Download PDF Version
Printable Version
Tell a friend
"Israeli Soldiers’ Testimonies on Gaza Invasion Shed Light on Contentious Issues" by Mohammad Alsaafin and Will Youmans
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Palestine Center Brief No. 180 (30
July 2009)
By Mohammad Alsaafin and Will Youmans
Israel’s invasion of Gaza earlier this year was one of the most gruesome and destructive chapters in the decades-old Palestinian struggle against Israeli occupation and dispossession. For 22 days, the Israeli army, navy and air force pounded the coastal strip, destroying tens of thousands of homes as well as schools, mosques, food depots and hospitals. Over 1,400 Palestinians were killed, of whom only about 250 were combatants.1 According to the United Nations, the Israeli military campaign left more than 50,000 homes, 800 industrial properties and 200 schools damaged or destroyed, as well as 39 mosques and two churches.2
Palestinians contended that from the very beginning of the assault, Israeli forces were operating under extremely lax rules of engagement and that the lives of Palestinian civilians were disregarded. Human rights organizations investigating the war and its aftermath concluded that Israeli soldiers were often reckless with regards to the safety of civilians and committed acts of deliberate destruction. Amnesty International found that Israeli troops had used Palestinian civilians as human shields--a war crime and tactic which Israel had continuously accused Hamas of using during the war (although Amnesty found no evidence of that).3
An Israeli human rights group, Breaking the Silence, just released testimonies from soldiers who served in Gaza.4 Their comments corroborate Amnesty’s claims, previous soldiers’ statements and vindicate Palestinian accusations of criminal conduct by Israeli soldiers.
The Testimonies
Breaking the Silence published on its website5 the testimony of 30 conscripts and reservists who took part in Operation Cast Lead.
In total, the soldiers describe an atmosphere in which they were given free rein to protect themselves, even at the expense of civilians. The destruction of life and property was allowed based on the slightest suspicions, and the rules of engagement were often ambiguous and inconsistent.
This led to the unnecessary deaths of many civilians and to the destruction of homes, mosques and property for no military purpose; for example, soldiers shot Palestinian water tanks at a time when Gaza was suffering from a severe water shortage. As one participant, a bulldozer operator, said, “In my own company there were plenty of people who fired just for the hell of it, at houses, water tanks. They loved targeting water tanks.”
By his estimate, “maybe half” of the property demolitions he undertook were for “operational needs.” “Sometimes the company commander would give the D-9s something to demolish just to make them happy.”
Sometimes there was an operational basis, but the response would still be excessive. As another respondent said, “Whole neighborhoods were simply razed because four houses in the area served to launch Qassam rockets.”
The testimonies also shed light on two contentious issues--the extent to which Israeli soldiers’ disregard for civilian life was a function of their orders and whether Israel used certain munitions in appropriate ways.
Chain of Command
Breaking the Silence found consistently in the testimonies evidence that the Israeli military officers’ instructions encouraged a disregard for the safety and well-being of civilians. The rules of engagement communicated to them, according to the testimonies, were unclear and did not strive to make the distinction between civilians and combatants.
Orders were not consistent. As one soldier said, “We did not get instructions to shoot at anything that moved, but we were generally instructed: if you feel threatened, shoot.” Others were instructed to shoot at anything that moves. As another soldier testified, “No one is supposed to be there, if you see any signs of movement at all, you shoot. These, essentially, were the rules of engagement. Shoot if you like. If you're afraid, or you see someone, shoot.”
Another soldier’s statement about their orders was similar: “People were not instructed to shoot at everyone they see, but they were told that from a certain distance when they approach a house, no matter who it is - even an old woman - take them down.”
In some areas, Palestinians seen outside at night were officially considered legitimate targets, even if they were visibly unarmed. The rationale was that they had to know the Israeli military was in the area and had no reason to be there. One testimony describes the shooting, without warning, of an unarmed elderly man carrying only a lit torch.
According to some, anyone spotted on a roof at anytime was designated a possible lookout for Hamas fighters and was targeted. Also, Palestinian sniper fire from buildings was often responded to by less precise tank shell or mortar fire. Despite taking over civilian neighborhoods, the army established its own “red lines,” zones in which the army had a “shoot to kill” policy. The red lines would change from night to day. Anyone spotted approaching the red lines was to be “cleared”--often warned by deterrent fire.
Even the use of human shields was ordered from higher-ups. The human shields were randomly drawn from “Johnnies,” the nickname for civilians who did not flee. One testimony described just one of the practices that put civilians in harm’s way: “Sometimes the force would enter while placing rifle barrels on a civilian's shoulder, advancing into a house and using him as a human shield.” The soldier who witnessed this also revealed how the commanders told them these were the instructions and they had to follow them.
Other civilians were also forced to knock down the walls of their homes and those of their neighbors with heavy hammers.
The picture of permissive rules of engagement painted by these testimonies verifies similar testimonies given by graduates of the Yitzhak Rabin pre-military preparatory course at Oranim Academic College in Tivon. Their experiences in Gaza were published by Ha’aretz in March.6
At best, the range of soldiers’ testimonies show there was little standardization in the rules of engagement, meaning the Israeli government was complicit in violations of Palestinian human rights and well-being. At worst, the government mandated the military punish civilians. The evidence presented through these testimonies depicts a military machine that fell between these two poles of interpretation but arguably closer to the more egregious interpretation. The use of human shields was ordered, as were measures that directly gave the army a license to shoot to kill in various scenarios, regardless of the individual circumstances.
White Phosphorous
Some Breaking the Silence interviewees admitted the army used white phosphorous in populated areas. Population density was not the operational factor dictating its use. According to one soldier:
Often a house that was suspect for
tunnels or explosive charges was a house that
was targeted with various phosphorus shells,
thinking this would activate all the charges.
In other words, phosphorus was to serve as an
igniter, simply make it all go up in flames,
which then ignited the explosive charges. And
the tunnels. Everything was
ignited.
Shortly after the end of the Israeli invasion in January, the Israeli military initially denied employing the controversial substance in its munitions in response to an international outcry.7 Israel soon acknowledged its use and conducted an internal investigation; it claimed that “no phosphorus munitions were used on built-up areas.”
This was met with doubt by many. According to an Amnesty International staffer, the group’s “Gaza mission team, who entered Gaza a few hours before Israel’s halt of attacks… found hundreds of white phosphorus-wedges in residential areas all over Gaza.”8 The soldiers’ testimonies validate those doubts.
Conclusion
These revelations will not be received with surprise by many. The destruction of Gaza was watched closely around the globe. Such testimonies, however, will raise expectations among those awaiting the findings of the United Nations’ war crimes fact-finding mission. The accounts may impact how some Israelis view their policies towards the Palestinians, but it is likely not to change public opinion on the primacy of the safety of Israeli soldiers over that of Palestinian civilians.
Although Breaking the Silence intended the testimonies to be used to start a debate about the government’s policies and not as the basis for war crimes prosecutions, the group published the testimonies a week after UN war crimes investigator Richard Goldstone heard Palestinians in Gaza talk about their experiences during several days of hearings. He recently ended the fact-finding mission, despite Israeli refusal to cooperate, going as far as denying him a visa to visit the Israeli towns hit by Palestinian rockets.9
As for the impact the accounts have within Israeli society, such testimonies should convince some to question the morality of Israel’s belligerence against the Palestinians. As one soldier confided, “I had thought I belonged to the most humane army in the world.”
Such admissions will not likely produce a sea change in public opinion, however. The assault on Gaza had wide support in Israel, across most of the political spectrum. Most Israelis are still convinced that they actually fought a defensive war. Israelis are ultimately, like most other peoples, more concerned with the lives of their fighters than with the morality and legal compliance of their military.
This sensitivity to military losses amounted to a political consideration that was reflected in the orders on the ground.
Following the 2006 Lebanon war, the military leadership was well aware of the Israeli public’s aversion to losing its own soldiers. Certain of the public’s indifference to the total destruction of Gaza, the officials instructed soldiers to minimize the danger to their lives at any cost, even if it meant more deaths and injuries among Palestinian civilians. As one soldier says in his testimony, "The soldiers were made to understand that their lives were the most important, and that there was no way our soldiers would get killed for the sake of leaving civilians the benefit of the doubt."
The point Israelis have to face is that the army’s brutality will not enhance the country’s long-term security, as each crime creates a cause for vengeance. If Israelis are not interested in inhibiting their government’s violence against the Palestinians, the international community must.
Mohammad Alsaafin is an intern of the Palestine Center.
Will Youmans is a consultant with the Palestine Center.
The views expressed in this information brief are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of The Jerusalem Fund.
1“PCHR Contests Distortion of Gaza Strip Death Toll”, PCHRGaza.org, 26 March 2009, http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2008/44-2009.html.
2“UN Gaza inquiry wraps up hearings”, BBC.com, 8 July 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8139861.stm.
3“Amnesty accuses Israel of using human shields in Gaza”, AFP, 2 July 2009, http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090702/wl_afp/mideastconflictgazarightsamnesty.
4“Soldiers testimonies from Operation Cast Lead”, Gaza 2009, July 2009, www.shovrimshtika.org/oferet/index_e.asp.
5Ibid.
6“IDF killed civilians in Gaza under loose rules of engagement”, Haaretz.com, 20 March 2009, http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/1072230.html.
7Greenslade, Roy, “Times vindicated over Israel’s use of white phosphorous in Gaza”, The Guardian, 23 April 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/apr/23/thetimes-israel.
8“Israel’s investigation into Gaza offensive more than disappointing”, Human Rights Now, 24 April 2009, http://blog.amnestyusa.org/middle-east/israels-investigation-into-gaza-offensive-more-than-disappointing.
9“UN Gaza inquiry wraps up hearings”, BBC.com, 8 July 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8139861.stm.