Terrorism is politically-based violence directed against civilians. That's vile and unjustifiable enough. But increasingly terrorists are not just targeting "enemy" civilians. They are deliberately endangering their own civilians, in violation of the laws of war.
This point is forcefully made in the excellent article, "Taking Distinction to the Next Level: Accountability for Fighters' Failure to Distinguish Themselves from Civilians," by Laurie Blank, Director of the International Humanitarian Law Clinic of Emory University Law School. While not focusing on the Palestinians per se, the article is a devastating critique of the way their war against Israel is waged as a war against their own people at the same time.
As Blank explains, the principle of distinction--that in war combatants are legitimate targets at all times, while civilans are immune from attack unless they participate in hostilities--is central to the law of armed conflict. This rule is found in ancient Mesopotamia and Greece. In the Middle Ages Thomas Aquinas asserted that "it is in no way lawful to slay the innocent." In the modern era, distinction was considered part of customary international law until it was codified in Article 48 of the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions:
In order to ensure respect for the protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.
One side of this principle is that soldiers and their commanders have to do their best to figure out whether a potential target is military and therefore lawful to attack, or a non-combatant who must not be attacked. Obviously, the entire theory and practice of terrorism is to deliberately violate this principle. That's why it's morally indefensible.
Bu there is another side of distinction, creating another, distinct reason modern terrorists are ethically so repulsive. Terrorists purposely erode and conceal the distinction between themselves and innocent civilians on their own side. For example, they wear civilian clothes and blend in among non-combatants. They use women and children as suicide bombers because they are less likely to be identified as combatants. They engage in hostilities from within civilian population centers. They store weapons and munititions, which are lawful military targets, in mosques, schools, hospitals and residential structures.
These techniques of such terrorists (e.g., the Taliban, Hezbolla or Hamas) all have the aim and effect of preventing the military (e.g., US or Israeli forces) from distinguishing between combatant targets and civilian protected persons. Thus, they are violations of the laws of armed conflict, and must be recognized and punished as such. As Blank says:
There is little doubt that training troops--whether fighter pilots, infantrymen or artillery units--in how to carry out the legal obligation to distinguish between legitimate targets and innocent civilians protected from attack is central to the lawful conduct of hostilities. Accountability for violations of these obligations is equally important and has been a key focus of the international and hybrid tribunals over the past decade and more. But these efforts only tell part of the story and tackle part of the problem. Fighters who launch attacks in civilian clothing, from protected civilian sites and use civilians as shields are violating [the law of armed conflict] and must be held accountable for their conduct. Until then, distinction will only be enforced halfway.
Terrorists deliberately expose their own people to the risk of military attack, because they view it as a win-win situation. If using civilians as human shields deters and prevents an attack, the terrorist lives to fight another day. On the other hand, if there is an attack resulting in civilian casualties, the terrorist has acquired a valuable propaganda opportunity.
Hamas used this technique during Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli military response to years of rockets and mortars raining from Gaza into Israel. The Goldstone Report on the conflict was harshly critical of Israel. But it did not mention the perfidy of Palestinian armed groups in firing at Israel while dressed as civilians. Blank wrying notes:
The failure to address the practice of militants attacking while disguised as civilians esentially encourages militants to embed themselves within the civilian population. . . . The true victims of this failure of enforcement and accountability are the innocent civilians; first, they are trapped--literally and figuratively--in the conflict zone by fighters using them as cover for their perfidious tactics; and second, they become the unintentional and tragic targets of soldiers who mistake them for legitimate targets when unable to distinguish between fighters and civilians.
Much of this is, once you think about it, pretty obvious: The defending party has the same obligation to distinguish itself from innocent civilians as the attacking side does. But we are likely not to have thought about it, because it is so rarely explicitly discussed. Professor Blank has provided an important service by clearly explaining and bringing the issue to our attention, placing it in its legal framework, and demanding that we denounce the violators and bring them to justice for war crimes.
Comments