B'Tselem (The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories) issued a report today titled Black Flag: The legal and moral implications of the policy of attacking residential buildings in the Gaza Strip, summer 2014. It leads with the following two quotes:
I lost my whole family, and my home. I have nothing left. No photos, not the things my family and I used. I lost everything. I have nothing left. I lost everything in seconds. I lost everything.
Muhammad Nader ‘Ata al‐Agha, 19, student, resident of Ma’an/Khan Yunis.
No other country and no other army in history have gone to greater lengths to avoid casualties among the civilian population of their enemies
Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel
The report examines the IDF policy of precision bombing homes to assassinate specific individuals which almost inevitably kills families residing there.
In one of the many such "precision bombing" incidents, 24 members of the Abu Jame' family were killed. Sixteen children under the age of 10 were among the dead. The target was an unrelated member of Hamas visiting the family over the Ramadan holidays.
In another case, Hank Zanoli returned a 'Righteous among the Nations medal' he had received for his family's action in sheltering Jewish refugees when six members of his extended family were killed (including a 12-year old boy and a 70-year old woman). The target was a person visiting them that day who the IDF claims was in Hamas's military wing.
Here's how B'Tselem describes these policies (emphasis mine):
On the first day of the fighting, the military attacked the Kaware’ family home. The house collapsed. Nine people, including five children aged 7 to 14, were killed. This was just the first of dozens of air, sea and ground strikes, which would become one of the appalling hallmarks of the fighting in Gaza this summer: bombings in which hundreds of people were killed – constituting more than a quarter of all of the Palestinians killed in the fighting. Time and again Palestinian families suffered much grievous loss of life. In a single instant, so many families were ruined, with the wreckage of their lives mirroring the devastation of their homes.
These attacks were not carried out on the whim of individual soldiers, pilots or commanders in the field. They are the result of a policy formulated by government officials and the senior military command. These officials backed the policy of attacking homes, reiterating the argument that the attacks conform to international humanitarian law (IHL) and eschewing any responsibility for harm to civilians.
For the purpose of this report B’Tselem investigated 70 incidents in each of which at least three people were killed while inside their home. A total of 606 Palestinians were killed in such incidents, the vast majority of whom took no part in the fighting: more than 70% were either under 18, over 60 or women. An examination of these cases indicates that, at least in some cases, the military’s actions ran contrary to IHL provisions and, in other cases, there is grave concern that they did so. B’Tselem’s research indicated three main reasons that led to the death of so many civilians:
A. Broad definition of what constitutes a “military objective” that may be targeted [...]
B. Flexible interpretation of the concept of lawful “collateral damage” [...]
C. Warning absent or ineffective [...]
Killing entire families to assassinate a single person was very controversial when first employed in 2002, but this policy is no longer controversial in the IDF command structure and is no longer broadly debated in Israel (much like our own country's use of drones). The report is well worth a read since it evaluates all the various justifications presented by the Israeli government. It also presumably lays the ground-work for a claim that this policy constitutes a war crime. Though the IDF has launched investigations of specific incidents, the policy itself is in question here. As B'Tselem notes, home demolitions are themselves considered illegal under international law.
Officials eschewed responsibility for the immense harm to civilians, placing the blame squarely on the shoulders of Hamas. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said that Israel’s “security forces are doing everything in their power to avoid harming civilians and if innocents are hurt, it is because Hamas deliberately hides behind Palestinian civilians”.
This argument is unacceptable. True, Hamas and other organizations operating in the Gaza Strip do not abide by IHL, nor do they purport to do so. As B’Tselem stated both during and after the fighting, Hamas has breached these provisions, and particularly its duty to distinguish between civilian objects and military targets. Not only did Hamas fire at Israeli civilians and civilian targets, it did so from within the civilian population. Hamas operatives fired from sites located near civilian dwellings, concealed weapons and munitions inside them and dug tunnels under them.
Given this reality, the issue at hand is what conclusions policymakers may draw from it. The prime minister’s statements indicate he believes that Hamas and the military share the responsibility to take precautions. Yet this interpretation is designed to block, a priori, any allegations that Israel breached IHL provisions. Accepting it would mean that there are no restrictions whatsoever on Israeli action and that whatever method it chooses to respond to Hamas operations is legitimate, no matter how horrifying the consequences. This interpretation is unreasonable, unlawful, and renders meaningless the principle that IHL violations committed by one party do not release the other party from its obligations toward the civilian population and civilian objects.
It concludes:
Fighting Hamas is, in fact, extremely challenging: How can military targets be distinguished from civilian objects in these circumstances? How is it possible to avoid harming civilians who are not taking part in the fighting, when Hamas operatives fire at Israel from within populated areas? B’Tselem does not purport to offer the Israeli government or the military any operative plans for conducting armed conflict in Gaza: that is not the role of a human rights organization. The government is responsible for responding to these challenges in ways that maintain humanity and uphold the law.
It is clear that the policy described in this report is not a legitimate response to this challenge. Even if political and military leaders thought this policy would bring an end to attacks on Israeli communities, they should not have implemented it because of its foreseeable, horrifying consequences as well as because of the black flag of illegality flying over it.
As a thought experiment, you could reverse the analysis and start with "Fighting a far more powerful military force, such as the IDF, is in fact, extremely challenging..."
Meanwhile, in other news from I/P:
Tariq Abu Khdeir, a 15 year-old American teen was severely beaten by Israeli police in July, the officers claimed he "resisted arrest". Tariq's cousin, 16 year-old Muhammad Abu Khdeir was kidnapped and burned alive by Jewish extremists, likely as vengeance for the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli students in the West Bank by members of Hamas.
Tariq has now been cleared of all wrongdoing. One of the police officers was criminally charged over the beating and an investigation found evidence "supporting the guilt of the police officer suspected of severe violent crimes".
I wonder what would have happened if Tariq did not have US citizenship and the American consulate watching over him, or the beating had not been caught on camera?
We don't have to subsist in ignorance, B'Tselem does a pretty good job documenting beatings and abuse meted out by Israeli forces policing the occupation, and Breaking the Silence has been documenting the occupation from the soldier's point of view for years.