Somehow, the Jerusalem correspondent of the British newspaperThe Independent, Donald Macintyre, got ahold of an unpublished article written after what was clearly very extensive work by an Israeli journalist for Israel’s largest-circulation Hebrew-language newspaper (Yediot Ahronot).
Somehow — despite the immense pressure being exerted on Israeli soldiers not to talk about their experiences in Gaza a year ago — the (unnamed) Israeli journalist who wrote the article got access to — and gained the confidence of — some Israeli military officers who served in key positions during the IDF’s Operation Cast Lead from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009.
These sources have given some sensational testimony — still unpublished in the Israeli newspaper, but revealed publicly for the first time today in The Independent.
One of the soldiers is reported to have said that ” ‘any movement must entail gunfire. No one’s supposed to be there’. He added that at a meeting with his brigade commander and others it was made clear that ‘if you see any signs of movement at all you shoot. This is essentially the rules of engagement’.” Another soldier in the war-room reportedly explained that: “This doesn’t mean that you need to disrespect the lives of Palestinians but our first priority is the lives of our soldiers. That’s not something you’re going to compromise on. In all my years in the military, I never heard that”. According to The Independent, this same soldier “added that the majority of casualties were caused in his brigade area by aerial firing, including from unmanned drones. ‘Most of the guys taken down were taken down by order of headquarters. The number of enemy killed by HQ-operated remote … compared to enemy killed by soldiers on the ground had absolutely inverted’.”
The article in The Independent states that “Until now, the testimony has been kept out of the public domain. The senior commander told a journalist compiling a lengthy report for Yediot Ahronot, Israel’s biggest daily newspaper, about the rules of engagement in the three-week military offensive in Gaza. But although the article was completed and ready for publication five months ago, it has still not appeared … Yediot [Ahronot] has not commented on why its article has not been published”.
One of the sources who spoke to the Israeli newspaper is described in The Independent as “a high-ranking officer”, and a “senior commander”. The Independent says that “His remarks reinforce testimonies from soldiers who served in the Gaza operation, made to the veterans’ group Breaking the Silence and reported exclusively by this newspaper last July. They also appear to cut across the military doctrine – enunciated most recently in public by one of the authors of the IDF’s own code of ethics – that it is the duty of soldiers to run risks to themselves in order to preserve civilian lives”.
Another source is described as “A more junior officer”, and as an “experienced soldier, who cannot be named”, who worked “at a brigade headquarters during the operation” — in fact, serving “in the war room” during Operation Cast Lead. Today’s article says that he “told The Independent that conduct in Gaza – particularly by aerial forces and in areas where civilians had been urged to leave by leaflets – had ‘taken the targeted killing idea and turned it on its head’. Instead of using intelligence to identify a terrorist, he said, ‘here you do the opposite: first you take him down, then you look into it’.”
Further reference is made to other sources described as “a series of soldiers who had served in Operation Cast Lead in sensitive positions”, and who reported extremely “flexible rules” — though The Independent said they denied “that the Israeli military had deliberately ‘targeted’ the civilian population” in Gaza.
This report was published just two days before UN Secretary-General BAN Ki-Moon is set to report (on Friday 5 February) on the compliance with UN resolutions calling on Israel and Hamas to conduct independent and impartial examinations into the unprecedented Israeli military operation in Gaza.
Last Friday, Israel made what appears to be a preliminary 46-page report to the UN on its on-going military investigations, telling the UN Secretary-General that as a result of the military’s own findings, disciplinary action would be taken against a brigadier general and a colonel who “exceeded their authority in a manner that jeopardized the lives of others” by authorizing “the firing of artillery shells” in the area.
The Washington Post reported, here, at the beginning of the week that “The attack damaged a UN compound, injured several of the hundreds of Palestinians who had taken refuge inside it, and fed claims that the Israel Defense Forces had been reckless in their attacks on the densely populated Gaza Strip”.
Israel has recently paid compensation of $10.5 million U.S. dollars against a UN claim of $11 million dollars for damages to that UN compound in Gaza City.
The New York Times noted here that “the military maintained ambiguity about the more contentious issue of whether the artillery shells that struck the compound contained white phosphorous, as the liberal daily newspaper Haaretz reported on Monday. While acknowledging that it was possible they did contain white phosphorous, a chemical that can be used to illuminate battlefields or cause smokescreens, but that also can burn flesh, a military spokesman emphasized that it was not a factor in the reprimand. ‘Their punishment had nothing to do with white phosphorous’, said Capt. Barak Raz, an Israeli Army spokesman, ‘but with the firing of artillery shells in a built-up area’.”
Haaretz reported that “the IDF on Monday flatly denied that Division Commander Brig. Gen. Eyal Eisenberg and Givati Brigade Commander Col. Ilan Malka been subject to [specific] disciplinary action by GOC Southern Command Maj. Gen. Yoav Gallant. It did not deny that the [phosphorous] munitions were in fact used during the war, however. The incident in question occurred on January 15 of last year, two days before the end of Operation Cast Lead, in the southern Gaza City neighborhood of Tel al-Hawa, at a time when the Givati brigade and other Israeli forces were in the area … the report that the Israeli government gave to the United Nations last Friday explicitly states that the two senior officers were disciplined after one of the investigating committees noted among its findings that they approved the firing of phosphorus shells at Tel al-Hawa ‘exceeding their authority in a manner that jeopardized the lives of others’. The report to the UN also says that [IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi ] Ashkenazi recently ordered the convening of a sixth [special investigative]committee to examine additional allegations made against the IDF as well as an incident which one of the previous panels had been unable to thoroughly probe”.
According to the Jerusalem Post‘s well-informed Defense Correspondent, Yaakov Katz, the Israeli report to the UN said that “OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant decided to sanction the officers after they ‘violated the rules of engagement prohibiting use of such artillery near populated areas’.” The Israeli report, the JPost said, stressed that the country’s “military judicial system was independent and under civilian review”,
The Voice of America correspondent in Jerusalem, Luis Ramirez, reported that “Captain Barak Raz, a spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces, tells VOA the men were disciplined – but not court-martialed – for letting soldiers fire artillery in the direction of a crowded UN compound. ‘They are reprimanded for overstepping their authority in the use of artillery in a built up area. This reprimand will go with them for the rest of their military careers. It is something that will appear in their record’, Raz said”. This VOA report can be viewed and heard here.
However, they have not been demoted.
UPDATE: The IDF press office published a brief announcement on Monday saying that the “Commander of Gaza Division to be Punished Severely”. It said that “Following the independent investigation in the IDF which occurred eight months ago, and after a group from the IDF General Staff found the two officers to have deviated from the authority in a manner endangering lives, the officers were punished severely by the Commander of the Southern Command, Maj. Gen. Yoav Glant, even though there were no known casualties from this incident”.
This announcement gave no indication of what, exactly, this “severe punishment” consisted of — beyond the “reprimand …. that will appear in their record”, reported by VOA. Nor was there any indication of whether the “severe punishment” has already been implemented, or not, or indeed whether it can be appealed or not.
The IDF announcement, which was published late in the day on Monday, did reveal the names of the two IDF officers concerned, contrary to earlier press reports. Perhaps that is part of the “severe punishment”. In any case, it said that “Brig. Gen. Eisenberg and Col. Malka were found guilty of an incident which took place two days before the end of the operation on January 15. The incident involved the two officers firing artillery shells in violation of the orders concerning the use of weaponry near residential areas. The shells were fired in the area of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNARWA) headquarters, in the Tel al-Hawa neighborhood of Gaza City. Following the independent investigation in the IDF which occurred eight months ago, and after a group from the IDF General Staff found the two officers to have deviated from the authority in a manner endangering lives, the officers were punished severely by the Commander of the Southern Command, Maj. Gen. Yoav Glant, even
though there were no known casualties from this incident”.
The announcement was entitled: “IDF investigates itself” — and it said that the IDF had “immediately began investigating itself upon completion of Operation Cast Lead, with no relation to the Goldstone Committee or any other committee, according to the Israeli response to the Goldstone Report which was delivered to the United Nations this past Friday (Jan. 29). The Israeli response to the Goldstone Report was written by Minister of Foreign Affairs personnel, in cooperation with the Chief Military Advocate, Maj. Gen. Avichai Mandelblit“. This announcement repeated earlier information that “five investigatory committees were established, each headed by officers at the rank of Colonel. The committees investigated complaints which were filed against the IDF, using all of the different means, during and after the operation. At the end of April 2009, the former Deputy Chief of the General Staff, Maj. Gen. Dan Harel submitted the findings of the five committees … [Then, upon Mandelblit’s recommendation] the Chief of the General Staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi commanded the establishment of a sixth investigatory committee, which “is expected to examine two additional incidents which were presented in the Goldstone Report. It has been claimed that in one case 20 civilians were killed in the Zeitun neighborhood as a result of an IDF-caused explosion … The investigatory committees are examining incidents which were the exception to the rule during Operation Cast Lead at the same time that the Military Police is investigating about 150 different claims of inappropriate behavior. In these incidents, allegedly, unsuitable behavior of IDF soldiers towards Palestinian civilians and property is being examined. 12 cases like these were mentioned in the Goldstone Report, and the majority of incidents were discovered during independent IDF operational investigations or on behalf of human rights organizations or private civilians. Approximately 500 soldiers and officers and close to 100 Palestinian civilians will be investigated by the Military Investigation Forces. As of now 36 criminal investigations are being executed”. This news announcement is posted on the IDF website here.
The Israeli human rights group B’Tselem then said, on Monday, that it “sent an urgent letter to the judge advocate general, Maj. Gen. Avichai Mandelblit, demanding that he immediately order a Military Police investigation into the circumstances of the firing of phosphorus shells at the UNWRA compound in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead. This morning, the media reported that the commander of the Gaza division, Brig. Gen. Eyal Eizenberg, and the commander of the Givati brigade, Col. Ilan Malka, were disciplined for authorized the shelling. The report that Israel submitted to the UN last weekend omitted details of the incident, stating only that the two officers had been brought before disciplinary hearings for exceeding their authority in a way that endangered lives, by permitting shelling of populated areas, contrary to the army’s regulations. A comprehensive investigation of the incident conducted by Human Rights Watch indicates that on the morning of 15 January 2009, the army began firing artillery shells at an UNWRA facility in which the headquarters of the entire organization’s activities in the Middle East were located. At that time, 700 civilians who had fled from their homes had found shelter in the facility, which also housed storehouses containing food and medical supplies. Some of the shells contained white phosphorus and these started fires, which could very easily have spread to the facility’s diesel fuel reserve and two full fuel tankers. This danger placed the large numbers of civilians sheltering there at grave risk. During the shelling, UNRWA workers, among them UNRWA Gaza director John Ging, placed dozens of calls with senior army officials, warning them of the immense danger to civilians and demanding that the firing cease. The incident was particularly severe in that senior officers were well aware of the danger in continuing the shelling. Despite this knowledge, the army continued to shell the facility, starting fires and causing great damage. The danger to civilians was enormous, and the fact that no lives were lost in the incident is nothing short of a miracle. Disciplinary hearings are clearly not an adequate punitive measure to such a severe incident. Israel not only covered up the details of the incident but also refrained from stating, in the report, why measures had been taken against those responsible for this particular event, although many lives were lost in dozes of similar incidents throughout the operation. Also, the report did not explain the decision to bring the two officers before disciplinary hearings, instead of opening criminal procedures against them. The cover-up of this affair demonstrates, yet again, that the army cannot investigate itself. The government of Israel must appoint an independent team to investigate Israel’s suspected violations of international humanitarian law in Operation Cast Lead. The team must be authorized to investigate not only officers and soldiers who took part in the operation, but also civilian officials who took part in shaping the policy of the operation”. This statement can be read in full on the B’Tselem website here.
Amnesty International issued a statement saying that “All the Israeli investigations have been carried out by army commanders or by the military police criminal investigators and overseen by the Military Advocate General, severely compromising their independence and impartiality. The Military Advocate General’s office gave the Israeli forces legal advice on their choice of targets and tactics during Operation ‘Cast Lead’. The military investigations also preclude the possibility of examining decisions taken by civilian officials, who are also alleged to be responsible for serious violations … Despite enduring concerns by Amnesty International over Israel’s extensive use of white phosphorus in Gaza, the update contends that there are ‘no grounds to take disciplinary or other measures for the IDF’s use of weapons containing phosphorous’. During Operation ‘Cast Lead’ Israeli forces often launched artillery shells containing white phosphorus into residential areas, causing death and injuries to civilians. Other Israeli attacks which resulted in civilian injuries and deaths are dismissed as ‘operational errors’ although the update admits ‘some instances’ in which Israeli soldiers and officers ‘violated the rules of engagement’.”
The 46-page Israeli report submitted last Friday, however, is not intended as the final, definitive, last word. The blog Forecast Highs, written by Amir Mizroch, News Editor at the Jerusalem Post, reports that “Israel is proposing that a panel of respected Israeli jurists [Aharon Barak, Michael Cheshin] review internal IDF investigations into Cast Lead, and if they’re OK, to say so, in the hope that this will be enough to ward off the UN from demanding a more thorough, independent investigation, which, if Israel doesn’t establish, will land it in the Hague court on charges of war crimes. Israel is hoping this will be enough, but will it? … Other outstanding questions: what real powers will the judicial panel have? If a probe seems inadequate, can the judges order a more thorough investigation? What access will it have to documents, officers, witnesses? How transparent will the process be? [And] Israel has carried out at least 3 serious probes of varying depth into its actions in Cast Lead. Hundreds of incidents are being investigated. The Foreign and Justice Ministries have carried out probes and released reports. The army is working on a word-by-word response to Goldstone’s report.” This is posted here.
Hamas reportedly has just submitted a document, via the offices of UNRWA whose headquarters is in Gaza, to the UN Secretary-General in New York, in compliance with the UN resolutions calling for an investigation.
Earlier this week, the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority also submitted its own report.
Today’s article in The Independent, with its new revelations from the unpublished Yediot Ahronot article, reported that “The Israeli military declined to comment on the latest revelations [in The Independent today], and directed all enquiries to already-published material, including a July 2009 foreign ministry document The Operation in Gaza: Factual and Legal Aspects. That document, which repeats that Israel acted in conformity with international law despite the ‘acute dilemmas’ posed by Hamas’s operations within civilian areas, sets out the principles of Operation Cast Lead as follows: ‘Only military targets shall be attacked; Any attack against civilian objectives shall be prohibited. A ‘civilian objective’ is any objective which is not a military target’. It adds: ‘In case of doubt, the forces are obliged to regard an object as civilian’.” This article can be viewed in full in today’s issue of The Independent here.
Israeli human rights lawyer Michael Sfard wrote, in a separate commentary on the story in The Independent today, that “International law requires that combatants run risks to reduce harm to civilians”. But what happened during the IDF’s three-week operation in Gaza, he wrote, appeared to have been a “a change to rules of engagement so that either there were no rules, or they allowed soldiers to shoot anything that moved in the vicinity” Sfard noted that “Leaflets urging civilians to leave an area can be a very positive way of reducing the danger and harm caused to civilians — if there is a no-war zone to which they can go. In Gaza there was no such zone. Secondly there may always be people who despite the leaflets decide not to leave their homes, perhaps because they have young children or elderly relatives, or perhaps because they have simply decided not to leave their homes, perhaps because they have been refugees before and have vowed that they never will be again. The laws of armed conflict do not allow the killing of civilians just because they chose not leave their homes which became a war zone”. Sfard added that if the quotes attributed to the Israeli officers and soldiers are true, “that means that Israel has abandoned the main safeguard that makes sure that combatants realise the most basic principle of international humanitarian law: the principle of distinction between combatants and civilians. That principle confers a duty to target only combatants and military objects and prohibits the targeting of civilians and civilian objects – unless and for such time as they are actively engaged in hostilities”. Otherwise, Sfard wrote, “you are providing combatants with a licence to kill civilians”. Sfard’s commentary is published here.