Targeted killings, moral considerations
I’ve pointed a number of people to an article the Ethical Dilemmas of Fighting Terrorism by (current head of Israel’s Military Intelligence) Gen Amos Yadlin. In the paper, Gen Yadlin writes
In August 2002 (actually Sept 2003) we had all the leadership of Hamas in one room and we knew we needed a 2,000-pound bomb to eliminate all of them. Think about having Osama bin Laden and all the top leadership of al-Qaeda in one house. However, use of a 2,000-pound bomb was not approved - we used a much smaller bomb - and they all got up and ran away.
Now the details of that decision have been reported by Laura Blumenfeld of the Washington Post, In Israel, a Divisive Struggle Over Targeted Killing . The article opens a window into the most difficult decision that Israel’s political and military leadership have to make: how to protect their country even at the cost of the deaths of innocents. The article is reported straight without the snideness that often accompanies reporting on Israel. Surprisingly (from my perspective) the hardest liner when it comes to these decisions was apparently Avi Dichter and the most conflicted of the decision makers was Gen Moshe Yaalon who is widely portrayed as a hard liner. Apparently that hard line doesn’t extend over all areas of his experience. What’s most important about the article though, is that it demolishes the idea that “targeted killings” are “extrajudicial” in the parlance of the enlightened. Israel has strict rules for these actions and the determining factor, legally, is always whether the target presents a threat in the future. Revenge is not a sufficient reason for the targeted assassinations. There are, however, two weaknesses to the article. One is that Blumenfeld doesn’t present the relevant sections of international law that justify Israel’s actions. As such the discussions she covers have the quality of discussing the number of angels dancing on a pinhead. The Geneva Conventions Article 51 paragraph 7 reads:
7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
It wouldn’t have taken much to have given the article the proper legal background which constrain Israeli actions. And while the straight reporting benefits the picture it paints of the Israeli decision, it gives undue credence to the host of the Hamas meeting that was targeted
For Abu Ras, the Hamas leader whose home had been bombed, “it felt like an earthquake. A big, black smoke,” he said in an interview. His guests had sat down to lunch. “I was so happy to host them,” Abu Ras said. “What was our crime? I’m an ordinary citizen, not a terrorist. We have no terrorists among the Palestinian people.”
Of course mentioning the Geneva conventions would have helped here too. (via Elder of Ziyon)
Article 85.-Repression of breaches of this Protocol 3. In addition to the grave breaches defined in Article 11, the following acts shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol, when committed wilfully, in violation of the relevant provisions of this Protocol, and causing death or serious injury to body or health: (a) Making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack; (b) Launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2 (a) (iii);
According to Abu Ras, there are no Palestinian terrorists because all Israelis are legitimate targets. It is a sentiment often echoed in the West, that the Palestinians resort to terror because it is the only weapon in their hands against a much more powerful enemy. That of course is an argument that has no legal standing. But that doesn’t stop it from being made repeatedly. Those who make it though are not simply misguided. They have decided that killing Jews has legal protections; and that Jews defending themselves have none. Despite its failings, Blumendfeld’s article is a must read. (When looking for the article before, I discovered that the NY Sun picked it up today.) Technorati tags: Targeted Killings, Israel, Hamas, Moshe Yaalon, Avi Dichter, Washington Post.
Mossad is an independent agency and decides who must be proactively assassinated. They actually hold trials in absentia with prosecutors and defence counsel. They usually give a sign off list to the PM. Usually the sign off is just perfunctory, but who know maybe that RAT, Olmert manages to subvert the Mossad.When the Mossad recommends assassination it always has has a good case. (Source: Victor Ostrovsky)
Israel has found out that this is not a choice, it is a necessity in fighting terrorism. They say that he rest of the West will have to adopt this and will discover that this is necessary.
Proactive assassination is an absolute necessity in fighting terrorism.
Moonbats step aside or they must be put you under lock and key or targeted with the enemy.
The new “moral consideration” is survival. The new moral consideration is understanding that identifiable enemies must be disposed of in the most unfair ways possible. One does not give a deadly enemy a “fair chance”.
Deterrence is also a principle to be considered. If Israel is seen to be targeting every terrorist, this tells the terrorists that they have to worry about being terrorists.
…
The bottom line is that Israel has to fight terror because terror declared war on us. We can win, but we must do it ethically as the Jewish people, as a democratic state, and as IDF officers who respect our ethical profession.
Not only Israel, All our times have come. The free ride for the fat cat, six pack, West is over.
Comment by Max
— August 29, 2006 @ 4:33 am
Above text in the first post should be in blockquote,as it is quoted from the article.
Comment by Max
— August 29, 2006 @ 4:41 am
I disagree completely with every word that Yadlin writes above so much so I am going to write an answer.
max is correct and I am with him.
Comment by Felix Quigley
— August 29, 2006 @ 4:58 am
That sounds interesting, Felix.
There are two intelligence services in Israel, The Mossad and Military Intelligence. The Mossad is very independent, or used to be, it is not much subject to reviews or scrutiny.
The first thing about Blumenfeld’s article is why was it declassified? It is too much information that seems useful to the enemy. It tells them how the Israeli Command thinks, what problems they have etc etc, it seems too much to reveal. Even if some of them know, they don’t really “know” til it is confirmed.
Or did they release it because they wanted the enemy to know? Perhaps that things have changed?
I think from reading the second article that Yaalon was wrong. Also, he was the wrong man for the this particular aspect of the job. It’s too bad because he was very competent and in all other functions. He could not handle the personal aspect of this type of task.
Neither the Bible or the Talmud is a manual for combat operations, why was the author quoting that?
Avi Dichter was correct, he operated from sheer military logic. Only success or failure counts, not numbers of collateral damage. There always is a bottom. The assassination of Dai Li in 1946 the Chinese Civil War virtually insured the victory of the CCP. Dai Li, head of the Kuomintang Secret Service, knew everything, knew all the agents and since there was no horizontal communication between levels, the whole network collapsed when he died. It really doesn’t matter if you have to drop an A-Bomb like at Hiroshima, you must finish the job always.
Yaalon was clearly not cut out for this line of task work. You need people that simply do the work, do the job, not one way nor another, not wildly nor restrained but those who do the work and will enjoy doing it, do it resolutely and take pride in it. An old Japanese saying goes: “If you screw up, do it with enthusiasm!” Enjoyment of the job is an important attribute of job satisfaction and job suitability.
You need the kind of person who is already convinced he is damned and going to hell and there is nothing left but to go forward with the task at hand and to the best possible job of it and take pride in it. Perhaps Yaalon was unflinching in modern type warfare but not this kind.
My view, is that people who consort with terrorists are not innocent. So not too many of the civilian’s who got killed in these attacks are “innocent”. And as for dependents, they are the responsibility of the terrorists or their consorts or those who decide to be their friends. The same principle applies in the West . For instance if you go joyriding with a friend and he runs someone over or robs a bank, you are equally guilty.
If you associate with bad company you reap the rewards of bad company. choose your friends wisely.
The civilian deaths will also teach people that if they know a person is a terrorist they should never go near that person, let alone be in the same house, the same car or on the same street.
In WW2, no matter what the operation or assault was we got the job done, we had to. We didn’t know how much collateral damage there was and we often didn’t have the luxury to care about it. This is the way war has to be. Now the problem is with modern communications. The commanders know too much. So what are needed are commanders with an uncompromising devotion to duty and nothing else. No itchy trigger fingers or trembling fingers, just do the job.
And Dichter is right, “Never forget” means “Don’t let it happen again”.
Maybe this failure , like the Re-engagement war will serve as an inoculation against future failures, Halutz seems “cured”. Perhaps that is why the article was published, as a warning.
Anyway, a patient can’t survive too many deadly infections, once or twice is a miracle, there are only so many chances.
Comment by Max
— August 30, 2006 @ 8:46 am
It is a monumental mistake to give any concern to “collateral damage” at all when eliminating enemies - it represents a self-propogating problem. By giving concern to it in the first place will motivate the enemy to make it a concern for you in the second place, and third, etc. If one disregards it entirely, the enemy will know that it won’t save him and won’t go to the trouble of surrounding himself with “collateral targets”. Further, if the “collateral targets” know that his presence around them is a death warrant for themselves, they will drive him away or kill him themselves.
Targeting innocents is surely immoral. Targeting the enemy is surely moral. Reluctance to target the enemy out of concern for innocent bystanders is the most immoral of all because: 1) The enemy is free to continue in the quest, be it planning or action, to make war on us; and 2) The enemy will be motivated to increasingly seek cover among innocents, thereby endangering more innocents. To maximize the protection of innocents on both sides requires striking the enemy without an iota of concern for “collateral damage”.
Comment by Peretz Rickett
— August 30, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
`That’s a very clear and concise explanation of the process, Peretz. That definitely merits being in a compendium of counter-responses to enemy propaganda.
Comment by Max
— August 30, 2006 @ 5:08 pm