crethiplethi » Israel Defense Forces

Evidence Shows Hezbollah Systematically Violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701

Crethi Plethi — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:51:13 +0000

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. | Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Sept 03 and Sept 06, 2010 | IDFSpokesperson; Sept 03 and Sept 06

Explosion in Hezbollah weapons storage facility in Al-Shahabiya, southern Lebanon

Explosion of a Hezbollah Weapons Storage Facility in the Village of Al-Shahabiya, 3 Sep 2010

Video footage of the aftermath of the explosion today in Al-Shahabiya, a village in southern Lebanon, shows smoke rising from a building. Hezbollah controls this area of Lebanon and the building where the explosion occurred was used as a Hezbollah weapons storage facility.

Explosion of a Hezbollah Weapons Storage Facility in Al-Shahabiya, south Lebanon

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcJU0WuW6D8

This incident is only one of many that clearly show that Hezbollah systematically violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which stipulates that Hezbollah should be disarmed and that no paramilitary groups will be active south of the Litani river.

Extended Video Footage: Hezbollah Removes Weapons from Explosion Site in Al-Shahabiya

Additional footage released on September 6th, 2010 by the IDF shows Hezbollah operatives removing weapons from the site of an explosion in a weapons storage facility in Southern Lebanon, which occurred on September 3, 2010.

The explosion occurred in Al-Shahabiya, a village in southern Lebanon. The footage shows smoke rising from a building, Hezbollah operatives transferring weapons from the building and preventing LAF and UNIFIL forces from approaching the site of the incident. The Hezbollah operatives removed the contents to a new location–a mosque in a nearby village.

Hezbollah operatives can be seen emptying the storage facility and moving the contents to a new location–a mosque in a nearby village.

Today’s incident is only one of many that clearly show that Hezbollah systematically violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which stipulates that Hezbollah should be disarmed and that no paramilitary groups will be active south of the Litani river.

Extended Footage (English): Hezbollah Removes Weapons from Explosion Site in Al-Shahabiya

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAUzs-4GM8k

Transfer of Gaza Strip Merchandise and Humanitarian Aid For the Week of August 22nd-26th 2010

Crethi Plethi — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:04:09 +0000

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. | Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Mon, Aug 30, 2010 | IDF Spokesperson

Transfer of Gaza Strip Merchandise and Humanitarian Aid For the Week of August 22nd-26th, 2010

During the week of 22nd – 26th August 2010, a total of 1,074 truckloads (24,288 tons) of humanitarian aid and development assistance for the local civilian population and 1,697,598 liters of diesel fuel entered the Gaza Strip.

Between June and August, the capacity of the Kerem Shalom Crossing was expanded by 210%, facilitating the daily entry of up to 250 truckloads of goods for humanitarian and development projects throughout the Gaza Strip.

During Ramadan, the Kerem Shalom Crossing will operate until 15:00, out of respect for religious observance, following the Palestinian Authority’s requests.

IDF Soldiers Describe Guarding Checkpoints During Holy Month of Ramadan

Crethi Plethi — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 22:41:57 +0000

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. | Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Tue, Aug 17, 2010 | IDFSpokesperson

IDF Soldiers Describe Guarding During Holy Month of Ramadan

Three soldiers recount their training and experiences while working at checkpoints with Palestinians. The soldiers explain how they are taught to respect those crossing through and accommodate them during religious holidays such as Ramadan. Having been instilled with the IDF’s ethical code, “The Spirit of the IDF,” the soldiers do their utmost to ease the process of Palestinians crossing, recognizing the fact that a majority of those entering the checkpoint do not pose a threat to the Israeli population.

IDF Soldiers Describe Guarding During Holy Month of Ramadan

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GHqPLF948g

The Blue Line

Crethi Plethi — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 18:36:06 +0000

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. | Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Thu, Aug 05, 2010 | IDFSpokesperson

The Blue Line (google maps); the IDF was operating behind the Blue Line on Israeli territory (as confirmed by UNIFIL, the U.N. and the U.S.)

The Blue Line: an internationally recognized border between Israel and Lebanon

The Blue Line is an international border between Israel and Lebanon which was determined by the United Nations after the IDF withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000.

Aside from some slight differences, this is in fact the line towards which the IDF withdrew upon conclusion of Operation Litani in 1978, according to UN Security Council Resolution 425. From the First Lebanon War until 2000, IDF forces remained beyond this border line. However, upon the Israeli government’s decision for a unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon, the IDF forces returned to Israel and remained, with recognition by the UN of a complete withdrawal by Israel to her authorized and legitimate borders.

The Blue Line is a temporary line which has not been mentioned in any official agreements between Israel and Lebanon, and which is based on the international border which was determined by the countries in 1923. That being said, it is recognized as a de facto border between the two countries.

During the Second Lebanon War in 2006, the IDF crossed the Blue Line and operated there for the duration of a month. However, upon completion of the war and the approval of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, IDF withdrew behind the internationally recognized border line.

On Tuesday morning (Aug. 3), IDF forces operated within Israeli territory on the Israeli side of the Blue Line borders, where the IDF has routinely operates in an agreed-upon manner since the end of the Second Lebanon War. Gunshots fired by the Lebanese army towards IDF forces constitute a blatant violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, and an attack on Israeli sovereignty.

Israel Braces for Iran and Lebanon Ships

Crethi Plethi — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 19:34:15 +0000

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. | Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Sat, June 26, 2010 | Jpost | Arutz Sheva

A Lebanese ship is seen docked next to an Israeli naval ship in the southern Israeli city of Ashdod. The seized ship had set sail from the Lebanese port of Tripoli in a bid to defy Israel's blockade of Gaza. (May 2009)

The IDF is gearing up for the possible arrival next week of two flotillas of Gaza aid ships – from Iran and Lebanon. IDF sources said that the navy would intercept the ships and would operate under the assumption that hostile elements could be aboard.

Two Iranian ships could arrive sometime next week. Two more ships, one reportedly filled with women, may set sail from Lebanon and try to break the siege. The proximity of Lebanon to Gaza requires the Navy to be on a high level of alert around the clock, the IDF sources said. [Jpost, June 25, 2010]

Iranian parliamentarian Mahmoud Ahmadi Beighash announced Saturday that he and other Iranian lawmakers intend to join a ship headed for Gaza by way of Lebanon.

“A ship is going from Lebanon to Gaza in the course of the current week and the lawmakers will go to Gaza via this ship,” Beighash said in comments to semi-official news agency ISNA cited by Reuters.

The decision to head from Lebanon to Gaza and not Egypt was reached in a meeting with speaker of parliament Ali Larijani according to Beighash.

Earlier in the week an Iranian aid ship which had been due to set sail for the Gaza Strip in the coming days in an attempt to break the Israeli blockade canceled its trip due to Israeli warnings, Iranian officials said Thursday night. [Jpost, June 26, 2010]

The G-8 leaders meeting in Canada today focused their attention on Gaza and Iran. While expressing regret for the loss of life on the Mavi Marmara, the G-8 said it approved of Israel’s decision to set up an independent investigative commission into the incident. In addition, the G-8 asked all parties to abide by UNSC 1860 to guarantee the stream of humanitarian aid to Gaza, calling for a change to existing policies.

G-8 leaders welcomed the Israeli government’s decision to ease the blockade and urged “full and effective implementation of this policy in order to address the needs of Gaza’s population for humanitarian and commercial goods, civilian reconstruction and infrastructure, and legitimate economic activity”. They added that Israel’s security concerns were legitimate and needed to be protected. [Jpost, June 26, 2010]

Earlier this week, Washington warned Lebanon to steer clear of the current effort by various elements to escalate tensions with Israel by attempting to violate its maritime sovereignty over Gaza waters.

In a statement issued Wednesday, the U.S. State Department urged Lebanon to “behave responsibly” and not to try to send aid to the Hamas terrorist-ruled Gaza region by sea.

Instead, organizers who are planning an “aid flotilla” similar to the one sponsored last month by the terror-linked Turkish organization IHH, were told to send their aid via the approved overland routes.

The Beirut-based group said that one of the two boats it plans to send to Gaza from Lebanon has already received approval from the government to set sail for Cyprus.

In order to reach Gaza, however, the boats must also receive approval from the Cypriot authorities prior to departure from their local port. But organizers said they might avoid this problem by simply changing course on their way to Cyprus and heading directly for Gaza.

“Direct delivery by sea is neither appropriate nor responsible, and certainly not effective under the circumstances,” the U.S. statement said. “We, along with our partners in the Quartet, urge all those wishing to deliver goods to do so through established channels so that their cargo can be inspected and transferred via land crossings into Gaza.”

The Quartet – comprised of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations – has repeatedly called on Hamas to officially recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence and uphold prior agreements.

“There is no need for unnecessary confrontations, and we, along with our partners in the Quartet, call on all parties to act responsibly in meeting the needs of the people of Gaza,” the statement continued. [Arutz Sheva, June 24, 2010]

“Israel will continue to prevent ships from reaching Gaza”, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said during a meeting on Wednesday with United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Instead, he said, they will be rerouted to Ashdod, where any goods destined for Gaza will be inspected and then sent through via land crossings. [Arutz Sheva, June 24, 2010]

Aznar Stands Up for Israel: Support the Friends of Israel Initiative

Crethi Plethi — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:00:02 +0000

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. | Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Thu, June 17, 2010 | OneJerusalem | Jerusalem Post | FriendsOfIsraelInitiative

Jose Maria Aznar, former Prime Minister of Spain, at the UN Watch annual gala, Hotel des Bergues, Geneva, May 27, 2010

Former Spanish President José María Aznar Stands Up For Israel

Initiated and led by Spain’s former prime minister Jose Maria Aznar, a group of international leaders is to launch the “Friends of Israel Initiative,” a new project in defense of Israel’s right to exist. The leaders – who include the Nobel Peace Prize laureate David Trimble, Peru’s former president Alejandro Toledo, Italian philosopher Marcelo Pear, former United States Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton and British historian Andrew Roberts – say they seek to counter the attempts to delegitimize the State of Israel and its right to live in peace within safe and defensible borders.

The initiative is being launched now, its sponsors said in a statement, because of their outrage and concern about the “unprecedented delegitimation campaign against Israel, driven by the enemies of the Jewish state and perversely assumed by numerous international authorities.” Israel “is a fully sovereign and responsible nation,” they added in their statement. “Although we can all disagree with some of its decisions, this fact should not be used as an excuse to question Israel’s right to exist, its legitimacy or its national rights. Just as the sponsors of this Initiative believe, there is no West without Israel.” [JPost, Mar 31, 2010]

In a powerful article in the Times of London, José María Aznar, (the President of Spain from 1996-2004) provides a rousing and eloquent defense of the State of Israel. Aznar also uses this opportunity to announce the launch of his new organization “Friends of Israel” composed primarily on non-Jewish Europeans and Americans. President Aznar is to be applauded for standing up for Israel, standing up for what is right. [OneJerusalem, May 17, 2010]

If Israel goes down, we all go down

Anger over Gaza is a distraction. We cannot forget that Israel is the West’s best ally in a turbulent region.

“For far too long now it has been unfashionable in Europe to speak up for Israel. In the wake of the recent incident on board a ship full of anti-Israeli activists in the Mediterranean, it is hard to think of a more unpopular cause to champion.

In an ideal world, the assault by Israeli commandos on the Mavi Marmara would not have ended up with nine dead and a score wounded. In an ideal world, the soldiers would have been peacefully welcomed on to the ship. In an ideal world, no state, let alone a recent ally of Israel such as Turkey, would have sponsored and organized a flotilla whose sole purpose was to create an impossible situation for Israel: making it choose between giving up its security policy and the naval blockade, or risking the wrath of the world.

In our dealings with Israel, we must blow away the red mists of anger that too often cloud our judgment. A reasonable and balanced approach should encapsulate the following realities: first, the state of Israel was created by a decision of the UN. Its legitimacy, therefore, should not be in question. Israel is a nation with deeply rooted democratic institutions. It is a dynamic and open society that has repeatedly excelled in culture, science and technology.

Second, owing to its roots, history, and values, Israel is a fully fledged Western nation. Indeed, it is a normal Western nation, but one confronted by abnormal circumstances.

Uniquely in the West, it is the only democracy whose very existence has been questioned since its inception. In the first instance, it was attacked by its neighbors using the conventional weapons of war. Then it faced terrorism culminating in wave after wave of suicide attacks. Now, at the behest of radical Islamists and their sympathizers, it faces a campaign of delegitimisation through international law and diplomacy.

Sixty-two years after its creation, Israel is still fighting for its very survival. Punished with missiles raining from north and south, threatened with destruction by an Iran aiming to acquire nuclear weapons and pressed upon by friend and foe, Israel, it seems, is never to have a moment’s peace.

For years, the focus of Western attention has understandably been on the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. But if Israel is in danger today and the whole region is slipping towards a worryingly problematic future, it is not due to the lack of understanding between the parties on how to solve this conflict. The parameters of any prospective peace agreement are clear, however difficult it may seem for the two sides to make the final push for a settlement.

The real threats to regional stability, however, are to be found in the rise of a radical Islamism which sees Israel’s destruction as the fulfillment of its religious destiny and, simultaneously in the case of Iran, as an expression of its ambitions for regional hegemony. Both phenomena are threats that affect not only Israel, but also the wider West and the world at large.

The core of the problem lies in the ambiguous and often erroneous manner in which too many Western countries are now reacting to this situation. It is easy to blame Israel for all the evils in the Middle East. Some even act and talk as if a new understanding with the Muslim world could be achieved if only we were prepared to sacrifice the Jewish state on the altar. This would be folly.

Israel is our first line of defense in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos; a region vital to our energy security owing to our overdependence on Middle Eastern oil; a region that forms the front line in the fight against extremism. If Israel goes down, we all go down. To defend Israel’s right to exist in peace, within secure borders, requires a degree of moral and strategic clarity that too often seems to have disappeared in Europe. The United States shows worrying signs of heading in the same direction.

The West is going through a period of confusion over the shape of the world’s future. To a great extent, this confusion is caused by a kind of masochistic self-doubt over our own identity; by the rule of political correctness; by a multiculturalism that forces us to our knees before others; and by a secularism which, irony of ironies, blinds us even when we are confronted by jihadis promoting the most fanatical incarnation of their faith. To abandon Israel to its fate, at this moment of all moments, would merely serve to illustrate how far we have sunk and how inexorable our decline now appears.

This cannot be allowed to happen. Motivated by the need to rebuild our own Western values, expressing deep concern about the wave of aggression against Israel, and mindful that Israel’s strength is our strength and Israel’s weakness is our weakness, I have decided to promote a new Friends of Israel initiative with the help of some prominent people, including David Trimble, Andrew Roberts, John Bolton, Alejandro Toledo (the former President of Peru), Marcello Pera (philosopher and former President of the Italian Senate), Fiamma Nirenstein (the Italian author and politician), the financier Robert Agostinelli and the Catholic intellectual George Weigel.

It is not our intention to defend any specific policy or any particular Israeli government. The sponsors of this initiative are certain to disagree at times with decisions taken by Jerusalem. We are democrats, and we believe in diversity.

What binds us, however, is our unyielding support for Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself. For Western countries to side with those who question Israel’s legitimacy, for them to play games in international bodies with Israel’s vital security issues, for them to appease those who oppose Western values rather than robustly to stand up in defense of those values, is not only a grave moral mistake, but a strategic error of the first magnitude.

Israel is a fundamental part of the West. The West is what it is thanks to its Judeo-Christian roots. If the Jewish element of those roots is upturned and Israel is lost, then we are lost too. Whether we like it or not, our fate is inextricably intertwined.”

José María Aznar

Stand for Israel, Stand for the West

A Friends of Israel Initiative

The Friends of Israel have joined together in a new international initiative on the basis of the following convictions:

1. Israel is a Western country. With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law … with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations.

2. Israel´s right to exist should not be questioned. In the face of a uniquely campaign of deligitimation, we remind all people of goodwill of the true historical context in which the State of Israel was re-established following United Nations Resolution 181 in 1947 … on land in which they have had an enduring presence and to which they have had a historical claim for thousands of years.

3. Israel, as a sovereign country, has the right to self-defense. Today, Israel has been forced to fight on two fronts: one to defend its borders and another to defend its legitimacy … Human rights statutes designed to defend the dignity of people everywhere, laws on universal jurisdiction intended to be used against criminals and tyrants and international bodies established to secure justice, have been subverted, their guiding principles stood on their head, to wage war against Israeli democracy. The campaign against Israel is corroding the international system from within.

4. Israel is on our side. With this in mind, we must be clear in recognizing that Israel’s fight is our fight. Western democracy will not prevail unless we recognize and assume the Judeo-Christian cultural and moral heritage which first gave rise to those institutions and the values which initially inspired them, and strengthen them. The assault on Israel is itself an assault on Judeo-Christian values.

5. We believe in peace, but peace in the Middle East is not just about Israel and the Palestinians. The key to ending this conflict is for the Palestinian side to unequivocally recognize Israel as the legitimate national homeland of the Jewish people. Once that step has been taken, good faith negotiations have a chance of achieving success.

6. We share the same threats and challenges. There are two related threats which also imperil the region, and the wider world: the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and jihadism; and the prospect of a nuclear Iran … For the global jihad, Israel may be the first objective. But it will not be the last.

7. The goals of the Friends of Israel Initiative:

a) To combat the deligitimization of the State of Israel at home, abroad and inside the institutions of the international community.

b) To publicly show our solidarity with Israel’s democratic institutions – the legitimate expression of the Jewish people’s millennial aspiration to live in peace and freedom in its national homeland.

c) To support Israel’s inalienable right to secure borders unmolested by terrorists or tyrannical regimes so that its citizens can continue living with the same guarantees that our own societies enjoy.

d) To consistently and firmly oppose the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran.

e) To work to ensure that Israel is fully accepted as a normal Western country, an essential and indivisible part of the Western world to which we belong.

f) To reaffirm the value of the religious, moral, and cultural Judeo-Christian heritage as the main source of the liberal and democratic Western societies.

These convictions inspire this Friends of Israel Initiative. We invite all men and women of goodwill to join us.

You can click HERE to read the Manifesto of the Friends of Israel and sign on to its mission statement.

Inflaming Emotions Aboard the Mavi Marmara and Preparations Before the Confrontation with the IDF

Crethi Plethi — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 22:11:48 +0000

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. | Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Wed, June 16, 2010 | Video file 2 and Video file 3 | Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center | Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Inflaming Emotions aboard the Mavi Marmara before the Confrontation with the IDF

(Video File No. 2)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRgzbQqGK3s

During the voyage the passengers of the Mavi Marmara, especially the hard core of IHH operatives, were indoctrinated by senior figures such as IHH head Bülent Yildirim and Israeli-Arab sheikh Ra’ed Salah, a radical Islamist. A number of hours before the IDF took control of the ship, in addition to organizing and preparing weapons, the operatives on the upper deck shouted battle cries to incite those who were expected to take part in the premeditated violent confrontation with the IDF.

The ITIC is in possession of videos documenting the incitement to violence aboard the Mavi Marmara. For example:

A. A report prepared by Al-Jazeera TV broadcast live from the ship two days before the confrontation with the IDF showed the ship’s passengers singing anti-Jewish songs and songs of praise for the intifada (Palestinian terrorist campaign). It also showed them shouting “Khaybar Khaybar ya Yahoud,”^[1] a reference to Muhammad’s slaughter of Jewish men living in Khaybar in the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century (Al-Jazeera TV, May 29, 2010).

B. There was incitement by the hard core of IHH operatives during preparations for the confrontation. Among the slogans shouted were “Allah shall instill fear in their hearts.” One of the most vociferous was sheikh Muhammad al-Hazimi, a member of the Yemeni Parliament and of Al-Islah (the Yemini reform bloc) (also photographed aboard the ship holding a curved dagger).

Sheikh Mohammed al-Hazimi, a member of the Yemeni Parliament and of Al-Islah, aboard the Mavi Marmara.

Additional Evidence of the Preparations of the Hard Core of IHH Operatives for the Confrontation with the IDF

(Video File No. 3)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TxchZ39e-s

This video file contains a number of clips documenting the stages of the hard core of IHH operatives aboard the Mavi Marmara preparing themselves for the violent confrontation with the IDF. Some of the videos were taken by the ship’s security cameras (close to the time of the confrontation IHH operatives disabled some 20 security cameras on the upper deck) and others were taken by media correspondents or photographers on board who documented the events.

The videos illustrate the intensive preparations made for the confrontation, which began immediately after the Israeli Navy hailed the ships and asked them to return to their home ports. At that point all the ordinary passengers were sent below decks while all the operatives of the hard core mounted the upper deck and began preparations for the confrontation (statements to that effect were also reported when passengers and crew members were questioned).

The videos show some of the preparations:

A. Dividing the operatives into avtion teams: Every team was briefed by a senior operative. During the briefings one leader is heard listening to orders (in Turkish) on his walkie-talkie and repeating them to his team. He orders, “Don’t move from here.”

B. Cutting chains and iron bars from the ship’s railings using disks brought on board in Istanbul. The lengths of chains and bars were used to attack the IDF forces.

C. Removing wooden clubs from their hiding places on the ship and distributing them to the operatives.

D. Putting on gas masks and handing out filters.

E. Gathering the operatives on the upper deck, facing the sea. The operatives are armed with clubs to meet the IDF forces.

When the first soldier landed on board the ship he and those following him were viciously attacked by the IHH operatives who used the weapons they had prepared in advance, to the point of trying to kill the soldiers.

Notes:

^[1] Khaybar was a settlement in the Arabian Peninsula conquered by Muhammad and his supporters in 628 AD. It was accompanied by the slaughter of hundred of Jews and those who surrenders were forced to pay a high tax to the Muslims. The battle of Khaybar became a symbol of Muslim conquest and especially of the defeat of the Jews at the hands of Muslims, and is used as a militant slogan against the Jews by Islamic elements, among them Hamas.

IHH Preparations for a Violent Confrontation with IDF Soldiers

Crethi Plethi — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 23:36:42 +0000

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. | Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Tue, June 08, 2010 | Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

Bülent Yildirim - The terrorist leader of the IHH (Insani Yardim Vakfi), a radical Islamic "humanitarian" cover organization, supporting the Jihad against the West and Israel and organized "the Hate Flotilla" to Gaza.

IHH Preparations for a Violent Confrontation with IDF Soldiers Aboard the Turkish Ship Mavi Marmara

Initial conclusions from questioning passengers and examining equipment on board the ship

Overview

1. An initial analysis of statements taken from passengers aboard the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara after it was towed to the port of Ashdod show that operatives belonging to the radical Islamic Turkish IHH¹ led the violent confrontation with the IDF.

2. The statements confirmed that the violence met by the IDF soldiers was not spontaneous but rather an organized, premeditated action carried out by a hard core of 40 IHH operatives (among the 500 passengers). The operatives, who acted according to a clearly-defined internal hierarchy, boarded the ship in the port of Istanbul without undergoing a security inspection (as opposed to the other passengers, who boarded in Antalya after a full inspection).

3. The IHH operatives’ preparations included handing out walkie-talkies as they boarded the ship, taking over the upper deck, setting up a situation room for communications, and a briefing given to the operatives two hours before the confrontation by IHH head Bülent Yildirim, who was on board the ship and commanded his men. IHH operatives wore ceramic vests and gas masks, and were armed with large quantities of cold weapons which they had prepared from equipment found on board (knives, axes, metal cables, metal pipes used as clubs, wrenches, etc.). They were also equipped with box cutters which had been prepared on the upper deck in advance.

4. The passengers, including the IHH operatives, stated that there were close relations between the organization and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and that the Turkish government was involved in preparations for the flotilla. The statements reinforce the original assassment that the objective of the flotilla was not merely to bring humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, but focused on provocation and a violent confrontation with Israel.

The Connections between IHH and the Turkish Government

5. According to statements from the passengers, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan maintains close contacts with IHH. The flotilla set sail with the full knowledge and agreement of Erdogan, who expressed personal interest in its success and his intention to exploit it promote his status in Turkey and the Arab-Muslim world. Passengers said that before the flotilla set sail, Prime Minister Erdogan constructed a scenario based on a possible confrontation with Israel which he could use to further his own needs. The statements were supported by descriptions found in files on laptop computers belonging to the passengers.

6. That was supported by a statement from a journalist who had good connections with the heads of the Turkish government and with Bülent Yildirim, head of IHH. The following are statements from the journalist, who was a passenger on the Mavi Marmara:

A. Prime Minister Erdogan’s power base is built on IHH activists. Without their help he could not have been elected prime minister.

B. The Turkish government was behind the flotilla to the Gaza Strip and its objective was to embarrass Israel:

“The Turks set a trap for you and you fell into it.”

C. The flotilla was organized with the support of the Turkish government and Prime Minister Erdogan gave the instructions for it to set sail. That was despite the fact that everyone knew it would never reach its destination.

D. The affair of the flotilla strengthened Erdogan’s status in Turkey and turned him into the leader of Islamic world.

E. Three additional flotillas are expected to sail for Israel and the modus operandi will repeat itself.

F. The journalist stated he had visited the Gaza Strip as part of a humanitarian delegation and his impression was that there was no distress or lack [of commodities] in the Gaza Strip. He added that “everything is propaganda.”

7. In files found in laptops confiscated from Mavi Marmara passengers were other indications supporting the vast amount of information concerning the linkage between IHH and the Turkish government:

A. A letter written in Turkish was found from IHH head Bülent Yildirim to Turkish President Abdullah Gül, asking him to release an IHH operative named Izzat Shahin from an Israeli prison. [Note: Shahin is an IHH operative who was sent as an organization representative to Judea and Samaria. His main activity was transferring funds to Hamas “charitable societies.” He was detained for questioning in April 2010 and later deported at the request of Turkish officials.]

B. According to one file, IHH purchased the Mavi Marmara from a Turkish company called IDO (Filename IHH Basin Agiflamasi Gemi.com) [Note: The Turkish company IDO, Istanbul Deniz Otobusleri was founded in 1987 by the city of Istanbul to provide fast, convenient, safe transportation services for the residents of Istanbul. The company, the largest of its type in the world, united with City Line Ferry Services in 1995 and is today the main provider of water transportation in Istanbul and the Sea of Marmara.]

The Mavi Marmara Passengers

8. Passengers aboard the Mavi Marmara said that for the most part, they had been recruited for the flotilla via the press, television and Internet sites, which publicized IHH contact telephone numbers and email addresses for interested parties. In that way 500 passengers were recruited, most of them volunteers.

9. Besides the ordinary passengers on board the Mavi Marmara, there were 40 Turkish IHH operatives. They were the hard core, composed of Turkish citizens who had been recruited especially for the mission. They had a hierarchy which was clearly-defined according to the part of the country they came from and their missions (each region had its own leaders and recruiters). On board the ordinary passengers were separated from the hard core of IHH operatives.

10. The hard core boarded the ship in Istanbul without undergoing a security check, as opposed to the other passengers, who boarded in Antalya after a full examination (see below). As they boarded they were given walkie-talkies for communicating with one another. Some of them had stickers on their clothing reading “Security Protection [khares amni].”

11. The volunteer passengers were requested to make their own preparations to arrive in Antalya on May 26 and 27. Before the ship set sail there was a meeting in Antalya for a final briefing. Many carried exceptionally large sums of money on their persons (tens of thousands of euros), apparently distributed to them after the ship was detained at sea. The funds were in all probability meant to be transferred to Hamas (the passengers claimed the money was for their own personal use).

The Sea Voyage

12. The ship set sail from Istanbul carrying 29 crew members and the 40 recruited hard core IHH members. Equipment was loaded which did not undergo a security check of any kind. The ship sailed to Antalya where the other passengers were X-rayed before boarding. The passengers boarded according to a list prepared by IHH and Turkish Customs, who were responsible for the security check-in.

13. During the voyage a group of IHH operatives supervised the ship. IHH guards were posted in the passageways and did not permit passengers to reach the upper deck. They also limited the movements of the crew, who needed permission from the IHH men to go from one place to another. In addition, a kind of communications situation room was established for IHH correspondents.

Preparations for Violent Resistance to the IDF

14. According to statements taken from passengers, the main objective of the flotilla’s organizers was “to show the true face of Israel to the world” and not necessarily to bring aid to the Gaza Strip. It was obvious to them that they would meet Israeli opposition before they reached the Strip.

15. Before the confrontation with the IDF the ship’s passengers prepared for violent resistance, which was clearly led by the hard core of IHH operatives.

16. Preparations for the confrontation with the IDF included the following:

A. Briefing the hard core before the IDF takeover (briefing carried out by Bülent Yildirim).

B. Separating the volunteer passengers from the hard core and sending them below (all passengers who did not “contribute” to resisting the IDF were ordered below decks and told to stay there).

C. Donning ceramic vests and gas masks.

D. Arming themselves with cold weapons which had been collected and manufactured on board the ship. They included knives, axes, tools, metal cables and metal clubs which had been sawed off the ship’s railings (using disks which had been brought along for the purpose). Metal screw-nuts were strewn on deck to make footing uncertain.

17. The IHH operatives were instructed not to allow the IDF soldiers to board the ship and to throw those who did manage to board into the sea. Close to the time of the IDF boarding, IHH head Bülent Yildirim gave orders to his hard core operatives to form a human chain and to use chairs and clubs to beat back the soldiers and throw them into the sea.

18. When the Israeli Navy boats which approached the ship threw grappling hooks to board the ships, the operatives removed them and threw them back.

Weapons Found on Board the Ship

19. The following weapons, which according to statements had been prepared in advance:

A. One hundred ceramic vests imprinted with the Turkish flag. They were worn by IHH operatives as well as doctors and correspondents (as part of preparations for violence).

B. Two hundred gas masks.

C. A large number of slingshots.

D. Eight axes taken from fire-fighting stations aboard the ship.

E. Dozens of knives, most of them taken from the ship’s kitchen and six cafeterias. A switch-blade was also found.

F. Steel cables and metal rods sawn off the ship’s railings.

G. Wooden clubs.

H. Hammers and other tools.

I. Metal screw-nuts which were strewn on the upper deck to impede the movements of the soldiers.

J. Paint rollers from which the sponges had been removed, to be used as clubs.

The Identity of the Dead

20. Eight of the nine operatives killed were identified during the questioning of the passengers as IHH operatives and volunteers. One of them was an IHH photographer. (The ninth person was not identified.)

Appendix

The statement of an officer aboard the Mavi Marmara

1. The main points of a Mavi Marmara officer’s statement:

A. The cargo, which was loaded in Istanbul, consisted of drugs and basic merchandise (which could be seen by the lettering on the packages).

B. The ship set sail with 29 crew members and 40 IHH operatives. The leader of the operatives’ group was Bülent Yildirim. An operative named Rajip was responsible for logistics. There was also an operative named Tonj.

C. The other passengers boarded in Antalya according to a list held by IHH and Turkish Customs. From Antalya they sailed to Cyprus where the other ships were waiting for them.

D. Before the passengers boarded, the captain instructed the crew to make sure there were no weapons or anything that might be considered a weapon.

E. When the IHH operatives boarded the ship they were given walkie-talkies to help them control the ship. Guards posted in the passageways prevented the ordinary passengers from reaching the upper decks. The movements of the crew were also limited and they needed permission from the IHH operatives to go from one place to another.

F. Instructions were given to the passengers by the IHH operatives via the ship’s closed circuit television. In addition, a kind of communications situation room was set up for IHH’s correspondents.

G. The IHH operatives used disks to saw the ship’s railing into metal rods. They also had steel rods they took from the lifeboats. After hearing the sound of the disks, the captain sent two officers to find out where it was coming from. They saw that the IHH operatives had brought disks on deck, contrary to the captain’s orders, and were using them to saw the ship’s railings into metal rods. They found three disks and confiscated them.

H. In retrospect it is obvious that the incident had been organized in advance. The officer claimed he neither sensed nor understood what was going on during the sea voyage because he kept his distance from the passengers.

Note:

¹ For further information about IHH see the May 26, 2010 post, “Humanitarian Aid as a Cover for Anti-Semitism” (ITIC).

A Moral Evaluation of the Gaza War

Crethi Plethi — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:12:48 +0000

Prof. Asa Kasher analyzes the moral issues in the Gaza War. Published: February 4, 2010; A moral evaluation of the Gaza War – Operation Cast Lead (Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs).

by Asa Kasher

In Israel, a combatant is a citizen in uniform; quite often, he is a conscript or on reserve duty. His state ought to have a compelling reason for jeopardizing his life. The fact that persons involved in terrorism are depicted as non-combatants and that they reside and act in the vicinity of persons not involved in terrorism is not a reason for jeopardizing the combatant’s life more than is required under combat conditions.

The ethical doctrine which follows from the IDF Ethics Code mandates that, whenever possible, you must warn non-combatants that they are residents of a neighborhood where it is dangerous to stay. In Gaza, the IDF employed a variety of unprecedented efforts meant to minimize injury to non-combatants, including warning leaflets, phone calls, and non-lethal warning fire.

There is no army in the world that will endanger its soldiers in order to avoid hitting the warned neighbors of an enemy or terrorist. Israel should favor the lives of its own soldiers over the lives of the well-warned neighbors of a terrorist when it is operating in a territory that it does not effectively control, because in such territories it does not bear the moral responsibility for properly separating between dangerous individuals and harmless ones.

Proportionality is not a numerical comparison, but an assessment of existing threats and the measures that must be taken in order to avert them. Proportionality is justifiability of the collateral damage on grounds of the military advantage gained.

Compare the Gaza operation to the U.S. Marine operation in Fallujah, Iraq, in late 2004. During the operation, about 6,000 Iraqis including 1,200-2,000 insurgents were killed. Of the city’s 50,000 buildings, some 10,000 were destroyed, including 60 mosques. Thus, the U.S. left a trail of destruction in Fallujah far greater than anything Israel inflicted on Gaza. Comparing IDF activities to those of military forces of Western democracies is an essential part of any present attempt to use international law.

We in Israel are in a key position in the development of customary international law in this field because we are on the front lines in the fight against terrorism. The more often Western states apply principles that originated in Israel to their own non-traditional conflicts in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, then the greater the chance these principles have of becoming a valuable part of international law.

The “Just War Tradition”

On December 27, 2008, after sustaining eight years of rocket attacks, Israel launched a military operation against Hamas in Gaza. How are we to evaluate the Israeli incursion from a moral and ethical perspective?

As in any moral evaluation of a war, we must begin by distinguishing the “Why?” from the “How?” “Just war” theory distinguishes between jus ad bellum and jus in bello – between the moral justification for war and the moral justification for actions taken during a war. The decision to wage a war or to embark on a military operation is made by a government, by politicians. The implementation of that decision in the field, however, or the “How?” is determined by the military echelon. Generally speaking, a government is not to blame for the behavior of soldiers, and soldiers should not be blamed for the decisions made by the political class.

To ask “Why?” is to invoke several principles that belong to the “just war tradition.” The first is the right of self-defense. From an external point of view, from the perspective of the relationships between states, a state has the right to defend itself against attack. From the internal point of view, namely from the perspective of the relationship between a state and its citizens, a government has the duty to defend its citizens. A state must protect its citizens from acts of violence because it must preserve the conditions that enable it to exist; foremost among them is the preservation of the lives of its citizens. A democratic state is therefore under an obligation to defend its citizens’ lives. Thus the state has a right vis-à-vis the enemy and a duty vis-à-vis its citizens. This is the distinction between a state’s right of self-defense, which relates to what is beyond its confines, and a state’s obligation of self-defense, which relates to what is within its confines. Both are applicable in our case, since beginning in 2001 over ten thousand Kassam rockets and mortars were launched from Gaza into Israel, endangering the lives of the citizens under attack.

Second is the principle of last resort, which dictates that if a dispute can be solved without resort to military force and inflicting casualties, then the parties are obligated to do so. The use of military force is justified, in other words, only if all other alternatives have been exhausted. Here, too, Israel is presumably in the right, for rather than launching an offensive immediately after the first Kassam rocket struck Sderot, the country waited eight years, during which it pursued other solutions, both military and political. Israel’s long abstention from any large-scale military response in the face of this aggression presumably meets the principle of last resort.

Third, the probability of victory principle dictates that a military operation may be launched only if it has a reasonable chance of successfully achieving its aims. Such operations may not be initiated merely as a symbolic gesture of bravery. If there is no chance of victory, the use of military force is mere bloodshed. Yet here we must distinguish between classical wars like World War II and the Six-Day War in which victory meant the elimination of a military threat, and asymmetric counterterrorism or counterinsurgency warfare against a non-state entity, like the type Israel faces against the terrorist militias of Hizbullah and Hamas (see also the Hamas Charter). In the latter, victory means significantly improving the security situation in the southern part of Israel by damaging the enemy’s armaments infrastructure and crippling its ability to carry out terrorist activities. Here again, last year’s incursion into Gaza met the pertinent condition.

The Moral Standards of the Israel Defense Forces

In inquiring into the moral standards of a military force – which is not the same as addressing the standards of an individual – three independent questions come to the fore. One concerns the basic values on which the military force acts and the code of ethics according to which it behaves. A second level concerns the translation of such values into practice by means of doctrines, regulations, and rules of engagement. Values are abstract, doctrines are more concrete, while rules of engagement are quite concrete. Finally, there is the question that relates to the behavior of the troops on the battlefield.

As specified in a document called “The Spirit of the IDF,” the values of the Israel Defense Forces, much like the values of the American and British forces, are impeccable. For example, there is the basic value of protecting the human dignity of every human being, even the most vile terrorist. How do we protect the human dignity of a terrorist? By considering whether to kill him or capture him or leave him alone.

An additional, uniquely Israeli value is that of the sanctity of human life, both of our troops, our citizens, and other human beings. It appears in an explicit form in no other military code of ethics.

The military code also enshrines a fundamental value known as “purity of arms,” which actually means the purity of the usage of arms. Soldiers may use force only for accomplishing their mission, and nothing more. Anything you do with your gun which is not defending the citizens by accomplishing your specific mission is deemed immoral.

In my view, no military code of ethics is morally superior to the code of ethics of the IDF.

A View of International Law

We turn now to that part of international law that concerns warfare. This was elaborated in the seventeenth century by the Dutch legal theorist Hugo Grotius on the foundations of a very long philosophical and theological tradition – the “just war tradition.” Later it took the form of the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Conventions.

Strictly speaking, international law does not apply to the situation Israel faced in Gaza. Its provisions were intended to guide a military conflict between armies with clear chains of command in which all the troops wear uniforms, bear arms openly, and are responsible to the civil government of a certain state. Terrorist militias like Hamas, however, are not guided by a state. Hamas acts from a territory which is a political entity, the Palestinian Authority, but which is not a state. Moreover, Palestinian terrorists, deliberately and constantly, blur the distinction between combatants and non-combatants, both among the Palestinian population and among the Israelis they target. The classical assumption of mutual observance of the norms of warfare never holds in the war on terrorism.

How then can international law meant for classical warfare apply to nontraditional wars? One way is by means of creative interpretations of international law. The problems with such an approach, however, are immediately apparent. Whose interpretation prevails? The interpretation of the Supreme Court of Israel? The U.S. Supreme Court? The Marine Corps’ Judge Advocate Division? Somebody within the United Nations?

An Ethical Doctrine for Combating Terrorists

Israel should take a different approach, for it is interested in extending international law rather than replacing present provisions by other ones. Extending international law entails creating new principles in the spirit of the “just war tradition” by attending to fundamental principles, and not merely reinterpreting a certain clause in a certain convention. As it happens, Major General Amos Yadlin and I, as a first step in such a direction, put forward a document that offers an ethical doctrine for combating terrorists. This document was published in the Journal of Military Ethics in 2005. Here are some elements of it.

Usually, the duty to minimize casualties among combatants during combat is last on the list of priorities. We firmly reject such a conception. In Israel, a combatant is a citizen in uniform; quite often, he is a conscript or on reserve duty. His state ought to have a compelling reason for jeopardizing his life. The fact that persons involved in terrorism are depicted as non-combatants and that they reside and act in the vicinity of persons not involved in terrorism is not a reason for jeopardizing the combatant’s life more than is required under combat conditions.

What we need instead of the crude and now impractical distinction familiar from the case of regular wars is a scale of involvement in terrorist activity: There are people who are directly involved, those who are indirectly involved, and those who are not involved at all. The second two categories may never be targeted. An operation may only target those who are directly involved, i.e., only if they play a significant role in creating an otherwise unavoidable danger.

So our doctrine allows targeted killing when it is necessary to stop a certain operation against the citizens of Israel and when the role played by the target is crucial to the operation. This is not a form of punishment. The only body that can impose punishment is the court. This is meant only to stop an ongoing act of terrorism. Nor is such killing a form of deterrence. Killing for the sake of deterrence is something akin to terrorism. According to our doctrine, it is impermissible to kill for deterrent purposes alone. Israel killed Hamas leaders Sheik Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi, for instance, not to achieve a deterrent effect, but because they posed a significant threat to Israeli lives. Deterrence has been an ensuing byproduct.

Our doctrine also draws a distinction between three different standards of conduct to guide a soldier in any military action: (a) a standard he should follow when facing a group comprising enemy combatants and no one else; (b) a standard he should follow when facing a group of enemy non-combatants who are not participating in the fighting and are not in proximity to enemy combatants; and (c) a standard he should follow when facing a mixed group of combatants and non-combatants.

The Gaza operation mostly took place under conditions that required the application of the third standard of conduct. In the third situation, “just war tradition” theory posits the “double effect” principle. According to this principle, when we are seeking a goal that is morally justified in and of itself, then it is also morally justified to achieve it, even if this may lead to undesirable consequences – on the condition that the undesirable consequences are unavoidable and unintentional, and that an effort was made to minimize their negative effects.

The Need to Warn Non-combatants

Our doctrine mandates that whenever possible, you must warn non-combatants that they are residents of a neighborhood where it is dangerous to stay. The responsibility for minimizing injury to non-combatants entails the responsibility to separate them from terrorists and to remove them from the area of combat. In Gaza, the IDF employed a variety of effective efforts meant to minimize collateral damage, including widely distributed warning leaflets, more than 150,000 warning phone calls to terrorists’ neighbors, and non-lethal warning fire (the so-called “knock on the roof”) – unprecedented efforts in every respect.

Writing in the New York Review of Books, Avishai Margalit and Michael Walzer attacked our doctrine on the grounds that such warnings are not enough. “In such cases,” they wrote, “some civilians never leave, despite repeated warnings – because they are old and sick, or because they are caring for relatives who are old and sick, or because they are afraid that their homes will be looted, or because they have no place to go.”

Now under such circumstances, should Israel send in troops in order to find out whether there are non-combatants in addition to the terrorists or not? Our doctrine says Israel was not required to send in troops because the mixture of terrorists and non-combatants is a mixture not under our moral responsibility in a territory over which we do not have effective control, as in Gaza. In a state of effective control, the responsibility for distinguishing between terrorists and non-combatants is placed upon Israel’s shoulders. We do have effective control over Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and many other places, so there we do jeopardize the lives of police when necessary to prevent criminal acts without harming the neighbors. That is their duty.

But there is no army in the world that will endanger its soldiers in order to avoid hitting the well-warned neighbors of an enemy or terrorist. When Israel does not have effective control over a territory, the moral responsibility for distinguishing between terrorists and non-combatants is not placed upon its shoulders. Gaza was not under our effective control. Therefore, one does not have to jeopardize the lives of the troops in such circumstances just for that sake. If you look at non-combatants in a territory where one does not have effective control and have already made a series of warnings that are known to have been effective, then the lives of the troops come first.

In sum, Israel should favor the lives of its own soldiers over the lives of the well-warned neighbors of a terrorist when it is operating in a territory that it does not effectively control, because in such territories it does not bear moral responsibility for properly separating between dangerous individuals and harmless ones, beyond warning them in an effective way. The sick can wave white flags, their relatives can do it too. The person who is afraid his home would be looted does not create by his odd behavior a reason for jeopardizing soldiers’ lives. The person who does not know where to go is a myth.

Understanding Proportionality

A word about proportionality. Many critics of the Gaza operation charged that, since very few people were killed by rocket attacks on Israel’s population, while many people were killed by the Israeli response, this response was disproportionate and, therefore, contrary to international law. However, the way the term “proportionality” has been employed in public discourse is usually wrong. First, the number of Israeli casualties is not a reliable measure of the threat posed by enemy rockets. A Grad rocket hit a Beersheba classroom on December 31, 2008; had the missile hit the school when classes were in session, dozens of schoolchildren would have been killed. Luck does not diminish the threat posed by an attack. Proportionality is not a numerical comparison, but an assessment of justifiability of the collateral damage made by the military advantage gained.

An example: At the beginning of the Gaza campaign, a police headquarters was hit because so-called policemen were part of the Hamas security forces and some of them were suicide bombers and others were firing rockets. They were not innocent people involved in traffic control. They were part of a Hamas security force that acted like a reserve unit, and during military warfare you are permitted to hit reserve units that are going to enter the battlefield. The portrayal of those people as if they were all innocent policemen is misleading. Even if some of them were innocent, their attack was utterly justified by the military advantage gained by attacking them. (We assume that warning these innocent individuals would have been futile.)

Were some soldiers trigger-happy in Gaza? Perhaps. But was there a policy of trigger-happiness? On the basis of two kinds of indirect evidence, we can say that there was not. First, if there had been a policy of trigger-happiness, there would have been many thousands of Palestinian casualties. Second, if there had been a policy of trigger-happiness, then the distribution of men, women, and children among the casualties would have closely resembled their distribution in the population. But that is not the case. The vast majority of casualties in Gaza were men; women and children comprised about a sixth of the casualties.

Comparing Israel’s Conduct in Gaza to U.S. Conduct in Iraq

Compare the Gaza operation to Operation Phantom Fury, which the U.S. Marines launched in Fallujah, Iraq, in late 2004. Many of Fallujah’s 350,000 residents fled the city before the operation, leaving an estimated 3,000 insurgents behind. During the operation, about 6,000 Iraqis including 1,200-2,000 insurgents were killed. Of the city’s 50,000 buildings, some 10,000 were destroyed, including 60 mosques, each of which was used to store substantial quantities of armaments and munitions. Even according to Palestinian figures, which are unreliable, 1,400 Palestinians were killed in the Gaza operation. Thus, the United States left a trail of destruction in Fallujah that was far greater than anything Israel inflicted on Gaza. So there is no basis to claim that Israeli conduct of anti-terrorist warfare is less restrained than that of other enlightened states.

We compare Operation Phantom Fury and Operation Cast Lead not in order to use the results for casting a shadow on the former or praising the latter. We compare the operations because the way democratic states conduct their military activities is what should interest us, rather than some creative and often hostile interpretation of the conventions, as a step towards instituting customary international law.

Customary international law accrues through an historic process. If states are involved in a certain type of military activity against other states, militias, and the like, and if all of them act quite similarly to each other, then there is a chance that it will become customary international law. We in Israel are in a key position in the development of law in this field because we are on the front lines in the fight against terrorism. I am not optimistic enough to assume that the world will soon acknowledge Israel’s lead in developing customary international law. My hope is that our doctrine, give or take some amendments, will in this fashion be incorporated into customary international law in order to regulate warfare and limit its calamities.

Investigations

When claims are made with respect to IDF conduct during the Gaza operation, no matter by whom, the IDF should investigate them, even if they appear to be fabricated. A commander may not ignore allegations about his troops; this is required professionally, ethically, and morally.

The IDF is a serious organization, interested in improving its activity on all levels – professional, military, legal, moral, and ethical. All military actions carried out during the Gaza operation should undergo a professional, thorough, and detailed investigation, just like any other non-routine and complicated professional operation. The IDF has an obligation to investigate itself just as any other professional organization would. This standard applies to a physician after an operation, an engineer after completing a bridge, and a commander after military activities. If some troops are suspected of breaching the law, then let the military police investigate. Indeed, there are significantly many ongoing investigations. Nothing more is required.

About the author:

Prof. Asa Kasher is the Laura Schwarz-Kipp Professor Emeritus of Professional Ethics and Philosophy of Practice and Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Tel Aviv University in Israel. He is co-author of the Israel Defense Forces Code of Ethics, “The Spirit of the IDF: Values and Basic Principles,” 1994. His research covers a broad range of topics in philosophy and ethics, including military ethics and medical ethics, and philosophy of language, as well as issues of Jewish identity. In 2000, Professor Kasher was awarded the Israel Prize for his work in philosophy and ethics. This Jerusalem Issue Brief is based on his presentation to the Institute for Contemporary Affairs in Jerusalem on November 26, 2009. The article was written in conjunction with the Global Law Forum sponsored by the Legacy Heritage Fund.

Mazzeltov,

Crethi Plethi

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Hamas Legitimizes the Rocket Attacks at Israel

Crethi Plethi — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:59:59 +0000

Published: february 10, 2010; Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center.

As part of the response to the Goldstone Report that defines the rocket attacks as a “crime of war”, Hamas’s judicial system brings up claims legitimizing the rocket attacks at Israel and rejecting the legitimacy of the State of Israel.

Muhammad Faraj al-Ghoul, the justice minister of the Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip, recently announced that Hamas would “very soon” submit its response to the Goldstone Report, a 52-page document containing the findings of a “committee of experts” established by Hamas for that purpose. At the same time, the Palestinian Authority submitted its preliminary response to the Goldstone Report through Riyad Mansour, its representative in the UN.

The cover page of an interview granted by Diya al-Din al-Madhoun, the head of the Hamas documentation committee, to the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades website, in response to the Goldstone Report (January 27, 2009)

Diya al-Din al-Madhoun, a judge in the Hamas administration who heads Hamas’s documentation committee (Al-Tawthiq), presented Hamas’s main line of argumentation several days ago. The main arguments are as follows (see Appendix for details):

a. Hamas targeted the military targets of the “occupation”, rather than concentrations of civilian population. The rockets of the “resistance” are not accurate, and may slightly miss their target “in spite of the effort to avoid causing harm to civilians”. The few civilian casualties of the rocket attacks prove that civilians were not the target.

b. Most of the areas hit by rockets are not part of the State of Israel to begin with, and it was the “enemy state” (i.e., Israel) that perpetrated a crime of war by relocating civilians to combat zones and settling them in territory that did not belong to them.

c. The Goldstone Report condemned the “Zionist occupation” and absolved the “resistance” of the claims of using civilians as human shields. The Goldstone Report’s claims that the “resistance” perpetrated a crime of war by targeting civilians are baseless. Those claims will be refuted by the principles of international law, which grant occupied peoples a legitimate right to resist an occupying enemy.

Damage caused to a kindergarten in Ashdod as a result of a rocket hit (courtesy of ZAKA spokesman, January 6, 2009, photo by Yossi Landau)

Those claims are incorrect. The vast majority of the rockets were quite clearly fired at large territorial targets, such as cities and other population centers, to kill, scare, and demoralize the population, making no distinction between military and civilian targets. Even the Goldstone Report acknowledges that the attacks were indiscriminate and aimed against civilians to cause panic and interrupt their daily routines.

Following are some major characteristics of the rocket attacks during Operation Cast Lead:

a. About 650 rockets were fired on Israel during the operation, of which about 570 landed in Israeli territory. Furthermore, 205 mortar shells were fired as well. The artillery used in the attacks included 132 improved 122-mm rockets for ranges of up to 40 km, which put nearly one million Israeli civilians within the rockets’ range (including in such large municipal centers in southern Israel, such as Beersheba, Ashdod, Kiryat Gat, and Gedera).

b. The rockets were fired on large Israeli population centers with the intention of hitting as much civilians as possible. For example, Israel had intelligence information on plans to fire on schools in Ashdod to disrupt studies, even though the rockets used by Hamas are imprecise and are difficult to aim specifically at schools. In a speech given during Operation Cast Lead, senior Hamas figure Mahmoud al-Zahar praised the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades and said that following the IDF’s ground assault Hamas was within its right to target hospitals, ambulances, synagogues, and to kill both women and men (Al-Aqsa TV, January 5, 2009). Other spokesmen and media of Hamas (and other terrorist organizations) have said on several occasions that the rocket attacks were aimed at Israeli population centers.

c. The Goldstone Report did note the relatively small number of casualties (three civilians and one soldier) suffered by Israel as a result of the rocket and mortar attacks into its territory. The relatively small number of fatalities and the fact that no mass casualties were inflicted on school students were the result of several factors: the technical limitations of the rockets, the terrorists’ difficulties in firing them, and advance warning measures which allowed the civilian population in Israel to take cover well in advance. Furthermore, on one hand Hamas used civilians as human shields, which increased civilian casualties. On the other hand, Israel prepared its home front well in advance, which led to a small number of civilian casualties (for example, no studies were held in southern Israel, mass events were cancelled, and people were asked to stay indoors). If it was not for such preparations, there is no doubt that the number of casualties would have been much higher, considering that rockets hit or landed near schools, kindergartens, residential buildings, and public facilities in Sderot, Beersheba, Ashdod, and Ashkelon.

Frame from a video clip showed during Operation Cast Lead, in which Hamas threatens to hit Tel-Aviv as well (Al-Aqsa TV, January 10, 2009)

d. During Operation Cast Lead, Hamas boasted of its ability to increase the rockets’ range to Tel-Aviv. Al-Aqsa TV showed a clip with the names of Israeli population centers hit by rockets, implying that the next target of the rocket launchers was going to be Tel-Aviv. The name of Tel-Aviv appears near a large crosshair, with text on the bottom of the screen that reads: “All of our options are open” (Al-Aqsa TV, January 10). That video clip reflects Hamas’s attempt, with Iran’s assistance, to obtain rockets whose range would cover more Israeli cities, mainly Tel-Aviv.

Metal pellets from a Grad rocket that hit a school in Beersheba (Yaron Brenner, ynet, December 31, 2008)

The head of the Hamas documentation committee claims once again that the Goldstone Report exonerates Hamas of the charge of using civilians as human shields. That is in fact one of the Achilles’ heels of the Report, and is being thoroughly exploited by the Hamas propaganda. A great deal of hard evidence held by Israel proves that Hamas has formulated a combat strategy based on the use of civilians as human shields, which includes various tactics implemented in Operation Cast Lead: forcing civilians to stay in neighborhoods where IDF forces are operating; plain-clothed terrorists blending into civilian residential areas; using groups of children to escape from combat zones; making extensive use of residential buildings and public facilities (such as hospitals, schools, and mosques) for military purposes; firing rockets from the vicinity of residential buildings and public institutions, and so forth.

A major part of the Palestinians’ response to the Goldstone Report is the battle for the legitimacy of Palestinian representation being waged between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, a battle which has come to include the Goldstone Report as well. Ever since the Palestinians started dealing with the Goldstone Report, Hamas is the one that has been taking the initiative, making varied use of the Goldstone Report, presenting a façade of holding its own “independent” investigation by a “committee of experts”. There are several reasons for that, as far as Hamas is concerned: its interest in denouncing Israel and putting its leaders and commanders to trial by means of the report; its desire to break through the barrier of its international isolation (mainly on the part of Western countries); and its striving to establish itself as the legitimate representative of the Palestinians and undermine the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority.

The Palestinian Authority, on its part, which seeks to emphasize the fact that it (rather than Hamas) is the representative of the Palestinians, follows the lead of Hamas and has recently (after a considerable delay) established its own committee to investigate the Goldstone Report recommendations. According to an AFP report from Ramallah, on January 25 Abu Mazen issued an order to establish a special committee to implement the recommendations imposed by the Goldstone Report on the Palestinian Authority with regard to rocket attacks on Israel during Operation Cast Lead. The committee consists of five members, including jurists and academics, and it is headed by Issa Abu Sharar.

Appendix

Statements made by senior officials in the Hamas judicial system regarding the Goldstone Report.

Interview granted by Diya al-Din al-Madhoun

Diya al-Din al-Madhoun, a Hamas administration judge and chair of Hamas’s documentation committee (Al-Tawthiq),¹ has recently granted an interview in which he spoke about Hamas’s position regarding the Goldstone Report. Following are excerpts from answers he gave to (obviously scripted) questions asked by the interviewer, which appeared on the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades website (alqassam.ps, January 27, 2010).

(Q:) How would you describe the juridical status of the resistance based on international law?

(A:) “First I would like to note that the Palestinian people still labor under the burden of the occupation. International law stipulates the right of occupied peoples for self-defense, and stipulates their right to resist occupation in order to liberate their land from occupying forces. The acts of resistance carried out by the Palestinian resistance factions include rocket and mortar attacks on the occupying Zionist forces. All military activities performed (by those factions) are within the legitimate means, according to international law, for defending our people and liberating our occupied land in order to achieve self-determination…”

(Q:) If resistance is a legitimate right, why does the West refer to it as terrorism?

(A:) “International law, which empowers occupied peoples to resist the occupation, also sets principles for foiling acts of war. In international law, each side has to avoid hitting civilians and civilian facilities. The Zionist occupation managed to use (those) legal principles for its benefit in the past. It misrepresented and still misrepresents (those facts) to global and particularly Western public opinion. (It claims) that the Palestinian resistance is a criminal element which strives to hit civilians and murder Jews in a racist fashion, and that the Palestinian resistance is made up of criminal groups which strive to destabilize the security and stability of the region. The fact that we are an occupied people who exercise their legitimate right to resist the occupation and to self-defense has been blurred.”

“That resulted from our weakness on the media and from the continuing weakness (of the way we are seen) by the West. The West believed the Israeli narrative and did not agree to hear our message at the time. I can say that (thanks) to the era of satellite and free media in which we currently live, many have started to show a desire to understand the message of resistance of the Palestinian people, and the world and international public opinion, particularly Western public opinion, started to understand which one is the victim and which one is the hangman. We live (in a reality of) multiple views, and the Palestinian narrative keeps penetrating (more and more) into the international position, which is reflected in the (penetration of) truths which confirm that the Palestinians are an occupied, robbed, and hurt people, expelled from their land and exercising their legitimate right to resist the occupation in accordance with international law.”

(Q:) Regarding the (Israeli) aggression against the Gaza Strip, according to your monitoring, did the (Palestinian) factions of resistance comply with (international) law, even though they are not a regular army?

(A:) “The Palestinian resistance has confirmed on more than one occasion that it is committed to international law and that its rocket and mortar attacks are aimed at the military targets of the occupation. For example, concentrations of tanks which fire on the houses of (peaceful) civilians in the Gaza Strip. (It also) targets the military airfields from which the occupation fighters are launched, that did not leave the skies of the Gaza Strip during the entire war (i.e., Operation Cast Lead). Likewise, (the resistance) targets outposts where occupation forces congregate while preparing for an invasion into the Gaza Strip.”

“The resistance has managed to internalize the meaning of its commitment to international law. Two answers can be given to the claims of the (Israeli) occupation, according to which three civilians were killed as a result of the rocket (attacks) of the resistance”:

1. “The rockets of the resistance – despite the efforts not to harm civilians – are imprecise, and may slightly miss their targets. That is what happens in all armed conflicts. The killing of three civilians (by rocket attacks) in 22 days, in which hundreds of rockets were fired (on Israel), proves that civilians were not the target of the rocket attacks, since dozens of them would have been killed otherwise.”

2. “The occupation authorities claim that the areas where the resistance rockets landed are part of the State of Israel; however, international law has a different opinion, since the signing of the Oslo Accords between the Palestinian Authority and the (Zionist) entity is not considered to be a final solution or final agreement on the delineation of the borders. As long as there is no final agreement, the matter of delineating the borders rests with the international resolutions, i.e., the (1947) Partition Resolution, on which the International Court (the Hague) relies in its decisions regarding the (separation) fence. Even though we have reservations regarding the (Partition) Plan, most of the population centers in which the rockets of the resistance landed are inside the Arab international borders as specified in the Partition Plan. We therefore learn that it is the enemy state (i.e., Israel) which perpetrated a crime by relocating civilians to combat zones and settling them in land which did not belong to them, which contradicts international authorities. Likewise, (it) put civilians in a site which is the focal point of the military and political struggle, thus violating their rights. We therefore learn that the Palestinian resistance exercised its legitimate right by adhering to the principles of international humanitarian law, and that it was the occupation forces which violated the law and inflicted suffering and horror on the civilians.”

(Q:) Does Justice Goldstone’s report jeopardize the resistance…?

(A:) “The report of the international mission headed by Justice Goldstone is considered one of the most powerful reports which convicted the Zionist occupation of crimes of war and what may even amount to crimes against humanity. The report corroborated the allegations through testimonies and evidence stretching over more than 500 pages; at the same time, exonerated the resistance of the claims of using civilians as human shields. Moreover, the report even confirmed that the civilian police, who were targeted in the first day of the aggression (i.e., Operation Cast Lead), are civilians, and that firing on them constitutes a blatant violation of humanitarian and international law and is a crime of war.”

“What further strengthens the report is the fact that it was approved by the Human Rights Council and the United Nations General Assembly, which confirmed its recommendations. In addition, the report included recommendations and (legal) means for trying international war criminals. That does not suggest that I should not express my reservations about the last ten pages (of the report), in which it points the blame at the resistance and claims that it may have perpetrated crimes of war by targeting civilians. Those accusations, however, had no proof or legal basis, and will be refuted in light of the principles of international law, which grant occupied peoples a legitimate right to resist the occupying enemy…”

“I would like to stress that the Palestinian government received the complete text of the Goldstone Report, and will address all aspects of it. The Palestinian government already does so by taking serious measures to implement the recommendations of the report, and it established independent committees to investigate the claims brought up in it and to discover the truthfulness of the accusations that appear in it. However, I can say that all the claims that appear in the report will be refuted because they bring up accusations in violation of international law, and it will become clear, through the independent inquiry committees, that what I say is true.”

(Q:) Seeing as we expect new acts of aggression (by Israel) against the Gaza Strip, does that mean that the Zionists will have no qualms about perpetrating crimes of war in such acts of aggression?

(A:) “We are still early in the process of filing lawsuits against the commanders and soldiers of the Zionist occupation. As we begin, we understand the difficulties and obstacles we are facing, reflected in double standards and lack of balance between international forces, which until now have favored the occupation. We believe that time will work to our benefit, since the issue of filing lawsuits builds up gradually. The world must realize that if the criminal occupier feels itself above questioning and accountability, it will be encouraged to perpetrate (further) atrocities and crimes. Putting a limit on the policy of avoiding punishment will enhance the authority of international law, ensure the spread of international justice, reaffirm (the existence of) justice towards the victims of the (Israeli) aggression, and deter anyone who might be tempted to perpetrate international crimes. I believe we are taking a first step (forward), which I believe is a successful step, and I think that this step (even) realized some of our goals. We will exert further efforts to deter the occupier and his criminals from committing any more atrocities and crimes against our people. Moreover, we will make efforts to do justice with our victims of the (Israeli) aggression and guarantee their right for compensation.”

Muhammad Faraj al-Ghoul’s press conference

Muhammad Faraj al-Ghoul, the justice minister in the Hamas administration, held a press conference in Gaza City (January 27) which was shown on Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV. During the press conference, he described the measures taken by the Hamas administration with regard to the Goldstone Report, even though he claimed that the recommendations of the Security Council did not require the Palestinian side to conduct any investigation. According to Al-Ghoul, Hamas established an “internal inquiry committee” to investigate deliberate violations of international law and expert committees to monitor the recommendations of the Goldstone Report. He claimed that those committees did professional work in accordance with international standards. Their response includes 52 pages and will be submitted to the director of the (Human Rights) Commissioner’s office in the Gaza Strip within the specified time period, which will be very soon.

According to Muhammad Faraj al-Ghoul, (the Ministry of Justice) is now investigating other Israeli “crimes of war”, including stealing organs from shaheeds (martyrs). According to Al-Ghoul, the general prosecution of Hamas is going to file lawsuits against Israel about those issues and conduct a special workshop regarding it (note: on January 27, 2010, Hamas’s daily Felesteen published an announcement by the Ministry of Justice in the Hamas administration, announcing the start of preparations for assembling all the information and documents “proving” that Israel had indeed stolen organs from shaheeds. The purpose is to build a “complete case that would cover all legal aspects” and be used as a basis for lawsuits against the Israeli government in international courts. Gaza Strip residents who have relevant information were asked to send it to the Ministry of Justice so that it can be included in the case being put together against Israel).

Home front command soldiers on the scene of a rocket hit near the kindergarten in Ashdod (courtesy of NRG, photo by Eddie Israel, January 11, 2009)

Note:

^1. For further details, see the December 22, 2009 posted article: Al-Tawthiq and its Anti-Israel Campaign.

Mazzeltov,

Crethi Plethi

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.