A/HRC/2/7 page 16 population, and give it enough time and the opportunity to evacuate safely, unless circumstances do not permit.82 Reported cases of civilians attacked while fleeing cast doubt as to whether these obligations were always met. 83 67. As regards protection and assistance for the displaced persons, one has to note that, while Lebanon has experienced displacement before, it was caught unprepared by the magnitude of the recent displacement. The intensity of the conflict affecting large parts of the country, the degree of destruction of civilian infrastructure and the far-reaching limitations on humanitarian access exacerbated the crisis. Despite an unprecedented degree of support and solidarity by non-governmental organizations and civil society and the population at large, many IDPs were in desperate need of assistance, especially the elderly, ill and poor, often consisting of large families with small children. While maternal mortality and morbidity rates did not deteriorate among the IDPs, the mission was informed that maternal health and the health of newborns were compromised.84 The Lebanese authorities, other Lebanese actors and the international community managed to avoid a large-scale humanitarian crisis among the IDPs despite very difficult circumstances. B. Israel 1. The conduct of hostilities by Hezbollah 68. The public statements of the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, explicitly reject the requirements of international humanitarian law, and Hezbollah’s conduct appears to reflect this lawless approach to the conduct of armed conflict. While many of his statements do recognize that there are valid distinctions between civilians and combatants and between civilian and military objects,85 they argue that Hezbollah has a right, and even a duty to disregard these distinctions in the pursuit of victory. 69. First, these statements reject the absolute character of the principle of distinction.86 Second, these statements argue that Hezbollah has a right to violate humanitarian law in so far as Israel does so: when “the Zionists” in their conduct abandoned all rules, red lines and limits of engagement, it became Hezbollah’s right to respond in like fashion. This analysis leads to the conclusion that so long as Hezbollah’s violations of the law are “reactions” to Israeli excesses - whether violations of the law or of otherwise defined limits of engagement - they are justified.87 70. The notion that one party’s violation of humanitarian law may justify the other party’s violation is called reprisal. Leaving aside the question of requirements for a reprisal to be legitimate, reprisals against civilians are absolutely prohibited.88 71. Hezbollah’s actual conduct was consistent with Mr. Nasrallah’s public statements. Of the 4,000-4,500 rockets fired, about 900 hit built-up areas, i.e. villages, towns, and cities; the remainder landed in “open areas”, according to Israeli sources.89 The vast majority of rockets (more than 50 per cent) landed in three areas: Kiryat Shmona, Nahariya and Tzfat (Safed). Other hard-hit towns include Karmiel, Akko (Acre), Haifa, and Tiberias. Although IDF provided no evidence that military installations had been hit, the number of Israeli soldiers killed and wounded would seem to indicate that a significant number of Hezbollah attacks did hit military targets.