Defence Forces Review 2010

Defence Forces Review 2010Rules of EngagementThe ground incursions, commenced on 3 January ’09, produced a slew of incidents that wereto be the subject of enquiry by human rights organisations and by the Goldstone Report. Theseincidents were in the realms of: hostage taking; human shields; the shooting of non-combatants;the shooting of non-combatants seeking quarter (bearing white flags); the refusal to permitambulances to collect wounded non-combatants; unlawful detention and interrogation; thetargeting of persons in streets or in places normally accorded shelter status under the GenevaConventions (places of worship, ambulances, UN facilities and hospitals).Warning leaflets were dropped by the IDF and text messages were sent to mobile phonesadvising the people of Gaza to leave the area. This did not justify, according to the GoldstoneReport, the shooting of persons who happened upon, or sought passage via, an IDF position.In any event, a commander on the ground is not absolved from his obligations towards noncombatants,solely by the issue of such warnings.The incidents of hostage taking, human shields and of the shooting of persons approachingIDF positions in particular gave rise for concern. The actions of the troops in all IDF sectorswere similar and indeed the nicknames and terms they used were common to all three sectors.For example, the use of a civilian as a human shield in order to enter a building, known orsuspected to be harbouring Hamas operatives or to have been booby-trapped, was called the“good neighbour” or “Johnny” principle. 15 The procedures applied to civilians approaching acheck-point, as described by soldiers in “Breaking the Silence,” were very much the same aspracticed in all sectors. All persons, regardless of age or gender, were considered suspect orindeed hostile. A person approaching a check-point, waving a white flag but using a mobilephone, was to be shot on sight.What gave rise to rules of engagement that demanded of soldiers, such an aversion to riskthat they were disposed to behave towards non-combatants in such a reckless manner? Thisbrings us to the writings of Prof Asa Kasher, professor of professional ethics and philosophyat Tel Aviv University and Maj Gen Amos Yadlin, Israeli Air Force and of the MilitaryIntelligence Directorate of the IDF. In an essay titled “Assassination and Preventive Killing”they raise the issue of targeted assassinations, as the title suggests. While abductions andassassinations have been attributed to Israel’s Mossad in the past, this article goes further inarguing for its legitimisation. It is therefore revealing of a trend in arguments to follow. In theabove mentioned paper they pose the question; “What priority should be given to the dutyto minimise casualties among the combatants of the state when they are engaged in combatagainst ... terror?” 16In answer to their question, they suggest that in the “war on terror,” the Geneva Conventionsare outmoded and no longer suit a state’s efforts in combating terror. They insist that a statehas a moral duty to respect its citizens’ rights more than it respects the human rights of thosewho are not their citizens. Furthermore; “a state does not shoulder responsibility for regulareffective protection of persons who are neither its citizens nor under its effective control.” In15 Goldstone Report, Op Cit, p. 5.16 “Assassination and Preventive Killing,” John Hopkins School of Advanced Studies Review, Vol 25, No 1, Winter-Spring 2005. Also in the “ Journal ofMilitary Ethics,” 2005.100