According to a report published in Haaretz on 26 November, the Israeli military has continued its assassination policy in apparent defiance of High Court of Justice guidelines for such operations.
Documents at the hands of Haaretz reveal that the Israeli military approved assassinations in the West Bank, including cases where the targets for assassination could have been arrested instead, and that top-ranking military officers authorized the killings in advance, in writing, even if innocent bystanders would be killed as well. Haaretz also discovered that contrary to what the state told the High Court, assassinations were subject to only minimal restrictions prior to the court’s ruling.
In December 2006, the Israeli High Court of Justice ruled that the Israel military policy of targeted killings of Palestinians does not categorically violate international law, but the legality of each targeted killing must be evaluated on an individual basis.
The three-justice panel unanimously ruled that “it cannot be determined in advance that every targeted killing is prohibited according to customary international law.”
The ruling was issued by former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, along with the current Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch and Justice Eliezer Rivlin.
In addition, the court ruled that the conflict between Israel and Palestinian organizations has the characteristics of armed international conflict, and therefore is subject to international law.
“In its fight against international terrorism, Israel must act according to the rules of international law,” the court said.”We must balance security needs and human rights. Not every efficient means is also legal. The ends do not justify the means.”
According to the ruling, Palestinian operatives are not legally defined as combatants and therefore must be considered civilians. This was a rejection of the state’s argument that international law recognizes a third category comprising “unlawful combatants.”
Nonetheless, the court ruled that civilians involved in military activities are not afforded the same protections granted to civilians under international law.
“A civilian, in order to enjoy the protections afforded to him by international law during an armed conflict, must refrain from taking a direct part in the hostilities,” the court stated. “A civilian that violates this principle [...] is subject to the risks of attack like those to which a combatant is subject, without enjoying the rights of a combatant, e.g. those granted to a prisoner of war.”
In addition, the court established four primary criteria that must be met in order for a targeted killing to be justified.
First, “well based, strong and convincing information” regarding the individual's activities.
Second, “a civilian taking a direct part in hostilities cannot be attacked if a less harmful means can be employed.”
Third, an independent, thorough investigation must be conducted after the attack to determine “the precision of the identification of the target and the circumstances of the [targeted killing].”
Fourth, every effort must be made to minimize harm to innocent civilians, and “harm to innocent civilians caused during military attacks (collateral damage) must be proportional.”
Policies of assassination of Palestinian activists are also a popular strategy among Israeli public. According to a public opinion poll conducted in January by the Tammy Steinmetz Center at the Tel Aviv University, 81 percent of Israelis support targeted killings of Palestinian.
0 Have Your Say!:
Post a Comment