Is Israel Justifying Genocide Amid War Tactics?

The question of whether Israel is attempting to justify acts of genocide during wartime has been a topic of heated debate and concern globally. Israel’s military strategies, particularly its targeted assassinations, and explores their alignment with international laws of armed conflict, such as the Geneva Conventions. The analysis aims to understand the impact of these actions on global norms and the potential redefinition of war laws.

Historical Context of Israeli Assassinations

Israel’s history of targeted assassinations is extensive, beginning in 1956 and continuing to the present day. This strategy primarily targets Palestinian leaders and militants, with a significant increase in such operations observed in recent decades. Notable figures assassinated include Ghassan Kanafani, Khalil Ibrahim al-Wazir, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, and Fathi Shaqaqi. The escalation in the number of assassinations from 14 in the 1970s to over 150 in the early 2000s, and 24 since January 2020, illustrates the increasing reliance on this tactic.

Recent Incidents and Netanyahu’s Stance

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent news conference on July 13, 2024, highlighted the attempted assassination of Hamas’s military commander Mohammed Deif. The operation resulted in the deaths of at least 90 Palestinians, including women and children, in an area designated as a “safe zone.” Despite Netanyahu’s admission that the target might not have been hit, he emphasized that such attempts deliver a message to Hamas.

This incident underscores a pattern where Israeli leaders use assassinations to demonstrate strength and resolve, often leading to significant civilian casualties. These actions raise questions about the justification and proportionality of Israel’s military tactics.

Legal Justifications and the Principle of Proportionality

International humanitarian law, particularly the Geneva Conventions, governs the conduct of armed conflict and aims to limit its effects. The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. However, Israel’s evolving military doctrines challenge this principle.

• Israel’s Hidden Horror: The Guantanamo of the Middle East
• Global Failure in Israel-Palestine Conflict: Who’s Responsible?
• Is America Enabling Israel’s International Law Violations?
• When Collateral Damage Becomes Genocide!

Changing Military Doctrines

Since 2008, two main doctrines have guided Israel’s operations in Gaza:

1. No Casualties Doctrine: Prioritizes the protection of Israeli soldiers, even if it means increased civilian casualties among Palestinians.
2. Intentional Targeting of Civilian Sites: Aims to deter Hamas by attacking civilian infrastructure, a tactic that significantly increases civilian casualties.

These doctrines have led to mass-casualty attacks, which many argue constitute war crimes. The reinterpretation of the laws of armed conflict to justify these actions marks a significant shift in Israel’s military strategy.

Impact on International Law and Geneva Conventions

Israel’s approach to warfare, particularly its justification for high civilian casualties, poses a threat to the established norms of international humanitarian law. If other states accept Israel’s revised interpretation of proportionality, it could lead to a dangerous precedent where the killing of civilians becomes more permissible in military operations.

Redefining Proportionality

Israel’s former military legal advisor, Colonel Daniel Reisner, has suggested that persistent use of certain tactics can lead to their acceptance in international law. This notion implies that continuous high-casualty operations, if practiced by enough countries, could normalize excessive civilian deaths in conflicts.

Global Implications

The potential redefinition of proportionality and the normalization of high-casualty tactics have far-reaching implications:

1. Erosion of Legal Protections: Weakening the principle of proportionality undermines the protections afforded to civilians under international law.
2. Increased Civilian Casualties: More states might adopt similar tactics, leading to higher civilian casualties in conflicts worldwide.
3. Destabilization of Global Norms: The erosion of established war laws could lead to greater instability and unpredictability in international relations.

Israel justifying genocide

The allegations of Israel justifying genocide during wartime through its military tactics and legal interpretations pose a significant challenge to international humanitarian law. As Israel continues to employ high-casualty strategies, the potential redefinition of the principle of proportionality threatens to erode the protections designed to limit the effects of armed conflict on civilians. The global community must critically assess and address these developments to preserve the integrity of international law and ensure the protection of civilians in conflicts.

References

1. Al Jazeera. (2024). “Israel’s Attempt to Kill Hamas Commander Leads to Massacre in Gaza.”
2. BBC News. (2024). “Netanyahu’s Controversial News Conference: Assassination Attempt and Civilian Casualties.”
3. Breaking the Silence. (2024). “Israeli Military Doctrines and Civilian Casualties.”
4. Geneva Conventions. (1949). “International Humanitarian Law and the Principle of Proportionality.”
5. Haaretz. (2009). “Interview with Israeli Military Legal Advisor on Proportionality and International Law.”
6. Wikipedia. (2024). “List of Israeli Assassinations.”