House demolition

Last updated
Demolition of a house in Iraq containing a weapons cache Op matador explosion.jpg
Demolition of a house in Iraq containing a weapons cache

House demolition is primarily a military tactic which has been used in many conflicts for a variety of purposes. It has been employed as a scorched earth tactic to deprive the advancing enemy of food and shelter, or to wreck the enemy's economy and infrastructure. It has also been used for purposes of counter-insurgency and ethnic cleansing. Systematic house demolition has been a notable factor in a number of recent or ongoing conflicts including the Darfur conflict in Sudan, the Iraq War, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the Vietnam War, and the Yugoslav wars.

Contents

The tactic has often been extremely controversial. Its use in warfare is governed by the Fourth Geneva Convention and other instruments of international law, and international war crimes courts have prosecuted the misuse of house demolition on a number of occasions as a violation of the laws of war. Historically, it has also been widely used by a variety of states and peoples as a civil punishment for criminal offences ranging from treason to drunkenness.

Uses

Military uses

97% of Wesel was destroyed before it was finally taken by Allied troops. Wesel 1945.jpg
97% of Wesel was destroyed before it was finally taken by Allied troops.
Bombed buildings in London. LondonBombedWWII full.jpg
Bombed buildings in London.

A distinction needs to be made between the destruction of houses as an incidental effect of military necessity, the wanton destruction of houses during a military advance, and the deliberate targeting of houses during a military occupation. In the former case, it is commonplace for civilian homes to be used by armed forces as places of shelter or as firing positions. As a result, civilian dwellings become a legitimate military target and property damage is often inevitable as forces seek to expel their opponents from buildings. This can result in the destruction of houses on a massive scale as a side-effect of urban warfare. Following World War II, for instance, the United States occupation authorities in Germany found that 81 percent of all houses in the American Zone had been destroyed or damaged in the fighting. [2]

The question of under what circumstances the destruction of civilian dwellings becomes a legitimate military tactic remains controversial, and recent international conventions have agreed that civilian houses, dwellings, and installations shall not be made the object of attack, except if they are used mainly in support of the military effort. [3]

However, there are also many non-combat situations in which house demolition has been used. It has served a variety of purposes, depending on the nature and context of the conflict.

Scorched earth

The ruins of Selinus, razed by Carthage around 250 BC Selinunte ruins.jpg
The ruins of Selinus, razed by Carthage around 250 BC

As a strictly military tactic, house demolition is useful as a defensive means of denying supplies and shelter to an enemy or, when used as an offensive measure, to break an enemy's power by destroying his economy and dispersing his population. It has been used both defensively and offensively in numerous conflicts throughout history. In classical antiquity, there were frequent examples of cities being razed in order to destroy individual city-states. Notably, Xerxes I of Persia razed Athens in 480 BC during the Greco-Persian Wars; Carthage razed Selinus in modern Sicily around 250 BC; and in turn, Carthage was itself utterly destroyed by Rome in 146 BC, ending the Punic Wars. In many instances (Selinus and Carthage being cases in point) the city's inhabitants were enslaved and not permitted to return to their destroyed homes.

In more recent times, the burning of homes was used to devastating effect in the War of the Grand Alliance in the 17th century, during which Louis XIV of France ordered the systematic destruction of the German cities of Bingen, Heidelberg, Mannheim, Oppenheim, Spier and Worms (while sparing the cathedrals). Germany had suffered even more extensively in the earlier Thirty Years' War, in which as much as two-thirds of German real estate is estimated to have been destroyed and reconstruction took as long as fifty years. [4] During the American Civil War, the burning of Atlanta, Georgia and Sherman's March to the Sea in 1864 provided large-scale examples of the use of house demolition as a means of wrecking the enemy's economy.

In World War II, civilian homes were deliberately destroyed on a massive scale, particularly on the Eastern Front following the orders of Soviet premier Joseph Stalin to raze houses, farms and fields to deny their use to the advancing forces of Nazi Germany. Belarus was one of the worst affected regions, suffering the systematic destruction of about 75% of urban housing and many villages. [5] Both sides also engaged in the deliberate large-scale targeting of civilian homes in their respective strategic bombing campaigns. The Germans repeatedly carried out indiscriminate bombing attacks against civilian areas, such as the bombing of Belgrade in 1941 and the Baedeker Blitz against England in 1942, and the Allies sought to demoralize the German workforce through the destruction of their homes—a policy known euphemistically as dehousing. Around 25% of Germany's housing stock was destroyed or heavily damaged in the subsequent Allied bombing campaigns, with some cities suffering the loss of up to 97% of civilian homes. [6]

Ethnic cleansing

A destroyed house in Croatia marked with Serbian nationalist symbols and graffiti Graffiti on destroyed house in Brod, RS.jpg
A destroyed house in Croatia marked with Serbian nationalist symbols and graffiti

In the former Yugoslavia, the tactic of home demolition was used by all sides in the conflict as a means of ethnic cleansing to change the ethnic composition of particular areas. It had particularly devastating effects in the rural areas of Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo where the tactic was most prevalent, because the building of new homes was a life project for which families worked for many years. A house often symbolized the social worth of a family, demonstrating its hard work, commitment to future well-being and standing in the community. The systematic burning of homes was therefore deliberately intended to impoverish the home owners, reduce their social status and permanently prevent them from returning to their places of origins. [7] By the end of the Bosnian War in 1995, over 60% of the country's housing stock had been destroyed. [8]

Similar tactics have been used in a variety of other ethnic conflicts. During the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, there were a number of major incidents of the deliberate destruction of Arab villages by Israeli forces. The Israeli historian Benny Morris writes that in the later stages of the 1948 war, "[Israeli] commanders were clearly bent on driving out the population in the area they were conquering". [9]

The inhabitants of Iraqi Kurdistan experienced one of the more extreme recent examples of the mass use of home demolitions to expedite ethnic cleansing during the Al-Anfal Campaign of 1986–1989. The campaign was mounted ostensibly to eliminate the peshmerga rebels of northern Iraq but quickly acquired a genocidal character. The Kurdish opposition estimated that of the approximately 5,000 villages existing in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1975, 3,479 had been deliberately destroyed by 1988. Upwards of 100,000 Kurds were killed and tens of thousands more fled Iraq to escape the campaign. Saddam Hussein's government adopted a policy of "Arabization" in which it systematically replaced the displaced Kurds with Iraqi Arabs in strategic areas such as Kirkuk. [10]

In the conflicts in Abkhazia, North Ossetia and South Ossetia during the early 1990s, scores of villages were destroyed in a systematic effort to expel the native Georgian and Ingush populations from those regions. [11] In Darfur, the Janjaweed militia has made house demolition a central part of its strategy to expel the population of the region, causing 2.5 million people to be displaced as of October 2006. [12]

Counter-insurgency and collective punishment

Boers watching their home being burnt by British forces during the Second Boer War VerskroeideAarde1.jpg
Boers watching their home being burnt by British forces during the Second Boer War

Governments facing insurgencies have often used home demolition as a counterinsurgency technique, as a means of eroding popular support for guerrillas and denying insurgents the use of villages as "safe havens". Mao Zedong, leader of the insurgent Chinese Communist Party during the Chinese Civil War, famously observed that "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." [13] Mao advocated the forced migration of large populations of civilians by means of house demolition to "drain the sea" and deprive insurgents of cover. [14]

This principle was, however, widely recognized well before it was encapsulated in Mao's famous dictum. William the Conqueror engaged in the harrying of the North from 1069 to 1070, during which Norman troops under his command systematically laid waste to rebellious areas in Northern England, can be considered an early example of the use of house demolitions to deprive enemy forces of civilian support. Similarly, during the Second Boer War, British forces under Lord Kitchener systematically destroyed Boer-owned farmsteads in order to prevent them from supplying food and equipment to Boer guerrillas still active in the field. [15] Comparable tactics were used by the United States military during the Philippine–American War and again during the Vietnam War, when numerous villages were burned by U.S. troops and local allies. General Colin Powell later recalled how he had personally participated in the destruction of Montagnard homes when he was serving in Vietnam as a U.S. Army officer:

We burned down the thatched huts, starting the blaze with Ronson and Zippo lighters. Why were we torching houses and destroying crops? Ho Chi Minh had said the people were like the sea in which his guerrillas swam.... We tried to solve the problem by making the whole sea uninhabitable. In the hard logic of war, what difference did it make if you shot your enemy or starved him to death?" [16]

Soviet forces used home destruction tactics indiscriminately during the Soviet–Afghan War when it sought to depopulate the countryside by attacking civilians in the villages in which they lived. Soviet troops would seize a settlement, expel the villagers and raze homes and other buildings before withdrawing. Sometimes the Soviets simply carpet-bombed villages to destroy them outright. [17]

Similar depopulation tactics were adopted by Turkey in the 1980s and 1990s to combat the rebellion of the Marxist Kurdistan Workers Party in the Kurdish-populated parts of southeastern Turkey, known unofficially as Turkish Kurdistan. [18] About 3,000 villages are estimated to have been destroyed during the Kurdish insurrection. [19] In a high-profile case brought before the European Court of Human Rights by a group of Kurdish villagers in 2002, the Turkish government was found guilty of violations of the right to private and family life and the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The court ordered the Turkish government to pay the applicants pecuniary damages for destruction of the houses and cost of alternative accommodations. It found that the several cases brought before it were but "a small sample of a much wider pattern" of house destruction employed by the Turkish government. [20]

Home demolition has also been used—sometimes in conjunction with mass killings—as a form of collective punishment to penalise civilians for guerrilla activities. From the late 19th to the mid-20th century, this was a frequently used and highly controversial tactic employed by the German armed forces to counter the activities of guerrillas behind their front lines. It was used in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71 during the German occupation of France, when the Germans were faced with attacks by francs-tireurs , who were regarded explicitly as unlawful combatants. Mayors of occupied villages were ordered to report francs-tireurs operating in their districts or have their houses burned down. When francs-tireurs did attack, homes and entire villages were destroyed by the Germans in retaliation. Following the war, the Germans officially endorsed the use of house demolition as one of a number of forms of collective punishment in the Kriegs-Etappen-Ordnung, the manual for the rear echelons, even though this violated international law at the time. [21]

The tactic was used to devastating effect by the Imperial German Army during the Herero and Namaqua Genocide in German South-West Africa, in which an estimated 75,000-100,000 Africans were killed. It was used again during World War I in a wave of systematic violence in occupied France and Belgium in August and September 1914, prompted in part by a fear of a civilian uprising and possible resistance by francs-tireurs. Some 6,000 people were killed and 15,000-20,000 buildings, including whole villages, were destroyed. [22] German forces made a much more systematic use of house demolition tactics during World War II, razing numerous villages in occupied countries in reprisal for the killing of German troops by partisans. On occasions, the Germans massacred the inhabitants, as happened at Oradour-sur-Glane in France and Lidice in Czechoslovakia. The German reprisal policy was deliberately exploited by Soviet partisans, who would place killed Germans near neutral villages in order to trigger a reaction. The Soviets hoped that the resultant retaliatory killings and house demolitions would goad the villagers into actively supporting the partisans. [23]

A Palestinian home after demolition by Israeli security forces DemolishedPalestinianHome.jpg
A Palestinian home after demolition by Israeli security forces

The use of punitive house demolitions has been highly controversial in the various conflicts of historical Palestine (now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip). The tactic had originally been used by the Royal Irish Constabulary during the Irish War for Independence, [24] [25] [26] [27] and used again by British forces in Mandatory Palestine during the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. It was used as a means to "convince fathers to convince their sons that carrying out a terrorist attack, no matter how justified in the grander struggle, meant enormous hardship for the family." [28] Its use was continued by the Israeli government on-again-off-again fashion during the Second Intifada of the early 21st century, during which more than 3,000 civilian homes have been demolished. [29] Notably, the family homes of a number of Palestinian bombers were targeted in retaliation for terrorist attacks against Israeli targets. However, the usefulness of such tactics has been questioned; in 2005 an Israeli Army commission to study house demolitions found no proof of effective deterrence and concluded that the damage caused by the demolitions outweighed their effectiveness. As a result, the Israel Defense Forces approved the commission's recommendations to end punitive demolitions of Palestinian houses. [30] (See House demolition in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict for more on this topic.)

Civil uses

House demolition has been practiced in many states throughout history as a form of punishment for a variety of legal offences. This should be distinguished from purely administrative demolitions, such as in the context of removing illegally constructed homes and other buildings.

During the medieval period, the inhabitants of Flanders and northern France, particularly Picardy, faced the destruction of their homes for a variety of offences. For instance, the demolition of one's house was prescribed for those convicted of harbouring an outlaw. [31] The practice also spread to the Cinque Ports of England, where a burgess who refused to perform his civic duties could find himself liable to have his house destroyed. [32] Elsewhere in Europe, violence against the person was often punished by retaliation against the offender's property. Those convicted of murder in 18th century Montenegro were subject to a rapidly escalating range of penalties; the first offence was merely punished with a fine, but a third offence was punished by the culprit being shot, his home demolished and all of his cattle and property confiscated. [33]

Home demolition was often employed by the state as a means of punishing crimes regarded as exceptionally dishonourable. In a number of medieval European countries, the relatives of those convicted of offences such as incest, sodomy, parricide or treason were sometimes collectively punished by having their homes demolished and their possessions confiscated. [34] Patricide was similarly treated as an offence of exceptional seriousness in Qing Dynasty China; the offender would be executed, his house razed and the earth beneath it dug up. [35] In 18th century Korea, anyone convicted of committing treason or other major offences against the king was punished with the utmost severity; he would be executed along with his entire family, their home would be destroyed and all the contents and possessions confiscated, and nobody else would be permitted to build on the site of the razed house. [36]

The use of house demolition was also prescribed in a number of states for offences against the social order. In the Pre-Columbian Aztec Empire, drunkenness was punished by publicly cutting off the offender's hair and demolishing his house. [37] The illegal sale of alcohol was punished in a similar way in early 20th century Yemen, where a person convicted of selling alcohol to a Muslim would be liable to be bound and tortured and have his home destroyed. [38] Religious offences were punished similarly by the Inquisition; the Treaty of Meaux of 1229, directed against the Albigensians of southern France, provided that "when it is proved before the bishops that any one has died a heretic, his goods shall be destroyed and his house razed." [39]

The Ordinamenti della Guistizia (Ordinances of Justice) of the medieval Italian city-state of Florence mandated a range of harsh penalties against nobles who killed or ordered the killing of citizens; the punishments included execution, the forfeiting of property and the razing of the offender's house. [40] The ordinances were passed against the background of political and social conflict between powerful aristocrats and the ordinary citizens or popolares, and may have been a conscious imitation of the punishments meted out to overmighty aristocrats in the Roman Republic 1,300 years previously, when those suspected of aiming at tyranny risked not only execution but the destruction of their homes as well. This act was seen as a symbolic destruction of the offender's family and social status. To the Romans, the home was more than just a possession; it was a sacred space protected by the Di Penates (household gods) and was a focus for personal honour. Cicero suffered the loss and destruction of his homes at the hands of Publius Clodius Pulcher in 58 BC, and later spoke in his speech De Domo Sua ("About His House") of the "dishonour" and "grief" that he experienced as a result. [41]

Means

IDF Caterpillar D9R armored bulldozer in service with the Israeli Defense Forces Combat Engineering Corps D9R-002.jpg
IDF Caterpillar D9R armored bulldozer in service with the Israeli Defense Forces Combat Engineering Corps

The demolition of a house for military purposes is often undertaken in very different ways to conventional civilian demolitions. In peacetime situations, demolition is merely the first stage in a process that is usually intended to clear the ground for subsequent re-use (for instance, replacing an old building with a newer one or decommissioning an old industrial building). It is undertaken with extensive preparations, such as stripping the property of items of value, removing hazardous materials such as glass and asbestos insulation, and preparing the structure by removing features that might impede the demolition (such as internal partitions).

Military house demolitions are undertaken with the demolition itself being the primary objective, the aim being to deliberately deny subsequent use of the property. The methods used are therefore focused on simplicity and speed. Unlike civilian demolition, military house demolition is also often intended to destroy property within a building, such as food or personal effects, either to deny its use to an enemy or to impoverish the civilian occupants. House demolitions thus often takes place without the occupant's possessions first being removed and with minimal preparations beforehand.

In many conflicts, demolition frequently is carried out by using fire—often set with the aid of accelerants—as a simple but very effective means of quickly rendering a property uninhabitable. Armored bulldozers or tanks may be used to knock out the walls of a building, causing it to collapse. Combat engineering forces may use explosives to demolish a building, or it may simply be destroyed through direct bombardment by aircraft or artillery. The end result is not always the total demolition of a building—the walls may remain standing in the event of a fire, for instance—but it does achieve the main objective of making the building unfit for habitation.

The Lieber Code, promulgated in 1863 by President Abraham Lincoln, was one of the first declarations specifically prohibiting the wanton destruction of a district in wartime.

Article 23(g) of the 1907 Hague Convention on Land Warfare similarly prohibited military forces "to destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war", and Article 28 of the same convention stated that "the pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited."

The massive destruction of civilian property inflicted during Second World War II prompted international jurists to address the issue again in 1945 when the Nuremberg Charter was enacted, establishing the procedures and laws by which the Nuremberg trials were to be conducted. Article 6(b) of the Charter thus condemned the "wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity" and classified it as a violation of the laws or customs of war. The same definition was replicated in the founding charters of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Court. [42]

The use of house demolition under international law is today governed by the Fourth Geneva Convention, enacted in 1949, which protects non-combatants in occupied territories. Article 53 provides that "Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons ... is prohibited." [43] In its accompanying commentaries, the International Committee of the Red Cross refers to demolition only being justified by "imperative military requirements", which the Convention itself distinguishes from security considerations. The ICRC has clarified that the term "military operations" refers only to "movements, maneuvers, and other action taken by the armed forces with a view to fighting" and does not cover action undertaken as a punishment. In a further reservation, the ICRC regards the tactic as legitimate only "where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations". The use of collective punishments is forbidden by the Hague Conventions, as well as by Article 50 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which expressly prohibits the imposition of punishments on a protected person for a offenses not personally committed. [44]

Israeli use of house demolitions has been particularly controversial. However, Israel, which is a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention, asserts that the terms of the Convention are not applicable to the Palestinian territories on the grounds that it does not exercise sovereignty in the territories and is thus under no obligation to apply the treaty in those areas. This position is rejected by human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, which notes that "it is a basic principle of human rights law that international human rights treaties are applicable in all areas in which states parties exercise effective control, regardless of whether or not they exercise sovereignty in that area." [45]

A number of war crimes prosecutions have included charges relating to the illegal destruction of property. A number of those prosecuted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia have been prosecuted for ordering "wanton destruction", and the International Criminal Court has also indicted at least one individual for similar offences in Darfur. [46]

International law nonetheless still permits a fairly wide degree of latitude for military commanders to destroy civilian property when required to do so by military necessity. In U.S. v. Von Leeb, one of the Nuremberg trials held in 1948, Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb and six other senior German generals were accused of the wanton devastation of Soviet villages during a German retreat on the Eastern Front. The acts of destruction were carried out in anticipation of the enemy advancing through the devastated zones in the imminent future and were conducted in mid-winter, when the lack of shelter could reasonably be expected to impede the Russians' progress. The civilian population had been evacuated beforehand. The tribunal found von Leeb and his co-defendants not guilty on the charge of devastation, taking the view that "a great deal of latitude must be accorded" to a commander in a tactical situation such as the one that von Leeb found himself in. [47]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Asymmetric warfare</span> A war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly

Asymmetric warfare is a type of war between belligerents whose relative military power, strategy, or tactics differ significantly. This type of warfare often, but not necessarily, involves insurgents or resistance movement militias who may have the status of unlawful combatants against a standing army.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human shield</span> Non-combatants placed around a target to discourage enemy attacks

A human shield is a non-combatant who either volunteers or is forced to shield a legitimate military target in order to deter the enemy from attacking it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scorched earth</span> Military strategy

A scorched-earth policy is a military strategy of destroying everything that allows an enemy military force to be able to fight a war, including the deprivation and destruction of water, food, humans, animals, plants and any kind of tools and infrastructure. Its use is possible by a retreating army to leave nothing of value worth taking to weaken the attacking force or by an advancing army to fight against unconventional warfare.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Operation Defensive Shield</span> 2002 Israeli military operation

Operation Defensive Shield was a 2002 Israeli military operation in the West Bank, carried out amidst the Second Intifada. Lasting for just over a month, it was the largest combat operation in the West Bank since the 1967 Arab–Israeli War, when Israel seized the territory from Jordan. Israel's stated goal for the escalation was to stop Palestinian terrorist attacks; the operation was launched two days after the Passover massacre, in which a Palestinian suicide bomber attacked the Park Hotel in Netanya, killing 30 civilians while injuring 140 more.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Urban warfare</span> Warfare in urban areas

Urban warfare is warfare in urban areas such as towns and cities. Urban combat differs from combat in the open at both the operational and the tactical levels. Complicating factors in urban warfare include the presence of civilians and the complexity of the urban terrain. Urban combat operations may be conducted to capitalize on strategic or tactical advantages associated with the possession or the control of a particular urban area or to deny these advantages to the enemy. It is considered to be arguably the most difficult form of warfare.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rafah</span> Palestinian city in south Gaza Strip

Rafah is a Palestinian city in the southern Gaza Strip. It is the capital of the Rafah Governorate of the State of Palestine, located 30 kilometers (19 mi) south-west of Gaza City. In 2017, Rafah had a population of 171,889. As a result of massive bombardment and ground assaults in Gaza City and Khan Yunis by Israel during the Israel–Hamas war, about 1.4 million people are believed to be sheltering in Rafah as of February 2024.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 Israeli operation in Rafah</span> Military offensive in the Gaza strip

In 2004, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched Operation Rainbow in the southern Gaza Strip on 12–24 May 2004, involving an invasion and siege of Rafah. The operation was started after the deaths of eleven Israeli soldiers in two Palestinian attacks, in which M113 armored vehicles were attacked.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">IDF Caterpillar D9</span> Armored bulldozer used by the Israel Defense Forces

The IDF Caterpillar D9 —nicknamed Doobi — is a Caterpillar D9 armored bulldozer used by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The Israeli armored CAT D9 was heavily modified by the Israel Defense Forces, Israeli Military Industries and Israel Aerospace Industries to increase the survivability of the bulldozer in hostile environments and enable it to withstand heavy attacks, thus making it suitable for military combat engineering use. The IDF Caterpillar D9 is operated by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Combat Engineering Corps for combat engineering and counter-terrorism operations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Insurgency weapons and tactics</span> Firearms etc. in guerrilla warfare

Insurgency weapons and tactics (IWAT) are weapons and tactics, most often involving firearms or explosive devices, intended for use by insurgents to engage in guerrilla warfare against an occupier, or for use by rebels against an established government. One type of insurgency weapon are "homemade" firearms made by non-professionals, such as the Błyskawica (Lightning) submachine gun produced in underground workshops by the Polish resistance movement. Another weapon that is part of the conventional military arsenal, but which has been taken up to great effect by insurgents, is the RPG. Two examples of an improvised weapon used by insurgents would be the improvised explosive devices used in Iraq and the Molotov cocktails used against vehicles and tanks. Two tactics used by many insurgents are assassinations and suicide bomb attacks. The latter tactic is used when an insurgent has a bomb strapped to them or in their car, which provides a low-tech way for insurgents to get explosives close to critical enemy targets.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Armored bulldozer</span> Bulldozer modified for use in combat engineering

The armored bulldozer is a basic tool of combat engineering. These combat engineering vehicles combine the earth moving capabilities of the bulldozer with armor which protects the vehicle and its operator in or near combat. Most are civilian bulldozers modified by addition of vehicle armor/military equipment, but some are tanks stripped of armament and fitted with a dozer blade. Some tanks have bulldozer blades while retaining their armament, but this does not make them armored bulldozers as such, because combat remains the primary role — earth moving is a secondary task.

Marc Garlasco is an American military advisor for the Dutch non-governmental organization PAX. Early in his career, Garlasco served for seven years at the Pentagon, as a mid-level intelligence analyst, later becoming chief of high-value targeting. Garlasco left in 2003 and joined Human Rights Watch (HRW) as a senior military expert, where he investigated human rights issues in a number of different conflicts zones. He resigned from HRW in February 2010 and has since worked as a specialist on civilian protection, war crimes investigations, identification of weapons and civilian harm mitigation for – among others – the United Nations, the Center for Naval Analysis (CNA), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), before starting at PAX in 2020. Garlasco lives in New York.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Israeli demolition of Palestinian property</span> War method used by the Israelis against Palestinians

Demolition of Palestinian property is a method Israel has used in the Israeli-occupied territories since they came under its control in the Six-Day War to achieve various aims. Broadly speaking, demolitions can be classified as either administrative, punitive/dissuasive and as part of military operations. The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions estimated that Israel had razed 55,048 Palestinian structures as of 2022. Administrative house demolitions are done to enforce building codes and regulations, which in the occupied Palestinian territories are set by the Israeli military. Critics claim that they are used as a means to Judaize parts of the occupied territory, especially East Jerusalem. Punitive house demolitions involve demolishing houses of Palestinians or neighbors and relatives of Palestinians suspected of violent acts against Israelis. These target the homes where the suspects live. Proponents of the method claim that it deters violence while critics claim that it has not been proven effective and might even trigger more violence. Punitive house demolitions have been criticized by a Palestinian human rights organization as a form of collective punishment and thus a war crime under international law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Collective punishment</span> Legal term

Collective punishment is a punishment or sanction imposed on a group for acts allegedly perpetrated by a member of that group, which could be an ethnic or political group, or just the family, friends and neighbors of the perpetrator. Because individuals who are not responsible for the acts are targeted, collective punishment is not compatible with the basic principle of individual responsibility. The punished group may often have no direct association with the perpetrator other than living in the same area and can not be assumed to exercise control over the perpetrator's actions. Collective punishment is prohibited by treaty in both international and non-international armed conflicts, more specifically Common Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 4 of the Additional Protocol II.

Roof knocking or "knock on the roof" is a term used by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to describe its practice of dropping non-explosive or low-yield devices on the roofs of targeted civilian homes in the Palestinian territories as a prior warning of imminent bombing attacks to give the inhabitants time to flee the attack. The practice was employed by the IDF during the 2008–2009 Gaza War, Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012, and Operation Protective Edge in 2014 to target the homes of police officers or Hamas political or military leaders.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dahiya doctrine</span> Doctrine of total levelling of civilian buildings

The Dahiya doctrine, or Dahya doctrine, is a military strategy involving the destruction of civilian infrastructure in order to pressure hostile regimes. It is a type of asymmetric warfare. It endorses the employment of "disproportionate force" to secure that end. The doctrine was outlined by former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of General Staff Gadi Eizenkot.

The Kravica attack was an attack on the Bosnian Serb village of Kravica by the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) from the Srebrenica enclave on Orthodox Christmas Day, 7 January 1993. The attack was organized to coincide with the Serbian Orthodox Christmas, leaving the Serbs unprepared for any attack. 43-46 people died in the attack on the Serb side: 30-35 soldiers and 11-13 civilians.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab–Israeli conflict</span>

Before the Six-Day War and Yom Kippur War, the Golan Heights comprised 312 inhabited areas, including 2 towns, 163 villages, and 108 farms. In 1966, the Syrian population of the Golan Heights was estimated at 147,613. Israel seized about 70% of the Golan Heights in the closing stages of the Six-Day War. Many of these residents fled during the fighting, or were driven out by the Israeli army, and some were evacuated by the Syrian army. A cease-fire line was established and large parts of the region came under Israeli military control, including the town of Quneitra, about 139 villages and 61 farms. Of these, the Census of Population 1967 conducted by the Israeli Defence Forces listed only eight, including Quneitra. One of the remaining populated villages, Shayta, was partially destroyed in 1967 and a military post built in its place. Between 1971–72 it was destroyed completely, with the remaining population forcibly transferred to Mas'ade, another of the populated villages under Israeli control.

Khosrow Sofla was a village in the Arghandab District of Kandahar Province in southern Afghanistan that was demolished by the United States Army in October and November 2010. After experiencing high casualties resulting from firefights and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) outside the village, Lieutenant Colonel David S. Flynn of the American 1-320th field artillery, a part of the 101st Airborne Division, ordered villagers to evacuate Khosrow Sofla, Khosrow Ulya, Tarok Kolache, and Lower Babur and used aerial bombardment to partially or wholly destroy the villages.

Human shields are legally protected persons—either protected civilians or prisoners of war—who are either coerced or volunteer to deter attacks by occupying the space between a belligerent and a legitimate military target. The use of human shields is forbidden by Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. It is also a specific intent war crime as codified in the Rome Statute, which was adopted in 1998. The language of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibits "utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Razing of Friesoythe</span> World War II battle and war crime

The razing of Friesoythe was the destruction of the town of Friesoythe in Lower Saxony on 14 April 1945, during the Western Allies' invasion of Germany towards the end of World War II in Europe. The 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division attacked the German-held town of Friesoythe, and one of its battalions, The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada, captured it.

References

  1. ↑ RAF campaign diary March 1945 Archived 2007-07-06 at the UK Government Web Archive See the entry for 23/24 March 1945
  2. ↑ Jennifer Leaning, "War and the Environment", in Michael McCally, Life Support: Environment Human Health, p. 276. MIT Press, 2002. ISBN   0-262-63257-8
  3. ↑ International Humanitarian Law - Treaties & Documents, International Committee of the Red Cross website
  4. ↑ "Depredations", André Corvisier, in A Dictionary of Military History and the Art of War, pp. 189–190
  5. ↑ Helen Fedor, Belarus and Moldova: Country Studies, p. 44. Library of Congress, 1995. ISBN   0-8444-0849-2
  6. ↑ Jeffry M. Diefendorf, In the Wake of War: The Reconstruction of German Cities After World War II, p. 126. Oxford University Press, 1993. ISBN   0-19-507219-7
  7. ↑ Marie-Janine Calic, in Farimah Daftary, Stefan Troebst, Radical Ethnic Movements in Contemporary Europe, p. 118. Berghahn Books, 2003. ISBN   1-57181-622-4
  8. ↑ Swanee Hunt, This Was Not Our War: Bosnian women reclaiming the peace, p. 158. Duke University Press, 2004. ISBN   0-8223-3355-4
  9. ↑ Morris, Benny (2003). The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN   0-521-00967-7
  10. ↑ Cited by Martin Bruinessen in "Genocide of the Kurds", in Israel W. Charny, Alan L. Berger, Genocide: a critical bibliographic review vol. 3, p. 186. Transaction Publishers, 1994. ISBN   1-56000-172-0
  11. ↑ Roberta Cohen, Francis Mading Deng, The Forsaken People: Case Studies of the Internally Displaced, pp. 245, 289. Brookings Institution Press, 1998. ISBN   0-8157-1513-7
  12. ↑ de Montesquiou, Alfred (2006-10-16). "African Union Force Ineffective, Complain Refugees in Darfur". The Washington Post .
  13. ↑ Dana R. Dillon. Insurgency Has Its Limits. National Review online. November 25, 2003
  14. ↑ Greenhill, Kelly. "Draining the Sea, or Feeding the Fire?: The Use of Forced Migration in Insurgency and Counter-Insurgency Operations Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, March 17, 2004
  15. ↑ Giliomee, Hermann (2003). The Afrikaners: Biography of a People. University Press of Virginia. ISBN   978-0-81392-237-9.
  16. ↑ Colin Powell, My American Journey, p. 87. Random House, 1995
  17. ↑ Martin Ewans, Afghanistan: A New History, p. 161. Routledge, 2002. ISBN   0-415-29826-1
  18. ↑ Robert W. Olson, The Kurdish Nationalist Movement in the 1990s: Its Impact on Turkey and the Middle East, p. 16. University Press of Kentucky, 1996. ISBN   0-8131-0896-9
  19. ↑ Paul R. Pillar, Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy, p. 135. Brookings Institution Press, 2001. ISBN   0-8157-0004-0
  20. ↑ "Villages from Kelekçi win international justice", Human Rights Watch
  21. ↑ Isabel V. Hull, Absolute Destruction: Military Culture and the Practices of War in Imperial Germany, p. 119. Cornell University Press, 2006. ISBN   0-8014-7293-8
  22. ↑ Hull, p. 210
  23. ↑ Roger Dale Petersen, Resistance and Rebellion: Lessons from Eastern Europe, p. 229. Cambridge University Press, 2001. ISBN   0-521-77000-9
  24. ↑ "Balbriggan. History and Photos. Balbriggan.net. No.1 Web site". www.balbriggan.net. Archived from the original on 2006-05-01.
  25. ↑ "September 1920". Archived from the original on 2009-08-22. Retrieved 2009-02-19.
  26. ↑ Beckett, Ian Frederick William (2001). Modern Insurgencies and Counter-insurgencies: Guerrillas and Their Opponents Since 1750. ISBN   9780415239332.
  27. ↑ "March 1921". Archived from the original on 2010-03-30. Retrieved 2010-03-26. March 1921
  28. ↑ Katz, Samuel (2002). The Hunt for the Engineer. Lyons Press. ISBN   1-58574-749-1., page 160
  29. ↑ Through No Fault of Their Own: Israel's Punitive House Demolitions in the al-Aqsa Intifada B'Tselem
  30. ↑ Ingela Karlsson, "Is the House Demolition Policy Legal under International Humanitarian Law? Archived 2007-09-28 at the Wayback Machine ". Diakonia, 16 November 2006. Retrieved 17-6-2007.
  31. ↑ Carl Ludwing von Bar, A History of Continental Criminal Law, p. 193. The Lawbook Exchange Ltd., 1999. ISBN   1-58477-013-9
  32. ↑ John Horace Round, Feudal England: Historical Studies on the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. S. Sonnenschein, 1895
  33. ↑ Edward Dodwell, A Classical and Topographical Tour Through Greece, During the Years 1801, 1805, and 1806, p. 20. Rodwell & Martin, 1819
  34. ↑ Florike Egmond, Robert Zwijnenberg, Bodily Extremities: Preoccupations with the Human Body in Early Modern European Culture, p. 106. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2003. ISBN   0-7546-0726-7
  35. ↑ Peter Thompson, Robert Macklin, The Man Who Died Twice: The Life and Adventures of Morrison of Peking, p. 90. Allen & Unwin, 2004. ISBN   1-74114-012-9
  36. ↑ Vibeke Roeper, Boudewijn Walraven, Jean-Paul Buys, Hendrik Hamel, Hamel's World: A Dutch-Korean Encounter in the Seventeenth Century, p. 138. Uitgeverij Boom, 2003. ISBN   90-5875-123-6
  37. ↑ Edward John Payne, History of the New World Called America, p. 533. Clarendon Press, 1899
  38. ↑ Tudor Parfitt, The Road to Redemption: the Jews of the Yemen, 1900-1950, p. 114. Brill Academic Publishers, 1996. ISBN   90-04-10544-1
  39. ↑ Adam Blair, History of the Waldenses: With an Introductory Sketch of the History of the Christian Churches, p. 364. A. Black, 1832
  40. ↑ Edgcumbe Staley, Guilds of Florence, p. 50. Ayer Publishing, 1972. ISBN   0-405-08992-9
  41. ↑ Richard P. Saller, Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Roman Family, p. 93. Cambridge University Press, 1994. ISBN   0-521-59978-4
  42. ↑ Karen Hulme, War Torn Environment: Interpreting the Legal Threshold, p. 128. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004. ISBN   90-04-13848-X
  43. ↑ Fourth Geneva Convention, International Committee of the Red Cross
  44. ↑ David Kretzmer, The Occupation of Justice: The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories, p. 148. SUNY Press, 2002. ISBN   0-7914-5337-5
  45. ↑ Israel and the Occupied Territories Under the rubble: House demolition and destruction of land and property . Amnesty International, 18 May 2004.
  46. ↑ "Warrants of Arrest for the Minister of State for Humanitarian Affairs of Sudan, and a leader of the Militia/Janjaweed Archived 2007-06-12 at the Wayback Machine ", International Criminal Court, 2 May 2007.
  47. ↑ Florentino Panlilio Feliciano, Myres Smith McDougal, The International Law of War: Transnational Coercion and World Public Order, p. 602. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1994. ISBN   0-7923-2584-2
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.