Possible War Crime: Killing of Tens of Lebanese Civilians in the village of Qana, 30 July 2006

On Sunday, 30 July 2006, the Israeli air force bombed a residential building in the village of Qana, in southern Lebanon , thereby causing the death of tens of Lebanese civilians who were in the building at the time. According to the IDF, multiple rocket attacks had been launched into Israel from this 'area'. However, information which has since been made public reveals that on the day of the attack no rockets were launched from the village of Qana. It thus appears that the attack constituted a violation of international humanitarian law, and there is reason to suspect that war crimes have been committed by those responsible for the attack. B'Tselem has contacted the Israeli Judge Advocate General demanding that he order a military police investigation into the matter.

Background

On the day of the attack the IDF announced that "The attack was carried out as a result of the continuous rocket-fire in recent days at Israeli towns and villages from the area that was attacked". The IDF Spokesperson emphasized that "All the villages in the area, among them the village of Qana, were warned in advance so they would not remain in areas from which the rockets are fired."

Two days later, a report was published in the Ha'aretz newspaper concerning new data that had subsequently been revealed and which raised doubts about the IDF's earlier announcement. The report stated that "…It emerges that no Katyusha-rocket launchings had been previously detected from the yard of the house that was bombed and that there was no information about the presence of Hezbollah members at the site. The house was chosen as a target because Katyusha attacks had previously been launched from an area not far from it, and the air force decided to attack a few houses within a certain radius from the site of the previous launch, as was done at other launching sites. On the day of the attack, no rocket launches from the village of Qana had been detected."

If the new information is accurate, the bombing of the residential building in the village of Qana was a flagrant breach of fundamental principles of international humanitarian law and raises the suspicion that war crimes were committed in carrying out the attack."

The fundamental principle of international humanitarian law is the principle of distinction which requires that the sides involved in the hostilities distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military targets. The parties are allowed to attack only combatants and military targets. Legitimate military targets are limited to those objects which, by their nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose destruction offers a definite military advantage in the circumstances ruling at the time. Humanitarian law expressly states that, in the case of doubt whether an object which normally serves civilian purposes, such as a residential dwelling, is used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed that it is not used for a military purpose, and thus must not be attacked.

The building in the village of Qana was normally used for civilian purposes, and the new data indicates there was no information to suggest that it was also used for military purposes. If Katyushas had never been fired from the area of the building, and on the day of the attack no Katyusha launchers were identified in the village and the IDF had no information that Hezbollah members were present at the site, then there was no indication that the building made an effective contribution to military action of the enemy nor was there any indication that destroying the building would give the IDF any military advantage under the circumstances at the time, and certainly not a definite advantage. Therefore, if the reported information is correct, the building was not a legitimate military target and it was forbidden to attack it.

As part of the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks, international humanitarian law expressly prohibits attacks on civilian areas that do not distinguish between military objects and nearby civilian objects. Therefore, even if Katyushas had previously been fired from an area not far from the building, the decision to attack civilian objects within a certain radius from the site of the launching was an absolute breach of humanitarian law.

Furthermore: even if the information reported is wrong, and the building was a legitimate military target (for example, because, at the time of the bombing, weapons or Hezbollah combatants were located in the building), it is very doubtful that the attack met the demands of humanitarian law.

In addition to the principle of distinction, humanitarian law requires the sides to the hostilities to act in accordance with the principle of proportionality, and to take all feasible precautions to prevent injury to civilians and civilian objects.

Thus, even if the residential building was a legitimate object of attack, the persons responsible for planning and carrying out the attack were obligated to do whatever they could to ensure that the attack would not cause injury to civilians, and they should have canceled or delayed the attack if they had reason to believe that it would cause collateral damage to civilians and civilian objects that were excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack.

The argument that the IDF is exempt from liability for the results of the attack because it warned the residents prior to the attack is outrageous. Prior to the attack, the Israeli and foreign media reported that many residents of southern Lebanon were unable to respond to the IDF's calls to leave the area, in part, because IDF bombings had destroyed the roads and bridges in southern Lebanon and damaged the roads taken by refugees on their way north. In these circumstances, the prior warning was ineffective and the planners of the attack had to expect that civilians were liable to be in the residential building at the time of the bombing. Turning a blind eye to this likelihood is inconsistent with the duty to take precautions.

Furthermore, turning a blind eye in such manner is also inconsistent with the principle of proportionality, which requires the persons responsible for the attack to consider the anticipated injury to civilians and whether it would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.

If the attack on the residential building in the village of Qana was carried out in breach of the principles of distinctionand proportionality, there is strong reason to believe that the attack was a war crime, and that all the persons who were involved in the attack bear personal criminal responsibility for the part they played.

The State of Israel must respect the principles of international humanitarian and criminal law, investigate the suspicions that these principles have been breached in this case, and if the suspicions are substantiated, prosecute those responsible. The state must draw lessons from the bombing in the village of Qana to ensure that similar incidents do not recur. If the state fails in fulfilling these obligations, in this case or in similar cases in the future, the possibility exists that other countries or international bodies will exercise jurisdiction and do so in its place.