As well as detailing the devastating effects and activities of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and their use of weapons in areas densely populated by civilians and the possibility of war crimes, as other reports have, Amnesty International also looks towards the responsibility of the international community in dealing arms to a frequent human rights violator. In its introduction Amnesty International call on the UN to impose an arms embargo on both parties to the conflict, i.e. Israel and Hamas.
After the report briefly outlines the case for disproportionate and wilful killing of civilians by the IDF, both of which are war crimes, it continues by looking - at evidence found during the investigation that the organisation believes indicates the misuse of weapons supplied by the international community. For each type of weapon, ranging from air delivered munitions and anti-tank mines to white phosphorous, flechettes and dense inert metal explosives, the report begins by outlining briefly a case the Amnesty International came across during their investigation.
This typically includes the number of members of a particular family killed by such a weapon, and in which ruthless manner this may have happened. During the outline, then, the report details the markings on the fragmented weapons found. These markings were often serial numbers indicating that the weapon came from the US.
Before it lists in detail the numbers of export of US and EU conventional military equipment to Israel from 2004 onwards the report makes a note on -international obligations regarding conventional arms transfers. Beginning with the US the report states that Israel receives large amounts of funding from America despite restrictive US legislation:
‘Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act... “no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights”...’
‘Section 4 of the Arms Export Control Act authorizes the supply of US military equipment and training only for the lawful purposes of internal security, “legitimate self-defense”, or participation in United Nations peacekeeping operations or other operations consistent with the U.N. Charter.’
‘The Leahy Law... prohibits the USA from providing most forms of security assistance to any military or police unit when there is “credible evidence” that members of the unit are committing gross human rights violations.’
The report continues by stating that, far less than the US, European states’ exports are also significant, while also contradictory to EU law:
‘Under Criterion 2 of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, Member States are supposed to “deny an export licence if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression” or “be used in the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law”.
‘International obligations regarding conventional arms transfers:
Article 16 [of the International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts] states: “A State which aids or assists another State in the commission of an internationally wrongful cat by the latter is internationally responsible for doing so if: (a) the State does so with knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act; and (b) the act would be internationally wrongful if committed by the State.”
General international law prohibits conduct that involves patterns of blatant abuse and complicity in such a pattern of blatant abuse.’
Amnesty International then concludes the report with a number of recommendations including a UN Security Council arms embargo on Israel and other armed groups, the unilateral suspension of all arms transfers, the immediate establishment of an independent and impartial investigation into claims of international human rights and international humanitarian law violations in order to hold those responsible accountable, and for the support of the ‘Golden Rule on Human Rights’: ‘that all States will prevent the transfer of arms, including military weapons, ammunition and equipment, where these is a substantial risk that the arms are likely to be used for serious violations of international human rights law or international humanitarian law.’
TrackBack URI for this entry
