Operation Cast Lead Part 1
The Dahiyeh Doctrine
One of the most interesting things the Goldstone Report[1] did was to contrast the official Israeli line: that Operation Cast Lead of 2008/2009 was ostensibly limited to destroying and damaging mortar and rocket launching apparatus and its supporting infrastructure, with the real thinking that lay behind the attack.
One of those who articulated these ideas was Gadi Eisenkot, who later became chief of staff. Eisenkot spoke of the need for the IDF to use disproportionate force and argued that the IDF shouldn’t make a distinction between civilian and military targets. He was one of the leading architects of what later became known as the “Dahiyeh Doctrine”.
Massive IDF attacks were carried out not against Hezbollah military targets, Human Rights Watch observed, but rather against entire neighborhoods because they were seen as pro-Hezbollah. The result was massive destruction.
In 2006 Amnesty International wrote: “Israeli government spokespeople have insisted that they were targeting Hezbollah positions and support facilities, and that damage to civilian infrastructure was incidental or resulted from Hezbollah using the civilian population as a “human shield”. However, the pattern and scope of the attacks, as well as the number of civilian casualties and the amount of damage sustained, makes the justification ring hollow. The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of public works, power systems, civilian homes and industry was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather than “collateral damage”…”
In 2008 Eisenkot promised Lebanese villagers: “What happened in the Dahiyeh quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on ... We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint these are not civilian villages, they are military bases ... This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved.”
It was to be Eisenkot who helped plan and manage, together with Benny Gantz, Operation Protective Edge in 2014.
Eisenkot wasn’t and isn’t alone in holding such extreme and questionable views. Equally morally and legally doubtful if not positively dubious was Giora Eiland. Giora Eiland emphasized that, although contrary to international law, it is necessary to target infrastructure in order to make a population suffer.
In addition, Gabriel Siboni spoke of: “inflicting damage and meting out punishment to an extent that will demand long and expensive reconstruction processes. The strike ... must prioritize damaging assets over seeking out each and every launcher...”
He also argued that “economic interests and the centers of civilian power” should be targeted. In Gaza, he once said, “the IDF will be required to strike hard at Hamas and to
refrain from the cat and mouse games of searching for Qassam rocket launchers. The IDF should not be expected to stop the rocket and missile fire against the Israeli home front through attacks on the launchers themselves, but by means of imposing a ceasefire on the enemy.”
On the 6th of January 2009, during the military operations in Gaza, Deputy Prime Minister Eli Yishai stated: “It [should be] possible to destroy Gaza, so they will understand not to mess with us”. He added that “It is a great opportunity to demolish thousands of houses of all the terrorists, so they will think twice before they launch rockets”. On the 2nd of February 2009, he continued: “Even if the rockets fall in an open air or to the sea, we should hit their infrastructure, and destroy 100 homes for every rocket fired.”
On the 13th of January 2009, Israel’s Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, was quoted as saying: “We have proven to Hamas that we have changed the equation. Israel is not a country upon which you fire missiles and it does not respond. It is a country that when you fire on its citizens it responds by going wild — and this is a good thing.” She also said (in 2007): “I was the Minister of Justice. I am a lawyer ... But I am against law — international law in particular. Law in general.”
What all fail to mention is that relatively few Israelis were killed by rocket fire from Gaza prior to 2008. Roughly 40,000 Israelis died each year but in the space of 13 years only 44 died from rockets or mortars fired from the tiny strip.
Perhaps all of the above (dubious) characters should have read Article 2 of the UN Charter (“The first use of armed force by a state in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression...”), the Nuremberg Principles, the Fourth Geneva Convention, which Israel signed, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, before making their statements.
The latter states that: “Even if the attack is justified by military necessity and even if the target is a military target, any attack that causes incidental loss of life to civilians or damage to civilian property or damage to the natural environment that would clearly be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated from the attack” is considered a war crime. It continues: “Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives” are also considered war crimes.
The Israeli government argued, ironically enough given its own adherence to terrorism, that “Hamas does not separate its civilian and military activities”. This meant, naturally enough, that everyone was a target.
Deputy Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Dan Harel stated: “This operation is different from previous ones. We have set a high goal, which we are aiming for. We are hitting not only terrorists and launchers, but also the whole Hamas government and all its wings. [...] We are hitting government buildings, production factories, security wings and more ... after this operation there will not be one Hamas building left standing in Gaza, and we plan to change the rules of the game.”
Whether Hamas actually fails to separate its civilian and military activities is a questionable statement, to say the least. In the eyes of international law however there is very much a distinction: it is not permissible to target civilian infrastructure.
The simple truth of the matter is that there are very few military targets in Gaza. This would be true even if there were no tunnels for Hamas fighters to hide in.
Blurring distinctions and redefining civilian infrastructure as “Hamas”, traffic cops as “Hamas security”, and civilians as “combatants” makes the task of the IDF all the easier; it is always easy to murder children, especially if one can lie about it afterwards.
[1] https://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/a-hrc-12-48.pdf
Lo and behold. Tzipi Livni on C-Span. The one I mentioned was her last, on February 9, 2009.
https://www.c-span.org/search/basic/?query=Tzipi+livni
Cast Lead was totally insane. Shortly afterward, Tzipi Livni came to Washington, DC, and spoke at the National Press Club. She was a highly controversial figure and was getting an enormous amount of criticism in the U.S. Her speech was broadcast on live TV by C-SPAN. However, those of us watching with great interest in Austin, Texas were not able to see her speech as there were suddenly “Technical Difficulties.” I’ve always been curious about who else around the country was not able to tune in. Perhaps no one heard her. It should be in C-Span’s archives on their site.