Ignatieff: Qana attack a War Crime

According to an article by Graeme Hamilton in today's National Post, Michael Ignatieff - speaking in French on a popular Quebec talk show - renounced the 'lack of compassion' shown when he commented in August that he wasn't 'losing sleep' over civilian deaths in Qana (Lebanon). He went on to remind everyone that:

"I was a professor of human rights, and I am also a professor of the laws of war, and what happened in Qana was a war crime, and I should have said that. That's clear."

I don't like the guy, but you've got to admire his guts. He also is apparently unafraid to admit he was wrong and apologize, which is something certain North American heads of state have had a great deal of difficulty with.

I wasn't there, and I'm not familiar enough with the facts or with the law to make a personal assessment. But to be honest, I'm more interested in the immediate spin, which in the article cited included comments by representatives of two prominent Jewish organizations, and also by Iggy's own director of communications, Leslie Church.

"That's appalling. To call it a war crime is totally, totally unacceptable." - Frank Dimant, executive vice-president of B'nai Brith Canada.

Actually, Frank, it's committing war crimes that is totally, totally unacceptable. Calling something a war crime is totally acceptable if it is indeed a war crime; it would only be unacceptable if it's clearly not a war crime. So, Frank, please tell us how you define war crimes, and then tell us your understanding of what happened at Qana. Then we will be able to judge. By simply attacking the speaker you convey the implication that the content of what he said is accurate, because if it were clearly not you could refute it with facts.

"For somebody as well-informed and experienced as Mr. Ignatieff, he should know that is not a reasonable charge to level against Israel." - Shimon Fogel, chief executive of the Canada-Israel Committee.

Why not? Is Israel simply immune from such charges because of the persecution Jews have suffered throughout the centuries? That position is unreasonable. Is it unreasonable because anyone saying something like what Ignatieff said will be pilloried and attacked relentlessly? That sort of behaviour is unreasonable too. But Iggy's comments seem pretty reasonable. He's the international law scholar, and he thinks its not just possible but "clear".

"He meant that this was a tragedy of war, that this was a deplorable act in war, that this was a terrible consequence of war." - Leslie Church

That's just weak Leslie. First of all, most deplorable acts in war would constitute war crimes, so that's not much of a clarification. As for the first and last comments, They're just BS. A tragedy is something that can't be avoided, usually something that is virtually certain because of the intrinsic character of those suffering the tragedy. Terrible consequences imply amorlaity - consequences simply flow, without reference to the cause. Well there was a cause, and it was bombs, not fate or karma.

Bombs don't fall by accident, they're dropped by airmen under the orders of senior officers under the direction of the civilian authority in Israel. Those aircraft and munitions have sophisticated targeting systems and all the bells and whistles that collectively create shock and awe. I'm sure mistakes still happen, but it is generally on the person claiming the mistake to prove it, rather than to take as unstated assumption that it was a mistake and then go out and viciously attack the person who foolishly thinks people should be held responsible for their actions.

We should also recall that the explanation given at the time was NOT that it was a mistake (which was the excuse given for the shelling of the UN observer post - an excuse that strains credulity and that, if false, would seem to confirm that act as a war crime) but rather that there were rockets being fired from nearby and that this was a legitimate act of self-defence. Putting those potential targets on par with tremendous civilian casualties is intrinsically suspect, and creates at least a triable issue on the question of whether or not the act constitutes a crime under international legal norms.

And now that I have also exposed myself to unreasonable attack by making such reasonable statements, I do want to emphasize that I personally am not saying the attack was a war crime. I am neither well-grounded enough in the international laws of war nor the particular facts of this situation to say so. All I am saying is that someone who is much better informed on both counts than me thinks it is "clear" that it was a war crime, and those who have rejected his views have not yet, to my knowledge, made rational responses to the charge.

I hope that some readers will make rational responses, which would include describing what constitutes an unacceptable attack on civilians, how such attacks might be justified, and whether or not the facts of this case seem to fall within or outside of the principles enunciated. It would also include meta-commentary on how others are responding, and whether their responses are rational and deserving of attention. But given the level of discourse on this subject generally I expect I will just have to delete this post by lunch. Which is fine, because then my response to the Cat's challenge will move back to the top of my blog where it belongs!