Post-Gazette Editorial – 8/29/06

This page was last updated on August 29, 2006.

The cluster probe / Israel may have crossed the line on bombing; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; August 29, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The United States is carrying out an inquiry into whether Israel’s deployment of American-supplied cluster bombs in the recent Lebanon war was consistent with agreements governing their use.

“Cluster bombs are shells fired by artillery that explode on impact and send out smaller bombs like bouncing balls. Those that don’t explode immediately can be accidentally detonated later, sometimes by unwitting civilians, including children who mistake them for toys. Clearing them after combat is extremely difficult and dangerous work, given their relatively small size and the fact that they sometimes become concealed by brush or debris.

“Cluster bombs are intended for two military uses. The first is against armies, massed troops who can be killed efficiently by the bundled bombs. The second is against artillery or antiaircraft gun emplacements, where forces are found in groups.

“Although the use of U.S.-supplied cluster bombs by Israeli forces is believed to be limited by the terms of secret agreements between the United States and Israel, it appears that the Israeli Defense Forces did not follow the rules in Lebanon. There were no massed forces to use them against; Hezbollah didn’t use massed forces in the Lebanon war. The second limit on Israeli use of the bombs is believed to be where substantial danger exists to the civilian population.

“Israel will say that Hezbollah’s practice of basing its forces among the civilian population, deliberately exposing them to danger, justified its own use of cluster bombs, even though part of the result was civilian casualties. Part of the problem with that line of argument is that the unexploded bombs left behind, found so far in hundreds of locations across Lebanon, have continued to kill and maim Lebanese civilians after the cease-fire took effect. Hezbollah’s use of rockets loaded with ball-bearings against Israel constituted another atrocity against civilians.

“The United States received international criticism for having supplied Israel with cluster bombs for use in Lebanon and for having accelerated delivery of other high-impact munitions during Israel’s bombing campaign.

“Damage has already been done to any U.S. claim to a mediator’s role in this conflict by Israel’s use of U.S. high-impact and cluster bombs. If the inquiry, to be carried out by the State Department, produces evidence that Israel broke the terms of its agreement, the United States should make the results of the probe public and reveal what measures it has taken to see that the violations do not occur again. Such a response could go some distance toward restoring America’s reputation in that regard.

“Cluster bombs are a very cruel weapon given the risk they present to civilians, even if the rules governing their use are observed. But if there are rules, they should be observed -- to mitigate as much as possible the brutality inherent in the use of this weapon.”

[RWC] Rather than get into a point-by-point critique, I’ll only raise a couple of points.

First, though, I’m not passing judgment on the alleged use of cluster bombs by the IDF. I don’t have the expertise and experience and it’s unlikely typical civilians like you and me will ever possess all the relevant facts, whether any inquiry is public or not.

Now onto my points.

The editorial goes to great pains to describe the alleged effect of the bombs on alleged civilians. However, in those eight paragraphs, the editorial virtually glosses over the fact “Hezbollah’s use of rockets loaded with ball-bearings against Israel constituted another atrocity against civilians.” At best the editorial attempts to draw some kind of moral equivalency between the actions of a terrorist group and a democratic country defending itself. At worst, the editorial gives the impression that Israel represents the bad guys, not Hezbollah.

The editorial also fails to mention that while the IDF attempts to target purely military targets – a real challenge when the enemy doesn’t wear a uniform and operates from within civilian structures like homes and business, Hezbollah specifically targeted Israeli civilians.

Finally, the comment about the U.S. being a credible mediator is BS. Why? Maybe it’s the fact the U.S. and Israel have been more or less allies since 1948. How on Earth could anyone consider the U.S. a mediator when it supplies much (most?) of Israel’s armaments? What about the nearly $100 billion we’ve given Israel since 1949? Who in their right mind ever believed the U.S. should be impartial?

So why would the editorial make such a ridiculous statement about U.S. mediator status being “damaged” by our support of Israel in this conflict? The PG wants us to believe the Bush administration’s actions destroyed something that never existed. It’s all about bashing President Bush.