Scott Lucas on Press TV: The UN Report on Israel's Killing of Gaza Civilians

Related Post: United Nations Report- Israel Deliberately Fired on Gaza Schools/Shelters

Yesterday I appeared, with Richard Millett of IsraelConnect, on Press TV's Four Corners to discuss the United Nations Board of Inquiry report on the deaths of Gazan civilians in the recent Israeli military operations. The conversation got a bit heated, with the presenter clearly taking a position against Mr Millett, but I hope the basic points --- particularly the need to acknowledge past actions if there was to be any hope of progress in future talks on an Israel-Palestine settlement --- came across.

Video (Part 1 of 3)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scdgbHpH3bM[/youtube]

Video (Part 2 of 3)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scdgbHpH3bM[/youtube]

Video (Part 3 of 3)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoSpUp3qk0I[/youtube]

Comments

[Josh Mull]

Wow, Scott, always so clear, reasonable, and thoughtful. Don't you know you're on TV? You should be flinging outrageous accusations at your opponent, like when Millet said you didn't think Israel has a right to exist! This is a serious human rights issue, we can't have you mucking it up with all this factual evidence! ;)

[Craig Smith]

"Investigative" journalist Millet? Just what does he investigate, apart from how to toe the pro-Israel party-line?

I wonder whether he and Joe "The Plumber/Journalist" Wurzlebacher exchanged notes (and hair-stylists) while sharing an Israeli bunker.

Interesting that when pinned-down on facts he could not rebut, he resorted to impugning your motives. To his credit, he backed-off when confronted on this.

[Richard Millett]

I didn't intend to make any accusations directly against Mr Lucas. I was trying to say that there are many, especially in the UN, who won't give Israel a fair hearing because they don't believe Israel should exist. It would hardly be an impartial trial. Imagine the accusations about the Israel Lobby applying pressure if Israel is acquited. There are more serious trials to be had including Russia in Chechnya, Sudan/Darfur and the killing by Hamas of its own people. Israel should very low down on the list when it comes to any accusations of war crimes. Defending your citizens while trying to specifically target Hamas weaponry is not a war crime.

[Dave]

I think Mr. Millet is right to point out Chechnya and Darfur and other serious crimes. There are many urgent human rights abuses taking place all over the world, but when the UN criticises Israel, it does so obsessively. The UN Commission on Human Rights pays scant attention to the Tibetans, the Kurds, the Basques, and many other peoples currently seeking self-determination. They are usually ignored. As a matter of fact, the Commission's resolutions against Israel equal the combined total of country-specific resolutions adopted against all the other countries of the world. I think that says a lot about what the UN's priorities are...

[Scott Lucas]

Richard (if I may),

I appreciate very much the clarification, as I enjoyed the discussion and hope it could lead to further dialogue. With respect, however, I think your assertion that "many...in the UN....don't believe Israel should exist" --- even if you substantiated it --- is a diversion from the issue at hand.

A set of investigators examined a number of incidents in which it was claimed that Israeli military action had killed Gazan civilians, either deliberately or as a likely consequence. It is those findings that should be addressed, rather than evading them through polemic.

Similarly, the recognition that there are human rights violations elsewhere should not be used to claim that we should not recognise this particular case. Nor should the phrase "the killing by Hamas of its own people" (which I presume is a reference to deaths in the low level civil war between Hamas and Fatah) be an acceptable evasion.

In contrast, your last sentence does get to the heart of the matter. The Israeli operations in Gaza were not "defensive" in nature: their primary aim was to remove Hamas from power. To achieve that goal of regime change, Israeli forces did not "specifically target Hamas weaponry"; most of their targets --- again, either deliberately or as a likely consequence --- were buildings. Many of those buildings held civilians.

Scott

P.S. --- Apologies for misspelling your surname. We'll make sure it doesn't happen in future!

[Dave]

It is legitimate for the UN to criticize Israel, but not when UN bodies do so unfairly. What about Palestinian rights in Lebanon? Not a whisper because the UN does not recognise human rights violations and other mistreatment of the Palestinian people where Israel is not involved.

Was the UNSC resolution green-lighting US military action against the Taliban in Afghanistan not disproportionate?

[Richard Millett]

No worries, Scott. I don't want to sound flippant but civilian deaths are permitted in war as a likely consequence as long as at the time those doing the attacking considered the attack as a proportionate attack against a military objective. Israel would argue it acted proportionately in the circumstances known to it at the time. What happens after a rocket is fired, however tragic the outcome is, is irrelevant to the issue of guilt.

A deliberate attack on civilians is obviously a war crime but to prove that the IDF acted with such intent would be very difficult. If there is evidence of such intent then no one could reasonably stand in the way of a prosecution for war crimes. It seems beyond reasonable dount that Hamas committed a war crime every time it fired an unguided Kassam rocket as it actually intended to strike civilians.

I also think that the political state of mind of a person is crucial when putting Israel on trial. One who believes Israel should not exist per se is less inclined to acquit Israel. One in favour of two states might be more inclined to acquit Israel.

I am not sure there is any proof that Israel actually intended regime change in Gaza, although you could well be right. I don't think anyone could seriously expect Hamas to be toppled in a war with Israel. Who would topple them? I am not sure Fatah would have been up for another bloody civil war.

Best wishes,
Richard

[Scott Lucas]

Richard,

I appreciate your honesty, in contrast to others who have commented, about the likelihood of civilian deaths.

I personally believe, though we will never know, that --- with a few exceptions that have been documented --- the IDF did not act with the specific intention of civilian deaths. However, it is inevitable, as mortars and bombs go astray, bystanders are caught up in firing, and buildings are levelled, that innocents will die. That recognition lies behind the definition of proportionality set out in international law since 1945. So, with respect, I think it is a (misleading) evasion to cite the firing of Kassam rockets, which were far less likely to kill civilians than Israeli military operations, as the only "war crime".

Evidence emerged during the war that the Israeli Government was considering Gaza regime change in June 2008, even as the temporary cease-fire was being arranged. I see nothing in the conduct of the war, with its attempt to break up Gaza's infrastructure --- first strikes on the police and security services --- and the later "decapitation" bombings and missile strikes, to correct that assessment. I also note that, as the war developed, the major division within the Israeli Cabinet was between Ministers who thought one more push would take out Hamas and those who saw this as a receding possibility.

S.