US attacks Israel's cluster bomb use

It says something when Israel's use of cluster bombs comes under scrutiny and complaint from the US State Department.

However, in the final days of the war Olmert appeared out of control. As I said at the time:

The behaviour of Ehud Olmert in the last three days of the conflict with Hizbullah struck most of us as bizarre. The US had finally engaged and a resolution was set to follow and yet Olmert, for reasons best known to himself, decided that this was the time to launch a ground offensive.

He claimed recently that he did so to ensure that the UN adopted the resolution, a ridiculous claim that suggests Israel was keen for a ceasefire whilst the UN dragged it's feet, which is about as far from reality as you can get.

However, his behaviour in that last 72 hours has come under even greater scrutiny with a stinging rebuke from the UN concerning Israel's use of cluster bombs in civilian areas, with most of them having been dropped in the last three days as the resolution was being finalised.

"What's shocking - and I would say to me completely immoral - is that 90% of the cluster bomb strikes occurred in the last 72 hours of the conflict, when we knew there would be a resolution," Mr Egeland said. "Every day people are maimed, wounded and are killed by these ordnance."

It is impossible to argue that Olmert did not mean to bring about civilian casualties using the weapons he was using in civilian areas. Indeed, as I reported at the time, he stated:

"Each expansion of Hizbollah terrorist operations will lead to a harsh and powerful response and its painful response will not be confined to Hassan's gang of criminals".

There is no way to interpret that statement as anything other than a threat to inflict "a painful response" upon the civilian population of Lebanon.

Now the US State Department are reportedly about to issue condemnation of Israel's use of cluster bombs in the final days of the conflict, a use that Chris Clarke, the United Nations official in charge of bomb disposal in southern Lebanon, said was, "The worst post-conflict cluster bomb contamination I have ever seen," he said.

The State Department will reportedly say that Israel breached agreements with the US over its use of the weapons, which can kill or injure a disproportionate number of children when they fail to explode and then are picked up or trod on.

I welcome the fact that the US are willing to publicly rebuke Israel for behaviour that was, frankly, disgraceful. But what punishment will Olmert suffer for his actions which have resulted in death and disfigurement? He has not even had to resign his post, despite the fact he remains immensely unpopular in Israel; although his unpopularity is based more on the fact that he lost the war than it is based on revulsion at his tactics.

Again, as I said at the time:

Olmert was always out of his depth in this conflict but it's beginning to look like he's strayed into criminality. But, of course, because he's not East European or an Arab, there is no chance that he will ever face prosecution for his crimes.

It's all very well to rebuke him, but a rebuke that carries no punishment is essentially meaningless. Olmert dropped these bombs, as the US now concur, into civilian areas. He did so - and we know this from his own words - to produce a "painful response [that] will not be confined to Hassan's gang of criminals".

He did this deliberately, knowing that he would injure civilians who were not part of "Hassan's gang of criminals".

So it's right that the US have rebuked him. However, I can't help thinking that, if he was the leader of any other nation who had lost a war and had committed such crimes, his punishment would have been far more severe than a rebuke.

Click title for full article.

tag: Israel, Lebanon, cluster bombs,