Counting Casualties

I think it's fair to say that a good deal of the world's outrage over Israel's military operations in Lebanon relates to the number of civilian casualties.

Many anti-Israel protesters talk of war crimes, specifically citing the casualty counts in Lebanon.

What really are the numbers?

It's difficult to say. The difficulty in determining the civilian casualties stems from the fact that it's difficult to determine civilians from non-civilians in a war against terrorists.

As a result, the Lebanese casualty numbers are conveniently inflated by the anti-Israeli, anti-American, anti-Bush administration contingent -- media, world leaders, elected officials, and assorted terrorist sympathizers.

Although the higher numbers are useful in promoting the anti-Israeli agenda, they are deceptive and fail to give an accurate picture of what's happening between the Israelis and Hezbollah and the Lebanese.

Defining and identifying the fighting forces in Lebanon is a difficult task.


From Arutz Sheva:

Arab countries and foreign media have emphasized the number of civilians who have died in Israeli Air Force attacks on Hizbullah centers in Lebanon, and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert complained to foreign reporters on Sunday that they are not reporting the true picture.

A BBC recording was played on Israel Radio in which a reporter he admitted that he saw terrorists using private homes to direct terrorist activities, yet added," It is difficult to quantify who is a terrorist and who is a civilian."

Yes, that is difficult.

So why keep pushing the numbers of the civilian deaths when it's an unknown figure?

It certainly doesn't help to quell the crisis by putting out false information on the number of innocents killed.
Alan Dershowitz raises some interesting questions about "civilian casualties."

He writes:

THE NEWS IS filled these days with reports of civilian casualties, comparative civilian body counts and criticism of Israel, along with Hezbollah, for causing the deaths, injuries and "collective punishment" of civilians. But just who is a "civilian" in the age of terrorism, when militants don't wear uniforms, don't belong to regular armies and easily blend into civilian populations?

We need a new vocabulary to reflect the realities of modern warfare. A new phrase should be introduced into the reporting and analysis of current events in the Middle East: "the continuum of civilianality." Though cumbersome, this concept aptly captures the reality and nuance of warfare today and provides a more fair way to describe those who are killed, wounded and punished.

There is a vast difference — both moral and legal — between a 2-year-old who is killed by an enemy rocket and a 30-year-old civilian who has allowed his house to be used to store Katyusha rockets. Both are technically civilians, but the former is far more innocent than the latter. There is also a difference between a civilian who merely favors or even votes for a terrorist group and one who provides financial or other material support for terrorism.

Finally, there is a difference between civilians who are held hostage against their will by terrorists who use them as involuntary human shields, and civilians who voluntarily place themselves in harm's way in order to protect terrorists from enemy fire.

These differences and others are conflated within the increasingly meaningless word "civilian" — a word that carried great significance when uniformed armies fought other uniformed armies on battlefields far from civilian population centers. Today this same word equates the truly innocent with guilty accessories to terrorism.

...But the recognition that "civilianality" is often a matter of degree, rather than a bright line, should still inform the assessment of casualty figures in wars involving terrorists, paramilitary groups and others who fight without uniforms — or help those who fight without uniforms.

Turning specifically to the current fighting between Israel and Hezbollah and Hamas, the line between Israeli soldiers and civilians is relatively clear. Hezbollah missiles and Hamas rockets target and hit Israeli restaurants, apartment buildings and schools. They are loaded with anti-personnel ball-bearings designed specifically to maximize civilian casualties.

Hezbollah and Hamas militants, on the other hand, are difficult to distinguish from those "civilians" who recruit, finance, harbor and facilitate their terrorism. Nor can women and children always be counted as civilians, as some organizations do. Terrorists increasingly use women and teenagers to play important roles in their attacks.

The Israeli army has given well-publicized notice to civilians to leave those areas of southern Lebanon that have been turned into war zones. Those who voluntarily remain behind have become complicit. Some — those who cannot leave on their own — should be counted among the innocent victims.

If the media were to adopt this "continuum," it would be informative to learn how many of the "civilian casualties" fall closer to the line of complicity and how many fall closer to the line of innocence.

Every civilian death is a tragedy, but some are more tragic than others.

Dershowitz is right.

When the enemy doesn't wear uniforms, when citizens allow their homes to be used as Hezbollah bases, the lines between civilians and terrorists get blurred.

We need to look at this conflict differently. We need new definitions for what constitutes "troops," because in this war on terror the traditional definitions are inadequate.

It's important to keep in mind that some of the "civilians" being killed and wounded are actually serving in the army of terrorists.

In effect, not every "civilian" casualty is an innocent.

It's a disservice to the public for media outlets, as well as politicians, to be citing casualty numbers as if they are hard and fast. It's dishonest.

The civilian casualty count is no longer as easily demarcated as it once was. It's not black and white anymore.