PAUL C. CAMPOS: Civilians in southern Lebanon not enemy combatants

[bemildred]

(SH) - In the midst of Israel's ongoing bombardment of Lebanon, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has claimed that not all "innocent victims" of war are truly innocent. For example, he points out that the Israeli army has dropped leaflets in the south of the country, advising the populace to flee, and argues that civilians "who voluntarily remain behind have become complicit (with Hezbollah). Some - those who cannot leave on their own - should be counted among the innocent victims."

---

Note Dershowitz's argument closely resembles that made by controversial University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill in his repugnant "little Eichmanns" essay, for which Churchill was properly excoriated by people all across the political spectrum. The office workers in the WTC were not truly innocent victims, Churchill claimed, because they had chosen to be part of the system with which al Qaeda was at war. Churchill also endorses something like Dershowitz's sliding scale of culpability, arguing that his claims don't really apply to the janitors in the building.

---

For another, throughout history, from the Roman legions who sacked Carthage, to Sherman's march to the sea, to the firebombing of cities in World War II, armies have often not even pretended to draw distinctions between enemy soldiers and the civilians in their midst. (Such inconvenient facts are probably behind Dershowitz's desire to legally transform as many Lebanese civilians into combatants as possible.)

War is always savage, disgusting and evil. It is better to admit that, if for no other reason than to avoid telling ourselves comforting lies. A better reason is to remind ourselves of how rare those occasions are when it truly is the lesser evil.

Anchorage Daily News

[warrens]

1. They are if Little Lord Pissypants says they are

And so far, that's exactly what he is saying.

And Dershowitz, who at times can be brilliant, has really been going off the trolley tracks over the past few years. That is one of his wackiest statements yet, but it has a lot of company.

[hughee99]

2. I must have missed the part when

the people in the WTC were given notice and informed that if they didn't leave, they would be considered "complicit".

I'm don't agree with either Dershowitz or Churchill's argument, but IMHO Dershowitz argument that "those who can flee, but choose not to" is quite a bit different from Churchill's argument that a person's presence in the WTC buildings (without being warned) is enough to make "part of the system" and therefore a valid target.

[bemildred]

4. There are differences,

Which is why he says they are "similar". Dershowitz' assertion that civilians incur culpability in harm done to them because the perpetrator asserts he tried to warn them is equally as specious and vacuuous as Churchill's assertion that denizens of the WTC incur culpability for what happened to them simply by being there, "they should have known" so to speak. I think that is the point being made in the OP.

[hughee99]

5. While I do see the similarities...

and I don't agree with either argument, but I have a hard time seeing them as equal. I guess the difference I see in the "they should have known" argument is that Israel gave a rather specific location and timetable as to what they were going to do. People would know what's going to happen and what specific action they as individuals they can take to protect themselves. Al-Queda gave a much more general threat, the people in the WTC didn't have any idea when or where the attack was going to occur, nor did they have any idea what they, as individuals, could do to avoid it. Israel killed innocent civilians who didn't take specific, understandable actions to protect themselves (move to another location). Al-Queda killed innocent civilians because they weren't able to change US government policy. That's just how I see it though.

[bemildred]

6. Certainly not equal, I don't think he was asserting they were equal.

Similar is what he said. Specific warnings are of no use to children, illiterates, those that inadvertently miss them , speak another language etc. The assertion that one tried to warn them is an attempt to displace blame for what is in fact ones own doing. There is not in fact anything imperative about the bombing being done. It will accomplish nothing. Al Qaeda at least had the moral cojones to take full responsibility for the evil it did. Dershowitz wants to do the evil while dodging the blame.

Edit: No, I'm not saying that it's not a good thing to try to warn people if you are going to bomb the shit out of them; I'm saying that it doesn't get you any sort of free pass for doing the bombing and the resultant dead people.

[hughee99]

7. A agree with that...

and while I agree that warning someone before you hurt them certainly doesn't transfer the blame to them, I do see a difference between the warnings of the two as far as giving them a chance to survive. As far as children, illiterates and those who miss the warnings goes, it looks like in Dershowitz's original point, he was arguing that those that knew of the warning and had the ability to leave and chose not to are "complicit" while he was still willing to consider those who weren't able to leave as innocent civilians. To take this to Churchill's argument, I don't remember him conceding that those who didn't have the ability to change US government policy (which probably accounts for almost everyone in the WTC) are innocents, though I could have missed it since I didn't read all of his work.

[bemildred]

8. Dershowitz has no idea why they might choose to not leave.

He pulls "complicit" out of his ass. Nobody appointed Dershowitz to decide who is and is not innocent, any more than Churchill. One is never complicit for being bombed by some enraged loon over something you had nothing to do with. Neither Israel nor anybody else has a right to tell those people "leave or we will kill you."

The "warning" has far less to do with any concerns about innocent bombees that with a desire to shift blame. A genuine concern about innocent bombees would lead one not to bomb where there are innocents.

[hughee99]

10. You are correct...

Their arguments are inarguable the same in that they are both equally wrong. While I do see some differences in the arguments themselves, the bigger point is that innocents are being killed and neither argument comes anywhere near a justification for this.

[rusty_parts2001]

3. When it comes to Israel....

Dershowitz has immersed himself in the Kool-Aid

[Lindacooks]

9. Um, then when the Lebanese were trying to flee, they were killed

by Israeli bombs.

Destroys Dershowitz's argument.

[Kagemusha]

11. Israel apparently pampleted that people should not flee in trucks or vans

So hence it's the civvies' fault, supposedly.

Whatever.

[Democrats_win]

12. Here's the truly nutty part of Dershowitz's argument:

--Dershowitz proposes that international law experts and the media (!) devise a nuanced scale for judging the combat status of people who "choose" not to flee their homes when a foreign power announces it is going to destroy them. (Where hundreds of thousands of now-homeless and impoverished peasants are supposed to go, and how they're supposed to get there, isn't something Dershowitz explains.)

Campos response to this:

I suppose we could give it a try: "You, sir, are an able-bodied young man. Your grandmother, by contrast, is an arthritic elderly woman, somewhat deaf in one ear. Therefore, while you are equivalent to 93 percent of a Hezbollah foot soldier, transforming her into a mangled corpse will add only one sixth of an enemy combatant to our kill ratio. A simple calculation reveals that together you constitute slightly more than one legitimate target and slightly less than one innocent civilian. Have a nice day."

Still, as Voltaire remarked, witticisms do not go well with massacres. Let us give serious attention to the professor's proposal.
----

This is a total slam that I hope DUers appreciate. The arguments for or against what is going on should be reconsidered in light of Campos' last line:

War is always savage, disgusting and evil. It is better to admit that, if for no other reason than to avoid telling ourselves comforting lies. A better reason is to remind ourselves of how rare those occasions are when it truly is the lesser evil.

This is a great article, thanks for posting it!!!

[bemildred]

13. I thought it was very good. Campos is a smart fellow. nt