{"id":57902,"date":"2015-05-18T12:00:22","date_gmt":"2015-05-18T11:00:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=57902"},"modified":"2015-05-08T16:14:06","modified_gmt":"2015-05-08T15:14:06","slug":"israeli-soldiers-cast-doubt-on-legality-of-gaza-military-tactics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2015\/05\/israeli-soldiers-cast-doubt-on-legality-of-gaza-military-tactics\/","title":{"rendered":"Israeli Soldiers Cast Doubt on Legality of Gaza Military Tactics"},"content":{"rendered":"

Testimonies of Israeli combatants about last year\u2019s war show apparent disregard for safety of civilians.<\/em><\/p>\n

4 May 2015 – <\/em>Testimonies provided by more than 60 Israeli soldiers who fought in last summer\u2019s war in Gaza<\/a> have raised serious questions over whether Israel\u2019s tactics breached its obligations under international law to distinguish and protect civilians.<\/p>\n

The claims \u2013 collected by the human rights group Breaking the Silence \u2013 are contained in dozens of interviews with Israeli combatants, as well as with soldiers who served in command centres and attack rooms, a quarter of them officers up to the rank of major.<\/p>\n

They include allegations that Israeli ground troops were briefed to regard everything inside Gaza as a \u201cthreat\u201d and they should \u201cnot spare ammo\u201d, and that tanks fired randomly or for revenge on buildings without knowing whether they were legitimate military targets or contained civilians.<\/p>\n

\"Palestinians<\/a>

Palestinians recover possessions from the ruins of their home during a truce in the 2014 Gaza war. Photograph: Peter Beaumont for the Guardian<\/p><\/div>\n

In their testimonies, soldiers depict rules of engagement they characterised as permissive, \u201clax\u201d or largely non-existent, including how some soldiers were instructed to treat anyone seen looking towards their positions as \u201cscouts\u201d to be fired on.<\/p>\n

The group also claims that the Israeli military operated with different safety margins for bombing or using artillery and mortars near civilians and its own troops, with Israeli forces at times allowed to fire significantly closer to civilians than Israeli soldiers.<\/p>\n

Phillipe Sands, professor of law at University College London and a specialist in international humanitarian law, described the testimonies as \u201ctroubling insights into intention and method\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cMaybe it will be said that they are partial and selective, but surely they cannot be ignored or brushed aside, coming as they do from individuals with first-hand experience: the rule of law requires proper investigation and inquiry.\u201d<\/p>\n

Describing the rules that meant life and death in Gaza during the 50-day war \u2013 a conflict in which 2,200 Palestinians were killed \u2013 the interviews shed light for the first time not only on what individual soldiers were told but on the doctrine informing the operation.<\/p>\n

Despite the insistence of Israeli leaders that it took all necessary precautions to protect civilians, the interviews provide a very different picture. They suggest that an overarching priority was the minimisation of Israeli military casualties even at the risk of Palestinian civilians being harmed.<\/p>\n

While the Israel<\/a> Defence Forces Military Advocate General\u2019s office has launched investigations into a number of individual incidents of alleged wrongdoing, the testimonies raise wider questions over policies under which the war was conducted.<\/p>\n

Post-conflict briefings to soldiers suggest that the high death toll and destruction were treated as \u201cachievements\u201d by officers who judged the attrition would keep Gaza \u201cquiet for five years\u201d.<\/p>\n

The tone, according to one sergeant, was set before the ground offensive into Gaza that began on 17 July last year<\/a> in pre-combat briefings that preceded the entry of six reinforced brigades into Gaza.<\/p>\n

\u201c[It] took place during training at Tze\u2019elim, before entering Gaza, with the commander of the armoured battalion to which we were assigned,\u201d recalled a sergeant, one of dozens of Israeli soldiers who have described how the war was fought last summer in the coastal strip.<\/p>\n

\u201c[The commander] said: \u2018We don\u2019t take risks. We do not spare ammo. We unload, we use as much as possible.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe rules of engagement [were] pretty identical,\u201d added another sergeant who served in a mechanised infantry unit in Deir al-Balah. \u201cAnything inside [the Gaza Strip] is a threat<\/p>\n

The area has to be \u2018sterilised,\u2019 empty of people \u2013 and if we don\u2019t see someone waving a white flag, screaming: \u201cI give up\u201d or something \u2013 then he\u2019s a threat and there\u2019s authorisation to open fire … The saying was: \u2018There\u2019s no such thing there as a person who is uninvolved.\u2019 In that situation, anyone there is involved.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"<\/a>

A father comforts his daughter injured during an Israeli strike on the UN school at Beit Hanoun during the 2014 Gaza war. Photograph: Peter Beaumont for the Guardian<\/p><\/div>\n

\u201cThe rules of engagement for soldiers advancing on the ground were: open fire, open fire everywhere, first thing when you go in,\u201d recalled another soldier who served during the ground operation in Gaza City. The assumption being that the moment we went in [to the Gaza Strip], anyone who dared poke his head out was a terrorist.\u201d<\/p>\n

Soldiers were also encouraged to treat individuals who came too close or watched from windows or other vantage points as \u201cscouts\u201d who could be killed regardless of whether there was hard evidence they were spotting for Hamas or other militant groups. \u201cIf it looks like a man, shoot. It was simple: you\u2019re in a motherfucking combat zone,\u201d said a sergeant who served in an infantry unit in the northern Gaza strip.<\/p>\n

\u201cA few hours before you went in the whole area was bombed, if there\u2019s anyone there who doesn\u2019t clearly look innocent, you apparently need to shoot that person.\u201d Defining \u2018innocent\u2019 he added: \u201cIf you see the person is less than 1.40 metres tall or if you see it\u2019s a lady … If it\u2019s a man you shoot.\u201d<\/p>\n

In at least one instance described by soldiers, being female did not help two women who were killed because one had a mobile phone. A soldier described the incident: \u201cAfter the commander told the tank commander to go scan that place, and three tanks went to check [the bodies] … it was two women, over the age of 30 … unarmed. They were listed as terrorists. They were fired at. So of course they must have been terrorists.\u201d<\/p>\n

The testimonies raise questions whether Israel fully met its obligations to protect civilians in a conflict area from unnecessary harm<\/a>, requiring it not only to distinguish between civilians and combatants but also ensure that when using force, where there is the risk of civilian harm, that it is \u201cproportionate\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cOne of the main threads in the testimonies,\u201d said Michael Sfard, an Israeli human rights lawyer and legal adviser to Breaking the Silence, \u201cis the presumption that despite the fact that the battle was being waged in urban area \u2013 and one of most densely populated in the world \u2013 no civilians would be in the areas they entered.\u201d<\/p>\n

That presumption, say soldiers, was sustained by virtue of warnings to Palestinians to leave their homes and neighbourhoods delivered in leaflets dropped by aircraft and in text and phone messages which meant \u2013 in the IDF\u2019s interpretation \u2013 that anyone who remained was not a civilian.<\/p>\n

Even at the time that view was deeply controversial because \u2013 says Sfard and other legal experts interviewed \u2013 it reinterpreted international law regarding the duty of protection for areas containing civilians.<\/p>\n

Sfard added: \u201cWe are not talking about a [deliberate] decision to kill civilians. But to say the rules of engagement were lax gives them too much credit. They allowed engagement in almost any circumstances, unless there was a felt to be a risk to an IDF soldier.\u201d<\/p>\n

If the rules of engagement were highly permissive, other soldiers say that they also detected a darker mood in their units that further coloured the way that soldiers behaved. \u201cThe motto guiding lots of people was: \u2018Let\u2019s show them,\u2019 recalls a lieutenant who served in the Givati Brigade in Rafah. \u201cIt was evident that was a starting point. Lots of guys who did their reserve duty with me don\u2019t have much pity towards [the Palestinians].\u201d<\/p>\n

He added: \u201cThere were a lot of people there who really hate Arabs. Really, really hate Arabs. You could see the hate in their eyes.\u201d<\/p>\n

A second lieutenant echoed his comments. \u201cYou could feel there was a radicalisation in the way the whole thing was conducted. The discourse was extremely rightwing … [And] the very fact that [Palestinians were] described as \u2018uninvolved\u2019 rather than as civilians, and the desensitisation to the surging number of dead on the Palestinian side. It doesn\u2019t matter whether they\u2019re involved or not \u2026 that\u2019s something that troubles me.\u201d<\/p>\n

And the testimonies, too, suggest breaches of the IDF\u2019s own code of ethics \u2013 The Spirit of the IDF<\/a> \u2013 which insists: \u201cIDF soldiers will not use their weapons and force to harm human beings who are not combatants or prisoners of war, and will do all in their power to avoid causing harm to their lives, bodies, dignity and property.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"A<\/a>

A group of Palestinian children and teenagers rescue possessions from a devastated area of northern Gaza during a ceasefire in last summer\u2019s summer\u2019s war. Photograph: Peter Beaumont for the Guardian<\/p><\/div>\n

Contrary to that, however, testimonies describe how soldiers randomly shelled buildings either to no obvious military purpose or for revenge.<\/p>\n

One sergeant who served in a tank in the centre of the Gaza Strip recalls: \u201cA week or two after we entered the Gaza Strip and we were all firing a lot when there wasn\u2019t any need for it \u2013 just for the sake of firing \u2013 a member of our company was killed.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe company commander came over to us and told us that one guy was killed due to such-and-such, and he said: \u2018Guys, get ready, get in your tanks, and we\u2019ll fire a barrage in memory of our comrade\u201d \u2026 My tank went up to the post \u2013 a place from which I can see targets \u2013 can see buildings \u2013 [and] fired at them, and the platoon commander says: \u2018OK guys, we\u2019ll now fire in memory of our comrade\u2019 and we said OK.\u201d<\/p>\n

How Israeli forces used artillery and mortars in Gaza, says Breaking the Silence, has raised other concerns beyond either the rules of engagement or the actions of specific units.<\/p>\n

According to the group\u2019s research during the war, the Israeli military operated two different sets of rules for how close certain weapons could be fired to Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians.<\/p>\n

Yehuda Shaul, one of the founders of Breaking the Silence, and himself a former soldier, explains: \u201cWhat our research during this project uncovered was that there were three designated \u2018Operational Levels\u2019 during the conflict \u2013 numbered one to three. What the operational level was was set higher up the chain of command. Above the level of the Gaza division. What those levels do is designate the likelihood of civilian casualties from weapons like 155mm artillery and bombs from \u2018low\u2019 damage to civilians to \u2018high\u2019.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat we established was that for artillery fire in operational levels two and three Israeli forces were allowed to fire much closer to civilians than they were to friendly Israeli forces.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ahead of the conflict \u2013 in which 34,000 shells were fired into Gaza, 19,000 of them explosive \u2013 artillery and air liaison officers had been supplied with a list of sensitive sites to which fire was not to be directed within clear limits of distance. These included hospitals and UN schools being used as refugee centres, even in areas where evacuation had been ordered.<\/p>\n

\u201cEven then,\u201d explains Shaul, \u201cwe have a testimony we took that a senior brigade commander issued order how to get around that, instructing that the unit fired first outside of the protected area and then calling for correction fire on to the location that they wanted to hit.<\/p>\n

\u201cHe said: \u201cIf you go on the radio and ask to hit this building, we have to say no. But if you give a target 200 metres outside then you can ask for correction. Only thing that is recorded is the first target not the correction fire.\u201d<\/p>\n

And in the end, despite the high number of civilian casualties, the debriefings treated the destruction as an accomplishment that would discourage Hamas in the future.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou could say they went over most of the things viewed as accomplishments,\u201d said a Combat Intelligence Corps sergeant. \u201c \u201cThey spoke about numbers: 2,000 dead and 11,000 wounded, half a million refugees, decades worth of destruction. Harm to lots of senior Hamas members and to their homes, to their families. These were stated as accomplishments so that no one would doubt that what we did during this period was meaningful.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey spoke of a five-year period of quiet (in which there would be no hostilities between Israel and Hamas) when in fact it was a 72-hour ceasefire, and at the end of those 72 hours they were firing again.\u201d<\/p>\n

Without responding to the specific allegations, the Israeli military said: \u201cThe IDF is committed to properly investigating all credible claims raised via media, NGOs, and official complaints concerning IDF conduct during operation Protective Edge, in as serious a manner as possible.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt should be noted that following Operation Protective Edge, thorough investigations were carried out, and soldiers and commanders were given the opportunity to present any complaint. Exceptional incidents were then transferred to the military advocate general for further inquiry.\u201d<\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 theguardian.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Testimonies of Israeli combatants about last year\u2019s war show apparent disregard for safety of civilians.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[54],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-57902","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-palestine-israel-gaza-genocide"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57902","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=57902"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57902\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57902"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57902"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57902"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}