This week’s tragic deaths in the Lebanese town of Qana are the result of a tactic being employed by Hezbollah against Israel — with considerable success, it must be acknowledged. It is the wave of the future for well-armed terrorist armies, especially those acting as surrogates for rogue nations, as Hezbollah is for Iran and Syria.

These terrorists live among civilians, hide their missiles in the homes of civilians, fire them at civilian targets from densely populated areas, and then use civilians as human shields against counterattacks by those against whoThis week’s tragic deaths in the Lebanese town of Qana are the result of a tactic being employed by Hezbollah against Israel — with considerable success, it must be acknowledged. It is the wave of the future for well-armed terrorist armies, especially those acting as surrogates for rogue nations, as Hezbollah is for Iran and Syria.

These terrorists live among civilians, hide their missiles in the homes of civilians, fire them at civilian targets from densely populated areas, and then use civilians as human shields against counterattacks by those against whom their rockets are directed. There are only two options presented to the democracies that are victimized by these tactics: They can do nothing; or they can try to destroy the rocket launchers, with the inevitable toll of civilian casualties that any such counterattack will produce.

Both options produce victory for the terrorists and defeat for the targeted democracy. If the democracy does nothing, the terrorists can continue their rocket fire unabated. If the democracy fights back and causes civilian casualties, the terrorists win a propaganda victory. That is why these tactics will persist and grow. The Hezbollah rocket attacks against Israel are the first battle of what is likely to become a world war of terrorists versus democracies.

At the moment, international law seems to help the terrorists. According to former Canadian Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, “the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians” is a violation of international law. By this formulation, any democracy that counterattacks terrorists who fire rockets from civilian population centres is guilty of war crimes. This must be changed.

It must become a war crime to fire rockets from civilian population centres and then hide among civilians. The terrorists, not their victims, must be deemed the war criminals.

It should, of course, already be a war crime for terrorists to target civilians from anywhere — though you wouldn’t know it by listening to statements from some UN leaders and “human rights” groups. But it exacerbates the existing crime to target civilians while using human shields.

Nor would it be enough simply to declare Hezbollah’s cynical use of civilians as human shields to be a war crime. A multinational force must be empowered to enter the civilian areas from which the rockets have been, are being, or will be fired, and to remove them. This will not be easy, but if it were done it would change the nature of the conflict from one between Israel and Hezbollah to one between the international community and Hezbollah. If the international community believes that Israel is causing too many civilian casualties, let it try to disarm Hezbollah with fewer casualties and with more “proportionality.”

The legitimization of Hezbollah’s despicable tactics — tactics that maximize civilian deaths on both sides — transcends the Arab-Israeli dispute. It marks a new kind of warfare that must become a priority for the international community. To date, much of the criticism has been directed at Israel. At best, Israeli and Hezbollah tactics have been cast as morally equivalent — despite the indisputable reality that Israel seeks to minimize civilian casualties while Hezbollah seeks to maximize them.

Israel uses pinpoint intelligence and smart bombs in an effort, not always successful, to target the terrorists. Hezbollah, on the other hand, targets Israeli population centres with anti-personnel bombs that spray thousands of pellets of shrapnel in an effort to maximize casualties. There is no moral or legal equivalence between these intentions. But there is equivalence between the level of condemnation directed against them by some in the international community, human rights organizations and the media.

Hezbollah has learned how to use civilian casualties both as a shield and as a sword against democracies. They win every time they kill an Israeli civilian (as long as it is not an Israeli Arab, for which they shed crocodile tears and apologize). And they win every time they induce Israel to fire at them and kill Lebanese civilians.

Just as using human shields is a domestic crime in all civilized nations, so too must using human shields be a war crime under international law. Enforcing a prohibition against launching rockets from a civilian population centre would go a long way toward depriving Hezbollah of its most effective tactic.

National Post

z Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard. He is the author, most recently, of Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways. www.alandershowitz.com.m their rockets are directed. There are only two options presented to the democracies that are victimized by these tactics: They can do nothing; or they can try to destroy the rocket launchers, with the inevitable toll of civilian casualties that any such counterattack will produce.

Both options produce victory for the terrorists and defeat for the targeted democracy. If the democracy does nothing, the terrorists can continue their rocket fire unabated. If the democracy fights back and causes civilian casualties, the terrorists win a propaganda victory. That is why these tactics will persist and grow. The Hezbollah rocket attacks against Israel are the first battle of what is likely to become a world war of terrorists versus democracies.

At the moment, international law seems to help the terrorists. According to former Canadian Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, “the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians” is a violation of international law. By this formulation, any democracy that counterattacks terrorists who fire rockets from civilian population centres is guilty of war crimes. This must be changed.

It must become a war crime to fire rockets from civilian population centres and then hide among civilians. The terrorists, not their victims, must be deemed the war criminals.

It should, of course, already be a war crime for terrorists to target civilians from anywhere — though you wouldn’t know it by listening to statements from some UN leaders and “human rights” groups. But it exacerbates the existing crime to target civilians while using human shields.

Nor would it be enough simply to declare Hezbollah’s cynical use of civilians as human shields to be a war crime. A multinational force must be empowered to enter the civilian areas from which the rockets have been, are being, or will be fired, and to remove them. This will not be easy, but if it were done it would change the nature of the conflict from one between Israel and Hezbollah to one between the international community and Hezbollah. If the international community believes that Israel is causing too many civilian casualties, let it try to disarm Hezbollah with fewer casualties and with more “proportionality.”

The legitimization of Hezbollah’s despicable tactics — tactics that maximize civilian deaths on both sides — transcends the Arab-Israeli dispute. It marks a new kind of warfare that must become a priority for the international community. To date, much of the criticism has been directed at Israel. At best, Israeli and Hezbollah tactics have been cast as morally equivalent — despite the indisputable reality that Israel seeks to minimize civilian casualties while Hezbollah seeks to maximize them.

Israel uses pinpoint intelligence and smart bombs in an effort, not always successful, to target the terrorists. Hezbollah, on the other hand, targets Israeli population centres with anti-personnel bombs that spray thousands of pellets of shrapnel in an effort to maximize casualties. There is no moral or legal equivalence between these intentions. But there is equivalence between the level of condemnation directed against them by some in the international community, human rights organizations and the media.

Hezbollah has learned how to use civilian casualties both as a shield and as a sword against democracies. They win every time they kill an Israeli civilian (as long as it is not an Israeli Arab, for which they shed crocodile tears and apologize). And they win every time they induce Israel to fire at them and kill Lebanese civilians.

Just as using human shields is a domestic crime in all civilized nations, so too must using human shields be a war crime under international law. Enforcing a prohibition against launching rockets from a civilian population centre would go a long way toward depriving Hezbollah of its most effective tactic.

– Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard. He is the author, most recently, of Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways. www.alandershowitz.com.

© National Post 2006