, facilitating, aiding or abetting a war crime.
Responsibility also may fall on persons planning or instigating the commission of a war crime. Commanders and civilian leaders may be prosecuted for war crimes as a matter of command responsibility when they knew or should have known about the commission of war crimes and took insufficient measures to prevent them or punish those responsible.
States have an obligation to investigate and fairly prosecute individuals within their territory implicated in war crimes.
This Q & A focuses on international law governing the conduct of hostilities by each party to the conflict. It does not address whether Hamas or Israel was justified in its attacks, or other matters concerning the legitimacy of resorting to war. In accordance with its institutional mandate, Human Rights Watch maintains a position of neutrality on these issues of jus ad bellum (law concerning acceptable justifications to use armed force), because we believe it is the best way to promote our primary goal of encouraging all sides in armed conflicts to respect international humanitarian law, or jus in bello (law concerning acceptable conduct in war).
What international humanitarian law applies to the current conflict between Israel and Hamas?
Who is subject to military attack?
What are the obligations of Israel and Hamas with respect to fighting in populated areas?
Should belligerent parties give warnings to civilians in advance of attacks? What constitutes an "effective" warning?
May Israel lawfully attack police stations and police personnel in Gaza?
May Israel attack mosques in Gaza?
Is Hamas's firing of rockets at Israel lawful?
Is it lawful to target leaders of Hamas and their offices and homes?
May Israel attack Hamas radio and television stations?
Is Israel's blockade of Gaza lawful?
What are Israel's and Hamas's obligations to humanitarian agencies?
Who can be held responsible for violations of international humanitarian law?
What international humanitarian law applies to the current conflict between Israel and Hamas? The current armed conflict between Israel and Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups is governed by international treaty as well as the rules of customary international humanitarian law. The treaty law, most importantly Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, to which Israel is a party, sets forth minimum standards for all parties to a non-international armed conflict - that is, between a state and a non-state armed group. Also relevant is law on occupation found in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which remains applicable in Gaza because of Israel's ongoing control of many aspects of life there despite the withdrawal of its troops. In addition, the customary rules of humanitarian law, based on established state practice, bind all parties to an armed conflict, whether states or non-state armed groups.
International humanitarian law provides protections to civilians and other noncombatants, from the hazards of armed conflict. It addresses the conduct of hostilities - the means and methods of warfare - by all sides to a conflict. Foremost is the rule that parties to a conflict must distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians. Civilians may never be the deliberate target of attacks. 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 fail to discriminate between combatants and civilians, or would cause disproportionate harm to the civilian population.
Common Article 3 provides a number of fundamental protections for civilians and persons 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. It prohibits violence against such persons - particularly murder, cruel treatment, and torture - as well as outrages against their personal dignity and degrading or humiliating treatment.
The Fourth Geneva Convention (and the Hague Regulations of 1907) on the law of occupation address such issues as humanitarian access and the detention of civilians for security reasons. As noted, Human Rights Watch considers the situation in Gaza to continue to be an occupation, despite the pullout of Israeli forces and settlers in 2005, because Israel still exercises control over Gaza's airspace, sea space, and land borders, as well as its electricity, water, sewage, and telecommunications networks and population registry.
Who is subject to military attack? International humanitarian law limits permissible means and methods of warfare by parties to an armed conflict and requires them to respect and protect civilians and captured combatants. The fundamental tenets of this law are "civilian immunity" and the principle of "distinction." While humanitarian law recognizes that some civilian casualties are inevitable during armed conflict, it imposes a duty on warring parties at all times to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and to target only combatants and other military objectives. Civilians lose their immunity from attack when and only for such time as they are directly participating in hostilities.
Humanitarian law also protects civilian objects, which are defined as anything not considered a military objective. Prohibited are direct attacks against civilian objects, such as homes and apartments, places of worship, hospitals, schools, and cultural monuments - unless they are being used for military purposes. Civilian objects become subject to legitimate attack when they become military objectives - that is, when they are making an effective contribution to military action and their destruction, capture, or neutralization offers a definite military advantage. This would include the deployment of military forces in what are normally civilian objects. Where there is doubt about the nature of an object, it must be presumed to be civilian.
Humanitarian law prohibits indiscriminate attacks. Indiscriminate attacks are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. Examples of indiscriminate attacks are those that are not directed at a specific military objective or that use weapons that cannot be directed at a specific military objective. Prohibited indiscriminate attacks include area bombardment, which are attacks by artillery or other means that treat as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in an area containing a concentration of civilians and civilian objects.
Also prohibited are attacks that violate the principle of proportionality. Disproportionate attacks are those that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack.
What are the obligations of Israel and Hamas with respect to fighting in populated areas? Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. International humanitarian law does not prohibit fighting in urban areas, although the presence of many civilians places greater obligations on warring parties to take steps to minimize harm to civilians.
Humanitarian law requires that the parties to a conflict take constant care during military operations to spare the civilian population and to "take all feasible precautions" to avoid or minimize the incidental loss of civilian life and damage to civilian objects. These precautions include doing everything feasible to verify that the objects of attack are military objectives and not civilians or civilian objects, and giving "effective advance warning" of attacks when circumstances permit.
Forces deployed in populated areas must avoid locating military objectives near densely populated areas, and endeavor to remove civilians from the vicinity of military objectives. Belligerents are prohibited from using civilians to shield military objectives or operations from attack. "Shielding" refers to purposefully using the presence of civilians to render military forces or areas immune from attack. Taking over a family's home and not permitting the family to leave for safety so as to deter the enemy from attacking is a simple example of using "human shields."
At the same time, the attacking party is not relieved from its obligation to take into account the risk to civilians simply because it considers the defending party responsible for having located legitimate military targets within or near populated areas. That is, the presence of a Hamas commander or military facility in a populated area would not justify attacking the area without regard to the threatened civilian population.
Should belligerent parties give warnings to civilians in advance of attacks? What constitutes an "effective" warning? Since the beginning of the Israeli air offensive on December 27, 2008, Israel has issued purported warnings of attacks to the civilian population in Gaza. These have taken the form of flyers dropped from fighter jets and messages conveyed by telephone. The flyers addressed to "Inhabitants of the Area" from IDF Command, state that "For the sake of your safety you are asked to evacuate the area immediately." Telephone warnings, either from a live caller addressing the recipient by name or a pre-recorded message, inform Gaza residents that they should leave their homes because there has been "terrorist activity" in the area.
International humanitarian law requires, so long as circumstances permit, that warring parties give "effective advance warning" of attacks that may affect the civilian population. What constitutes an "effective" warning will depend on the circumstances. Such an assessment would take into account the timing of the warning and the ability of the civilians to leave the area. The Israeli warnings to date appear to be too general - providing no specific information on time or place -- to be considered "effective."
Civilians who do not evacuate following warnings are still fully protected by international law. Otherwise, warring parties could use warnings to cause forced displacement, threatening civilians with deliberate harm if they did not heed them. So, even after warnings have been given, attacking forces must still take all feasible precautions to avoid loss of civilian life and property. This includes canceling an attack when it becomes apparent that the target is civilian or that the civilian loss would be disproportionate to the expected military gain.
International humanitarian law also prohibits "acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population." Statements calling for the evacuation of areas that are not genuine warnings, but are primarily intended to cause panic among residents or compel them to leave their homes for reasons other than their safety, would fall under this prohibition. This prohibition does not attempt to address the effects of lawful attacks, which ordinarily cause fear, but rather those threats or attacks on civilians that have this specific purpose.
May Israel lawfully attack police stations and police personnel in Gaza? Israel has launched repeated attacks on police stations in Gaza, killing and injuring large numbers of police. The legality of such attacks depends on a number of factors; it is incorrect to assert that police and police stations in Gaza are automatically valid military targets.
Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian - and thus immune from attack - unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. Thus, police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack, while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted. Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities.
Police stations are presumptively civilian objects. However, if a police station is being used for military purposes, such as a Hamas military headquarters or a place to store weapons for use in fighting, that station could be subject to lawful attack. Such attacks in any case must not cause disproportionate civilian loss, and so must factor in any reasonably anticipated harm to police or others who are not participating in the hostilities. Without further research on the ground, it is not yet possible to determine whether the police stations struck by Israel served any military purpose, and were therefore legitimate objects of attack.
May Israel attack mosques in Gaza? Mosques, like all houses of worship, are presumptively civilian objects that may not be attacked unless they are being used for military purposes, such as a military headquarters or a location for storing weapons and ammunition. All sides must take special care in military operations to avoid damage to houses of worship and other cultural property.
Is Hamas's firing of rockets at Israel lawful? As parties to the armed conflict, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have an obligation to abide by international humanitarian law. The targeting of military installations and other military objectives is permitted, but Hamas must take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm and is prohibited from targeting civilians, or launching indiscriminate attacks or attacks that would cause disproportionate harm to civilians compared to the expected military advantage. Hamas commanders must choose such means of attack that it can direct at military targets and minimize incidental harm to civilians. If the weapons it uses are so inaccurate that it cannot direct them at military targets without imposing a substantial risk of civilian harm, then it should not deploy them. Deliberately attacking civilians is in all circumstances prohibited.
The rockets fired by Hamas - locally made Qassam rockets and some more advanced Russian-designed "Grad" rockets - are considered to be so inaccurate as to be incapable of being aimed in a manner to discriminate between military targets and civilian objects, at least when, as has been the case, they are targeting populated areas. Statements from Hamas officials indicate that they are directing their rockets at Israeli population centers. The use of such rockets against civilian areas violates the prohibition on deliberate and indiscriminate attacks. Likewise, a party that launches rockets from populated areas - thus making civilians vulnerable to counterattacks - violates the requirement to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians under its control against the effects of attacks.
Is it lawful to target leaders of Hamas and their offices and homes? International humanitarian 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 includes commanding troops, planning attacks or otherwise directly participating in hostilities, during which time they become subject to lawful attack.
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, Hamas political leaders who are commanding belligerent forces would be legitimate targets. However, merely being a Hamas leader does not in itself make an individual lawfully subject to military attack.
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. Purusant to its duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm, the attacking force should also consider whether there may be alternative sites where the combatant can be targeted without endangering civilians.
May Israel attack Hamas 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, Hamas-operated civilian broadcast facilities could become military targets if, for example, they are used to send military orders or otherwise concretely to advance Hamas's armed campaign against Israel. However, civilian broadcasting facilities are not rendered legitimate military targets simply because they spout pro-Hamas or anti-Israel propaganda. Just as it is unlawful to attack the civilian population to lower its morale, it is unlawful to attack facilities that merely shape civilian opinion; neither directly contributes to military operations.
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 forces should verify at all times that the risks to the civilian population in undertaking any such attack do not outweigh the anticipated military benefit. They should take special precautions in relation to buildings located in urban areas, including giving advance warning of an attack whenever possible.
Is Israel's blockade of Gaza lawful? Under international humanitarian law, Israel remains the occupying power in Gaza even though it withdrew its permanent military forces and settlers in 2005, because it continues to exercise effective day-to-day control over most aspects of Gaza life. As noted, in addition to its effective control over Gaza's land, air, and sea borders, Israel controls most of the territory's electricity, water, and sewage capacity, and its telecommunications networks and population registry. Israel's continuing blockade of the Gaza Strip, a measure that is depriving its population of food, fuel, and basic services, constitutes a form of collective punishment in violation of international humanitarian law.
What are Israel's and Hamas's obligations to humanitarian agencies? Under international humanitarian law, parties to a conflict must allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of impartially distributed humanitarian aid to the population in need. The belligerent parties must consent to allowing relief operations to take place and may not refuse such consent on arbitrary grounds. They can take steps to control the content and delivery of humanitarian aid, such as to ensure that consignments do not include weapons. However, deliberately impeding relief supplies is prohibited.
In addition, international humanitarian law requires that belligerent parties ensure the freedom of movement of humanitarian relief personnel essential to the exercise of their functions. This movement can be restricted only temporarily for reasons of imperative military necessity.
Who can be held responsible for violations of international humanitarian law? Serious violations of international humanitarian law that are committed with criminal intent are war crimes. War crimes, listed in the "grave breaches" provisions of the Geneva Conventions and as customary law in the International Criminal Court statute and other sources, include a wide array of offenses, including deliberate, indiscriminate, and disproportionate attacks harming civilians, hostage taking, using human shields, and imposing collective punishments, among others. Individuals also may be held criminally liable for attempting to commit a war crime, as well as assisting in, facilitating, aiding or abetting a war crime.
Responsibility also may fall on persons planning or instigating the commission of a war crime. Commanders and civilian leaders may be prosecuted for war crimes as a matter of command responsibility when they knew or should have known about the commission of war crimes and took insufficient measures to prevent them or punish those responsible.
States have an obligation to investigate and fairly prosecute individuals within their territory implicated in war crimes.
Dec 30/31: Tuesday night by the sea
3 Hamadan children, Beit Hanoun
Last night was a hectic scramble to get to our Jabalia house soon after dark; the further into the night, the greater the danger. On Sunday night, other commitments had delayed us, and then over the phone the family said any car on the road late would for sure be hit and they couldn’t bear any more loss, even new friends like us.
So we arrived at about 6 yesterday evening, and F told us they hadn’t spent more than brief moments up from the basement that day, since heavy bombing had begun at 5am.
The night was manageable; an Apache helicopter seemed perched above the house for a lot of it, but that meant it was firing rockets away from us. Nearer to morning we had some hours of it being the other way round and the explosions being pretty loud. During the night, the Islamic University was bombed for a second time, and the port continued to recieve attacks – as did pretty much all Gaza.
In the morning we went to document some of the attacks of the preceding 48 hours about which F had told us. Fairly soon after we’d left, we heard the “whoosh” of a rocket (gives you long enough to worry but not long enough to get away), heard the impact and saw smoke rise, from the direction of the house we’d just left. E phoned F and found it had fallen beside the one from Saturday night, everyone was alright but upset and scared.
Last night was a hectic scramble to get to our Jabalia house soon after dark; the further into the night, the greater the danger. On Sunday night, other commitments had delayed us, and then over the phone the family said any car on the road late would for sure be hit and they couldn’t bear any more loss, even new friends like us.
So we arrived at about 6 yesterday evening, and F told us they hadn’t spent more than brief moments up from the basement that day, since heavy bombing had begun at 5am.
The night was manageable; an Apache helicopter seemed perched above the house for a lot of it, but that meant it was firing rockets away from us. Nearer to morning we had some hours of it being the other way round and the explosions being pretty loud. During the night, the Islamic University was bombed for a second time, and the port continued to recieve attacks – as did pretty much all Gaza.
In the morning we went to document some of the attacks of the preceding 48 hours about which F had told us. Fairly soon after we’d left, we heard the “whoosh” of a rocket (gives you long enough to worry but not long enough to get away), heard the impact and saw smoke rise, from the direction of the house we’d just left. E phoned F and found it had fallen beside the one from Saturday night, everyone was alright but upset and scared.
Truck in which 6 were killed, Jabalia
Continuing along the road, we saw the destroyed truck in which the father and seven sons of the Sanoor family were killed at 4pm Monday afternoon, as they went to pick up metal. An eyewitness described how seeing this event from their nearby house had affected his children. Some of the Akram Al Kanwa family We continued on to the bombed out shell of a washing machine shop and a carpentry workshop, the rockets had destroyed some of the next door home furnishings shop, as well as blown holes in at least 3 neighbouring houses. The Abdul Hakim Eid and Eid Said Eid families’ children of 4 months, 4 and 6, were injured in the attack. |
In the Akram Al Kanwa’s family of 10 children, 7 were injured; 2 remain in hospital. An acrid aroma was in the air from the resulting chemical fire which had taken 13 hours to put out.
Dead chickens, Jabalia
We were then taken to a chicken farm, which was simply a ground area underneath a building, open to the outside, with sawdust laid down, quite a nice place for chickens under normal circumstances, but that was no longer what they had. Either from shock or a physical effect of a nearby explosion 3 days ago, 11,000 were dead. |
The remaining 1,000 wandered about among the bodies, which the farmer was raking up and putting into bags to remove. Vegans look away – that’s 11,000 less dinners for Gaza families, not even counting the eggs.
Broken waterpipe in bomb crater
Jameel Abdullah, with his sons Faisal and Abdullah, aged 5 and 2, showed us the huge crater in a field next to their house from a Sunday attack, which probably by design had destroyed a drinking water pipe. We heard of three teenagers struck by a rocket at between 11 and 12 in the morning; the 14 year old from the Abu Khater family was killed, and 13 year old Majd Migbel and 19 year old Mohammed Abu Nabi lost limbs. |
And while we were listening to this, EJ called from Beit Hanoun hospital. She, A and M had witnessed the arrival of 10 year old Ismail, Lamer aged 4, and Haya aged 12, from the Hamadan family, bombed that morning as they went to put out the rubbish. They recorded as the doctors tried, and failed, to get Haya breathing again. Lamer died later in the hospital, and Ismail survived.
Initially at least, the Spanish newspaper that accepted pictures of the children (taken by our Palestinian colleague M) said they could only accept for publication a picture of someone dead if their eyes were closed. We talked a little about that this evening. E and I think, if a child’s parents have to see her dead without “sanitization”, then so should we all.
At Al Shifa hospital today, Dr Halid gave us a crash course in first aid, for if we are riding in ambulances or on the scene of an attack before one, and we got to stick cannulas in each other. As is traditional in such trainings, the biggest and strongest person – V – turned the faintest. Dr Halid told us they now had 29 ventilators in the ICU. Normally they have 12, but as the hospital worst-injured people are transfered to, they’ve grabbed more from other hospitals, and now there are only a handful anywhere else. So basically only about 35 patients in all of Gaza (1.5 million people, remember) can be kept alive if they arrive unconscious and need ventilators. Even if someone only needs a day for her body to regain its basic functions, if there is no ventilator free, that is a day too much.
He told us also that yesterday, someone purporting to be from the “Israeli Defence Forces” rang Al Shifa to say it must be evacuated as it would be bombed. Al Shifa refused out of principle and of necessity. There is no-where else to evacuate patients to. Sometimes these are hoaxes. Sometimes not – the same threat by phone was made in the last days to people in their homes. They left. The homes were bombed.
Today has felt quite strained. I find by the afternoon, I greatly need to download all the experiences and information I have gathered from evening, night, and morning. Otherwise there is no room in my head. But today, one cafe with net didn’t have net. And then I got to the next one and the phone didn’t stop ringing for an hour for long enough for me to even order food, let alone begin to type. And then when I got back there after hospital training, the cafe (perhaps because it is usually occupied by a handful of journalists) had its own bomb threat and we all got unceremoniously chucked out. Our other two net cafe places have given up altogether and closed.
This morning also, we heard that the Dignity – which I forgot to tell you yesterday was attempting an emergency run to Gaza for today – had been confronted by 11 Israeli gun ships in international waters at 5am today, 90 miles from Gaza and 45 miles off the coat of Israel. The gun boats told them that they had to go back to Cyprus or Israel would stop them because “they were carrying terrorists”. (You can see the passenger list at http://www.freegaza.org). Dignity folks replied they would not be stopping, and gun boats responding by ramming them three times.
This damaged the engine and breached the hull, causing the Dignity to start taking on water, so they put out an SOS call. Cyprus FreeGaza folks lost contact with them for a while, but later heard that they had fixed the engine to some extent and were limping towards Lebanon port, welcomed by the authorities there, and now we understand they have arrived safe. And bless them, plan to find a new boat and try again asap.
Right now, we are working in a seafront apartment, which appears to be the only place in all of Gaza tonight with both electricity and internet.
8.40pm as I type. Whistling of shell from the sea. Phone check – prime minister’s office totally destroyed.
5 minutes ago. Another whistle. I duck this time. (yeah, like that would help.)
Just now; much closer – we hear the crack of the explosion. After some thought, we move out of the front room.
Anyway, I’ll – hmm, that one shook the building.
In the interviews I’ve been doing, they keep asking me – so are you in a safe place right now? And I answer – right now, there is no such place in the whole of Gaza.
Initially at least, the Spanish newspaper that accepted pictures of the children (taken by our Palestinian colleague M) said they could only accept for publication a picture of someone dead if their eyes were closed. We talked a little about that this evening. E and I think, if a child’s parents have to see her dead without “sanitization”, then so should we all.
At Al Shifa hospital today, Dr Halid gave us a crash course in first aid, for if we are riding in ambulances or on the scene of an attack before one, and we got to stick cannulas in each other. As is traditional in such trainings, the biggest and strongest person – V – turned the faintest. Dr Halid told us they now had 29 ventilators in the ICU. Normally they have 12, but as the hospital worst-injured people are transfered to, they’ve grabbed more from other hospitals, and now there are only a handful anywhere else. So basically only about 35 patients in all of Gaza (1.5 million people, remember) can be kept alive if they arrive unconscious and need ventilators. Even if someone only needs a day for her body to regain its basic functions, if there is no ventilator free, that is a day too much.
He told us also that yesterday, someone purporting to be from the “Israeli Defence Forces” rang Al Shifa to say it must be evacuated as it would be bombed. Al Shifa refused out of principle and of necessity. There is no-where else to evacuate patients to. Sometimes these are hoaxes. Sometimes not – the same threat by phone was made in the last days to people in their homes. They left. The homes were bombed.
Today has felt quite strained. I find by the afternoon, I greatly need to download all the experiences and information I have gathered from evening, night, and morning. Otherwise there is no room in my head. But today, one cafe with net didn’t have net. And then I got to the next one and the phone didn’t stop ringing for an hour for long enough for me to even order food, let alone begin to type. And then when I got back there after hospital training, the cafe (perhaps because it is usually occupied by a handful of journalists) had its own bomb threat and we all got unceremoniously chucked out. Our other two net cafe places have given up altogether and closed.
This morning also, we heard that the Dignity – which I forgot to tell you yesterday was attempting an emergency run to Gaza for today – had been confronted by 11 Israeli gun ships in international waters at 5am today, 90 miles from Gaza and 45 miles off the coat of Israel. The gun boats told them that they had to go back to Cyprus or Israel would stop them because “they were carrying terrorists”. (You can see the passenger list at http://www.freegaza.org). Dignity folks replied they would not be stopping, and gun boats responding by ramming them three times.
This damaged the engine and breached the hull, causing the Dignity to start taking on water, so they put out an SOS call. Cyprus FreeGaza folks lost contact with them for a while, but later heard that they had fixed the engine to some extent and were limping towards Lebanon port, welcomed by the authorities there, and now we understand they have arrived safe. And bless them, plan to find a new boat and try again asap.
Right now, we are working in a seafront apartment, which appears to be the only place in all of Gaza tonight with both electricity and internet.
8.40pm as I type. Whistling of shell from the sea. Phone check – prime minister’s office totally destroyed.
5 minutes ago. Another whistle. I duck this time. (yeah, like that would help.)
Just now; much closer – we hear the crack of the explosion. After some thought, we move out of the front room.
Anyway, I’ll – hmm, that one shook the building.
In the interviews I’ve been doing, they keep asking me – so are you in a safe place right now? And I answer – right now, there is no such place in the whole of Gaza.
Page: 2 - 1
|
Days: Jan 18 - 17 - 16 - 15 - 14 - 13 - 12 - 11 - 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Dec 31 - 30 - 29 - 28 - 27