Kudos to Haaretz for publishing the first English-language accounts of the “spill the beans” session held at Oranim Academic College February 13 in which dozens of IOF soldiers who had served in Gaza talked openly about many of the laws-of-war violations they saw their fellow soldiers committing there.
Yesterday Haaretz followed up, with the fullest English-language version to date of the session. This is an important text that bears close reading.
Especially this portion, from the testimony of a soldier codenamed Aviv:
- At first the specified action was to go into a house. We were supposed to go in with an armored personnel carrier called an Achzarit [literally, Cruel] to burst through the lower door, to start shooting inside and then … I call this murder … in effect, we were supposed to go up floor by floor, and any person we identified – we were supposed to shoot. I initially asked myself: Where is the logic in this?
From above they said it was permissible, because anyone who remained in the sector and inside Gaza City was in effect condemned, a terrorist, because they hadn’t fled. I didn’t really understand: On the one hand they don’t really have anywhere to flee to, but on the other hand they’re telling us they hadn’t fled so it’s their fault … This also scared me a bit. I tried to exert some influence, insofar as is possible from within my subordinate position, to change this…
According to Aviv he changed the orders he had gotten from “above” by using loudspeakers to give the residents of the houses five minutes to get out of them before the killing squads would go in.
“Above”, though: Where did those orders come from?
It seems that the problem of IDF violations in Gaza was not only (and perhaps not mainly) one of poor training and disorganization at the NCO level, as Pat Lang had earlier surmised, but one of fundamentally inhumane and possibly criminal orders being issued from the higher echelons.
After the Oranim revelations were published– they came out in Maariv, as well, though not I think in English there– the IDF promised it would launch an investigation and Defense Minister Ehud Barak said the IDF was still “the most ethical army in the world.” In light of the facts that have also been emerging– in the soldiers’ testmonies at Oranim, and elsewhere including here— about the incendiary and criminal tracts distributed to troops in Gaza by the IDF’s own rabbis, and about the widespread commissioning by IDF units of extremely hateful and anti-humane T-shirts, Barak’s bleating is outrageous and the idea that the IDF itself can ever satisfactorily “investigate” its own deep culture of supporting and condoning laws-of-war violations (= war crimes) is completely non-credible.
By the way, the whole of Uri Blau’s piece there about the inciteful T-shirts is worth reading. The soldiers he interviews there who’ve been involved in commissioning, selling and/or designing some of the many designs of these T-shirts make quite clear that the designs receive advance approval from officers or NCOs before they are distributed within the units.
A few final notes:
1. Palestinian survivors of the atrocities in Gaza and local and international human rights groups had earlier produced numerous reports, since almost the first days of the war, about the IDF’s widespread commission of law-of-war violations in Gaza. Asked about those reports, IDF spokesmen nearly always issued strong denials, though where the evidence was incontrovertible they said they would investigate what had happened themselves. (No signs, though, that they ever did so.) These spokesmen should be held accountable for their lies. They include reserve officer Michael Oren, now back to his day-job teaching students at Georgetown University in Washington DC.
2. At a broader level, Israel as a state, the IDF as an army, and the responsible officials within the IDF should all be held completely accountable for these reported violations which– as now described by numerous IDF soldiers themselves– certainly mount to the level of war crimes. The ROEs or standing orders mandating this behavior, these soldiers say, came “from above.” Everyone in the world concerned about the commission of atrocities, and most especially those of us who are US taxpayers and thereby also morally responsible for IDF actions, need to gain a complete understanding of what the ROEs were and who signed off on them; and we need to see the responsible levels within the IDF or the Israeli government punished and excluded from the future exercise of power. Until this happens, all officers in the higher echelons of the IDF should be considered possibly culpable.
3. As clearly described by the soldiers in the Oranim meeting, and as previously revealed in any number of reports, one of the highest priorities of the IDF in the Gaza operation was to avoid IDF casualties to the highest degree possible– even where this would involve increasing the risk of harm to civilians. This was because of the effects of Israeli war dead on domestic Israeli politics both during the lengthy and ultimately unsuccessful IDF campaign in Lebanon 1982-2000 and the effects of Israeli war dead during the 2006 debacle in Lebanon: Inflicting a lot of damage on Gaza, and being seen by everyone in the world as being quite ready to do so, was an important part of what was meant when Israeli leaders described the war’s goal as being to “increase the credibility of Israel’s deterrence.”
International humanitarian law, by contrast, requires that members of military units be prepared to take additional casualties among their own numbers in order to avoid harm to civilians; and the IDF’s own “permanent” ethics code states
- IDF servicemen and women will use their weapons and force only for the purpose of their mission, only to the necessary extent and will maintain their humanity even during combat. IDF soldiers will not use their weapons and force to harm human beings who are not combatants or [who are] prisoners of war, and will do all in their power to avoid causing harm to their lives, bodies, dignity and property.
During the Gaza war, that ethical norm clearly got over-ridden at some level. At what level, and by whom?
4. The tendency of many Israelis to engage in hand-wringing self-referentialism continues. Jeffrey Goldberg comments on his blog,
- the Jewish people didn’t struggle for national equality, justice and freedom so that some of its sons could behave like Cossacks. Please don’t get me wrong: I’m not equating the morality of the IDF to that of Hamas. The goal of Hamas is to murder innocent people; the goal of the IDF is to avoid murdering innocent people. But when the IDF fails to achieve its goal, and ends up inflicting needless destruction and suffering, it sullies not only its own name, but the name of the Jewish state…
His post there is titled “How far has the IDF fallen?” Um, Jeffrey, how about if the IDF, in which you once served, apparently with pride, has always or very often been like this in the past… ?
5. Some Israelis and pro-Israelis just love to wax poetic about how sensitive the IDF’s soldiers are… how they not only shoot but they engage much more sensitively in the activity known as “shooting and crying.” Possibly the most mendacious and nauseating version of this sentiment is the one piously intoned by Golda Meir in 1969:
- When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons.
(Barf.)
Ah, well, it is not just the “sons” of the Arabs who are getting killed by the IDF these days… It is also their babies, their grandmothers, their sick, their halt, and their lame.
But here’s a memo to the ghost of Mrs. Meir and to all other Israelis who try to appear oh-so-“sensitive” as they go about, or try to condone from afar, the IDF’s murderous and criminal actions: No-one is “forcing” you to act this way. The Israeli government as a body, and individual Israelis who serve in their nation’s army, all have a choice. One choice is to end occupation; end the attempt to dominate and oppress your neighbors, the Palestinians; and make real peace. The other is to carry on with the murderous business as usual. It’s up to you to choose.
But please, if your choice is to carry on with the killing and destruction, don’t come to us to expect any sympathy for the choice you made.
Helena,
The principal evidence you provide shows soldiers acting honorably where whatever orders were actually given could not be pursued in a moral fashion. As you admit (while overlooking its significance):
In other words, the soldier allowed civilians to escape. And that is your evidence that Israel is evil? Amazing!
Goldberg’s point, unlike your point, is well taken. His concern was with conduct which is unbecoming of a soldier. I agree entirely with him. Your focusing on moral behavior is another matter…
As for the orders, presumably the orders were general orders – assuming that the quoted solider has them correct. And general orders do not apply in every circumstance. And the soldier, acting as a moral person, adjusted the orders to the situation. So, your problem with that situation is what? That he acted morally? That speaks rather well of Israel’s military.
Propaganda. Have you some evidence that other armies act better, disobeying an order that cannot be applied in a particular situation?
Thank you Helena.
All the best !
Helena,
You can delete this because it doesn’t follow the topic at hand. Nevertheless, I thought you might be interested in reading THIS (Iraq related).
Those soldiers speaking up at the Oranim meeting, like our Winter Soldiers here in the US, deserve our gratitude and support. They must face what we just ignore, the immoral and illegal acts carried out by our nations against our “enemies”. Our victims.
The Refuseniks especially are a brave cadre in the face of the solidarity of the Israel population in defense of its sins. The juggernaut of jingo in the US has temporarily run aground, but it is always under full steam in Israel, for the population there have largely accepted the vision of one Israel over all of Palestine and so are committed to defend all the atrocities that their acceptance of that “vision” entails.
Look at the refuseniks. Are they somehow less brave, less noble than their fellows?
No! They are far braver and far more noble!
Let us hold them up, let us hold up the Winter Soldiers, as examples of humanity’s response to inhumanity. Let us allow them to teach us how to retreat from the edge of the abyss. Let us allow them to teach our children how to do so.
IDF rabbis invoking an Israeli jihad? This is barbaric!
These soldiers are brave for speaking up. These psychological wounds will remain forever and they have a profound impact. No matter what side you come down on the conflict, the soldiers carried out inhumane acts and those who authorized these actions MUST be held accountable so that no Israel soldiers should be ever put in these severely compromising circumstances again. No amount of Israeli PR can excuse the government or the military out of this one.
A very interesting article that seems to go to the heart of this problem appears in the Sunday Washington Post. It describes an insidious takeover of the IDF by the hard right, ultranationalist, religous Jews. The article says that these people have now risen to positions of authority in the IDF and to them the war is a religious struggle to carry out God’s law and cleanse the land of non Jews. Very surprising that it would appear in a MSM paper even in a watered down version. Could the Gaza slaughter really be a turning point in talking truth about Israel?
ctrenta, those Israeli soldiers created their own psychological wounds by their own actions. They don’t deserve any more sympathy than does any other mass murderer.
And I do not accept the notion that it is those who authorized them who must be held accountable, letting those who actually committed the atrocities off the hook. “I was following orders” is no defense. Everyone involved in the crimes is equally responsible, from those who gave authorization, those who ordered, those who committed, and those who tolerated the crimes.
Palestinian terrorists – in particular, Hamas and Islamic Jihad – have fired more than 2,000 rockets at Sderot, which is home to mostly poor and working-class people. The rockets are designed exclusively to maximize civilian deaths, and some have barely missed schoolyards, kindergartens, hospitals, and school buses. But others hit their targets, killing more than a dozen civilians .
The attacks on Israeli citizens have little to do with what Israel does or does not do. They have everything to do with an ideology that despises – and openly seeks to destroy – the Jewish state.
Jack, please provide a link for those of us who would like to read the article. Thanks.
Shirin – Strange. I went back to the Wapo site to look for the story and I can’t find it. I saw it early this morning. It had been at the top of the page with pictures of IDF soldiers grouped around a rabbi in Gaza. It discussed the fact that the rabbi’s message to the troops was that Gaza was a holy war and that the Torah said something about showing no mercy to enemies. But I now can find no trace of the article.
Jack, Shirin,
Here is your link to the WAPO article I just made a search on their website, ursing the words “Gaza holy war idf”
It is titled Israeli Soldier Says Military Rabbis Framed Gaza Mission as Religious and was written by Howard Schneider on the 20th of March.
Apparently someone didn’t want it on the first pages..
James, engaging in misleadng claims and exaggeration doesn’t help your argument. Palestinians from Gaza have fired 2,000 rockets into Israel over what time period? Over that same period what were the quantity and relative explosive power of the rockets, missiles, bombs etc that the IDF launched against Gaza?
“More than a dozen Israeli civilians” were killed over what time period? Certainly not during the recent war during which three or four were killed; or since Jan 18, when I think none have been killed.
The Palestinians’ primitive rockets are “designed exclusively to maximize civilian deaths”? Wow. Amazing. How can they distinguish between civilians and combatants? Interesting technology there. (Irony alert.)
Actually even IDF generals themselves have admitted that there has been clear evidence that Hamas tries to target Israeli military facilities and has some success in doing so. But outsiders don’t read about it because of Israel’s military censorship.
Anyway, around a dozen IDF combatants were killed during the war. As I said, engaging in misleadng claims and exaggeration doesn’t help your argument.
James,
Most of those Quassam rockets didn’t hit anything. While it’s true some Israelis were killed, which is COMPLETELY unjustified, it still doesn’t compare to the number of Palestinians killed during the Israeli aggression in late December and early January. Keep in mind, Palestinians have a right to resist occupation under international law. Killing on the other hand…
Let’s also point blame where blame is due. What’s not being raised, which people have tried to raise over and over again, were the countless times the IDF violated the cease fire agreements. For more information click here.
Here’s the link from the above post.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/download/gazacfv.pdf
Helena,
your posts are one sided and misleading.
Somewhere in the back of my mind I seem to recall that lies and deception are perfectly acceptable in Islam when dealing with the infidels. Therefore, why anyone should expect something different is completely beyond me.
Israel’s military actions in Gaza are entirely justified under international law, and Israel should be commended for its act of self-defense against international terrorism. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter reserves to every nation the right to engage in self-defense against armed attacks.
Since 2005 when Israel left Gaza, Hamas fired 2000 rockets into Israeli towns.
“primitive rockets” are not accurate , Hamas aims at Sderot and does not care where they hit.
The Israeli Air Force had pinpointed with precision the exact locations of Hamas structures, in an effort to minimize civilian casualties. The IDF has used a new tactic meant to reduce civilian casualties, calling houses before they are to be targeted in order to give inhabitants time to flee the attack.
The IDF also used a sound bomb to warn civilians before striking homes.
Israel civilan casualties during the war were 3 civilian dead and 182 wounded civilians.
James,
James wrote :
your posts are one sided and misleading.
LOL.. who do you think you can convince of that on this list ? I’d say it’s the other way around. Your posts are spilling of ideology and hate in a shameful manner.
Somewhere in the back of my mind I seem to recall that lies and deception are perfectly acceptable in Islam when dealing with the infidels. Therefore, why anyone should expect something different is completely beyond me.
If you were living in a EU country, you’d run the risk to be condemned for racism, with what you are saying.
Israel’s military actions in Gaza are entirely justified under international law, and Israel should be commended for its act of self-defense against international terrorism. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter reserves to every nation the right to engage in self-defense against armed attacks.
(…)
The IDF has used a new tactic meant to reduce civilian casualties, calling houses before they are to be targeted in order to give inhabitants time to flee the attack.
Yes, absolutely..(irony alert) this is why the International Red Cross Committee made so many calls to the Israelians, during the Gaza war, asking them to respect the Geneva Conventions. Here is for instance the extract of an interview of Jakob Kellenberger, the head of the ICRC :
Q Do you assess a blatant violation of the International Humanitarian Laws (IHL)
A As you know, we don’t make that kind of public statements. We have undertaken several tractations to promote the respect of the IHL. Three points have been raised : the evacuation of the woundeds, which should have been permanent instead of restricted to three hours a day, the distinction between combattants and civilians and finally, the proportionality of the force used. Even if you want to respect these two last rules, it is very difficult to achieve it if you are using heavy weapons in such a densely populated area. To have a point of comparison, Gaza is three times as densely populated as Manhattan in New York. Under these circumstances, the military modus operandi chosen raises a serious problem.
Q And what is actually the situation in Gaza ?
A There are urgent humanitarian needs and important needs of infrastructural rehabilitation. But the question of Gaza should be addressed seriously. To begin with, the embargo should be lifted and the isolation of Gaza from the rest of the world should end. The population should be able to work. I have a real sorrow : every one is concentrating on the humanitarian action to-day. But I’m no more ready to restrict my discourse to the humanitarian aspect. All these talks on the humanitarian actions should not serve, as I fear, to avoid the difficult political questions. With all what I saw, I ask myself how many deads, mutilated and disabled, among them so many civilians, it will take before we understand that there is no alternative to a honnest and sincere peace process. A process which should include all the states and armed groups having an influence on this situation.
You can read more about what Jakob Kellenberger, the head of the ICRC, had to say concerning Gaza here or there for the whole text.
Frankly, Israelians have enjoyed a high capital of sympathy here in the EU and elsewhere, given what they suffered in Nazi Germany sixty years ago. But now, they are going too far and have just discredited themselves and are loosing this capital of sympathy. I heard many times the Israelians ambassador trying to defend the IDF, just the way you did on our TV news.. Well, people heard it but discarded it as ideological, you are just no more credible. This is here for all to see and its not by planting such comments again and again on the blogs, that you are going to change opinion. People know what they have seen during the Gaza war. People know that the Palestinians are under siege in Gaza and understand their situation. Don’t you realize that the situation has changed ? that Lebanon 2006 and Gaza 2009 were too much for the rest of the world to swallow.
I don’t think Helena’s posts are one-sided and misleading. I think she’s one of the most thoughtful and considerate analysts of Mideast politics and Palestine-Israeli affairs and coming from a perspective of genuine peace.
Very different from other advocates against oppression in the Mideast.
Legally speaking, Israel has not killed a single civilian. Hamas bears sole responsibility for ALL civilian casualties because they stand guilty of using human shields. If you hold a hostage and a police sniper shoots at you and kills the hostage, you are the murderer, not the police sniper.
It is beyond me that Israel is compelled to justify her fight against Hamas terrorist – these sick, murderous savages. Hamas are nothing but gangsters, a nihilistic organization killing its people. I was surprised it took Israel so long to act.
ctrenta,
I do not think that Helena’s post here even supports her allegations. What the material she quotes shows is an army that concerns itself greatly with humanitarian concerns – thinking in situations where most armies merely blast away.
Moreover, the orders she hints at are not illegitimate or illegal. They are designed as general orders and are in line with the International laws to which Israel is a party. (Actually, the US and Israel have signed onto different war conventions than has Europe.) And, fundamental to such specific conventions to which Israel must abide is the law that where combatants act out of civilian areas – even civilian homes -, those areas, legally speaking, become battlefields.
That a place is correctly declared to be a battlefield does not relieve soldiers from the obligation to minimize civilian deaths. But, the obligation is not an absolute one.
On the other hand, the law does fully explain the orders by upper echelon commanders which Helena finds troubling. Again: if an enemy uses a civilian area, that area is a battlefield, legally and morally. And, legally, those combatants who hide among civilians commit a grave violation of the rules of war.
So, we have Israeli soldiers allowing civilians to escape from the fighting. That, in a nutshell, is Helena’s allegation of wrongdoing. And that, in any rational world, is the opposite of immoral behavior. It is, instead, moral behavior of the first order by soldiers who, contrary to the spin by many on this board, attempt to avoid civilian casualties.
By contrast, those rockets from Gaza are shot into Israel as if there was no care where they land. And, in fact, they land in elementary schools and in homes. They are, by definition, a grave violation of the rules of war. And, fighting to eliminate that threat is an entirely moral and legal thing to do.
As a past contributor to the IDF’s Widow’s fund, I’m concerned about the affect on contributions to such charities. (thinking about current news, everything I ever gave wouldn’t buy Bernie Madoff one shoe). This is not the Israel of 25 years ago when I first started listening to Israel Radio and reading the POST. Whatever one’s view on Gaza — what was the purpose for it all?
Also, a side issue is the allegation that Israel has weapons capable of shooting down palestinian rockets. There are “weapons”, actually radar, satellites and other sensors, which can locate where rockets were launched. Then a small missile can hit that point. But, is there an anti-rocket weapon? Then, why not use it?
Bill,
Israel’s current missile defense system is only capabable to detect incoming long range missiles from Iran.
It DOES NOT work for short range rockets fired from Gaza.
I have a better solution: Hamas and Jihad must stop shooting at Israel.
So long as these Hamas idiots choose to continue lobbing rockets daily at Israeli civilian population, they can expect to be invaded and bombed from time to time. If Mexico allowed the lobbing of thousands of rockets at US cities every year, you can be damn sure there would be overwhelming support for retaliation. And, just like with the most recent Israeli response, that retaliation would be justified.
N Freeman,
You already discredited yourself in Helena’s other diary, so save yourself.
And, fundamental to such specific conventions to which Israel must abide is the law that where combatants act out of civilian areas – even civilian homes -, those areas, legally speaking, become battlefields.
N Friedman, this is your and Israel’s interpretation. As I clearly indicated above, providing serious links, this interpretation isn’t supported by the head of the ICRC, which is responsible for the application of these conventions. Why make as if this interpretation was only that of Helena’s ? Why ignore what I have said ? Because you are uneasy about it ?
You are constantly repeating the same thing, without adding something new to your message. The tactics you are using are disturbingly similar to those developped by Joseph Goebbels, the nazist minister, whose propaganda was based on the theory that when a lie is repeated often enough it becomes a “truth” believed by common people.
Christiane,
I ignore the IRC because of all the Antisemites associated with the organization over the years.
Addressing, to make you happy, your points… Israel has not signed onto the 1977 Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, upon which the arguments you assert all basically depend. In my view, a country cannot be forced to abide by Protocol I just because other countries or so-called human rights groups think it a good idea. Otherwise, why bother asking countries to sign up.
In fact, many other countries, notably the US, have refused to sign onto Protocol I. So, you are asking Israel to abide by Protocol I which the US has not only refused to sign up for but which the US simply does not follow. And, in fact, the US does accept Protocol I for the very reasons that support the arguments made against Israel, namely, that the distinction between battlefield and civilian areas loses much of its significance, which means that guerrilla armies, which abide by only the rule of the jungle, are given an unfair advantage.
In this regard and consistent with my point, Helena and you see no special reason to harp on Hamas, which follows no rules of war and, in fact, has adopted a policy making war crimes the tactics of first choice (e.g. massacres by means of suicide attacks, rockets shot without a care where they land, holding captives while refusing Red Cross visits, etc., etc.). To me, there is something rather bigoted in holding one side to no standards and the other side to standards that make legitimate self defense impossible.
The Arabs have no religious claim to he land. Mecca and Medina are their epicentre. Jerusalem has no meaning for them.
N Friedman,
You are wrong at least on two counts concerning the ICRC :
1) the evacuation of the wounded for instance is part of the very first convention and one of the most basic characteristic of the right of the war.
2) the prohibition of the killing of civilians is another rule of the same kind, which you broke as well.
3) the question of proportionality which is more sophisticated may have been explained with more details in an additive protocol, I should check that.
Nevertheless, I won’t take pride that these supposedly so fine democracies as the US and Israel didn’t sign on the last protocols.
Last but not least, you can’t compare the ICRC of 60 years ago with the actual one. You are only offering one more example of how the Likudnik/Sionists are trying to discredit anyone daring to criticize the aggressive policy of Israel and Tsahal with antisemitism. Disagreeing with the way a government behave has nothing to do with racism; it is a political or a humanitarian reaction.
Christiane,
I oppose Protocol I because it is directed to assisting guerrilla fighters. Which is to say, it makes war more, not less, terrible. So, I am proud to oppose a poorly conceived protocol.
Please read what I wrote more carefully, most particularly with reference to attacks on civilians. The issue I raise relates to what happens to civilians caught on a battlefield created by guerrilla combatants. You turn the question into a simple one, as in you cannot kill civilians. That, in fact, is not the case. The issue is far more complicated and there is no blanket prohibition.
As for allowing access to evacuate the wounded, the Israelis did a very good job compared to what occurs in most wars. Perhaps, you remember Fallujah or any other battle in Iraq. Perhaps you remember the battles in the Iran-Iraq war. Perhaps you remember battles in Southern Sudan. Do you have examples of battles where access was better? I doubt it.
As for the IRC, I stand by my comment. Recall the refusal of the IRC to permit Israel’s MDA to be part of the International Red Cross because the MDA did not adopt the Christian cross or Muslim crescent in its insignia. That went on for more than 50 years after Israel’s founding!!! Recall that the American Red Cross threatened not to pay money to the IRC over the issue. This is not ancient history. And, it does have everything to do with how Europeans think, deep down, about Jews.