|
4 may 2015
Palestinians recover possessions from the ruins of their home during a truce in the 2014 Gaza war.
Testimonies of Israeli combatants about last year’s war show apparent disregard for safety of civilians
Testimonies provided by more than 60 Israeli soldiers who fought in last summer’s war in Gaza have raised serious questions over whether Israel’s tactics breached its obligations under international law to distinguish and protect civilians.
The claims – collected by the human rights group Breaking the Silence – are contained in dozens of interviews with Israeli combatants, as well as with soldiers who served in command centres and attack rooms, a quarter of them officers up to the rank of major.
They include allegations that Israeli ground troops were briefed to regard everything inside Gaza as a “threat” and they should “not spare ammo”, and that tanks fired randomly or for revenge on buildings without knowing whether they were legitimate military targets or contained civilians.
In their testimonies, soldiers depict rules of engagement they characterised as permissive, “lax” or largely non-existent, including how some soldiers were instructed to treat anyone seen looking towards their positions as “scouts” to be fired on.
The group also claims that the Israeli military operated with different safety margins for bombing or using artillery and mortars near civilians and its own troops, with Israeli forces at times allowed to fire significantly closer to civilians than Israeli soldiers.
Phillipe Sands, professor of law at University College London and a specialist in international humanitarian law, described the testimonies as “troubling insights into intention and method”.
“Maybe it will be said that they are partial and selective, but surely they cannot be ignored or brushed aside, coming as they do from individuals with first-hand experience: the rule of law requires proper investigation and inquiry.”
Describing the rules that meant life and death in Gaza during the 50-day war – a conflict in which 2,200 Palestinians were killed – the interviews shed light for the first time not only on what individual soldiers were told but on the doctrine informing the operation.
Despite the insistence of Israeli leaders that it took all necessary precautions to protect civilians, the interviews provide a very different picture. They suggest that an overarching priority was the minimisation of Israeli military casualties even at the risk of Palestinian civilians being harmed.
While the Israel Defence Forces Military Advocate General’s office has launched investigations into a number of individual incidents of alleged wrongdoing, the testimonies raise wider questions over policies under which the war was conducted.
Post-conflict briefings to soldiers suggest that the high death toll and destruction were treated as “achievements” by officers who judged the attrition would keep Gaza “quiet for five years”.
The tone, according to one sergeant, was set before the ground offensive into Gaza that began on 17 July last year in pre-combat briefings that preceded the entry of six reinforced brigades into Gaza.
“[It] took place during training at Tze’elim, before entering Gaza, with the commander of the armoured battalion to which we were assigned,” recalled a sergeant, one of dozens of Israeli soldiers who have described how the war was fought last summer in the coastal strip.
“[The commander] said: ‘We don’t take risks. We do not spare ammo. We unload, we use as much as possible.’”
“The rules of engagement [were] pretty identical,” added another sergeant who served in a mechanised infantry unit in Deir al-Balah. “Anything inside [the Gaza Strip] is a threat
The area has to be ‘sterilised,’ empty of people – and if we don’t see someone waving a white flag, screaming: “I give up” or something – then he’s a threat and there’s authorisation to open fire ... The saying was: ‘There’s no such thing there as a person who is uninvolved.’ In that situation, anyone there is involved.”
Testimonies of Israeli combatants about last year’s war show apparent disregard for safety of civilians
Testimonies provided by more than 60 Israeli soldiers who fought in last summer’s war in Gaza have raised serious questions over whether Israel’s tactics breached its obligations under international law to distinguish and protect civilians.
The claims – collected by the human rights group Breaking the Silence – are contained in dozens of interviews with Israeli combatants, as well as with soldiers who served in command centres and attack rooms, a quarter of them officers up to the rank of major.
They include allegations that Israeli ground troops were briefed to regard everything inside Gaza as a “threat” and they should “not spare ammo”, and that tanks fired randomly or for revenge on buildings without knowing whether they were legitimate military targets or contained civilians.
In their testimonies, soldiers depict rules of engagement they characterised as permissive, “lax” or largely non-existent, including how some soldiers were instructed to treat anyone seen looking towards their positions as “scouts” to be fired on.
The group also claims that the Israeli military operated with different safety margins for bombing or using artillery and mortars near civilians and its own troops, with Israeli forces at times allowed to fire significantly closer to civilians than Israeli soldiers.
Phillipe Sands, professor of law at University College London and a specialist in international humanitarian law, described the testimonies as “troubling insights into intention and method”.
“Maybe it will be said that they are partial and selective, but surely they cannot be ignored or brushed aside, coming as they do from individuals with first-hand experience: the rule of law requires proper investigation and inquiry.”
Describing the rules that meant life and death in Gaza during the 50-day war – a conflict in which 2,200 Palestinians were killed – the interviews shed light for the first time not only on what individual soldiers were told but on the doctrine informing the operation.
Despite the insistence of Israeli leaders that it took all necessary precautions to protect civilians, the interviews provide a very different picture. They suggest that an overarching priority was the minimisation of Israeli military casualties even at the risk of Palestinian civilians being harmed.
While the Israel Defence Forces Military Advocate General’s office has launched investigations into a number of individual incidents of alleged wrongdoing, the testimonies raise wider questions over policies under which the war was conducted.
Post-conflict briefings to soldiers suggest that the high death toll and destruction were treated as “achievements” by officers who judged the attrition would keep Gaza “quiet for five years”.
The tone, according to one sergeant, was set before the ground offensive into Gaza that began on 17 July last year in pre-combat briefings that preceded the entry of six reinforced brigades into Gaza.
“[It] took place during training at Tze’elim, before entering Gaza, with the commander of the armoured battalion to which we were assigned,” recalled a sergeant, one of dozens of Israeli soldiers who have described how the war was fought last summer in the coastal strip.
“[The commander] said: ‘We don’t take risks. We do not spare ammo. We unload, we use as much as possible.’”
“The rules of engagement [were] pretty identical,” added another sergeant who served in a mechanised infantry unit in Deir al-Balah. “Anything inside [the Gaza Strip] is a threat
The area has to be ‘sterilised,’ empty of people – and if we don’t see someone waving a white flag, screaming: “I give up” or something – then he’s a threat and there’s authorisation to open fire ... The saying was: ‘There’s no such thing there as a person who is uninvolved.’ In that situation, anyone there is involved.”
A father comforts his daughter injured during an Israeli strike on the UN school at Beit Hanoun during the 2014 Gaza war
“The rules of engagement for soldiers advancing on the ground were: open fire, open fire everywhere, first thing when you go in,” recalled another soldier who served during the ground operation in Gaza City. The assumption being that the moment we went in [to the Gaza Strip], anyone who dared poke his head out was a terrorist.”
Soldiers were also encouraged to treat individuals who came too close or watched from windows or other vantage points as “scouts” who could be killed regardless of whether there was hard evidence they were spotting for Hamas or other militant groups. “If it looks like a man, shoot. It was simple: you’re in a motherfucking combat zone,” said a sergeant who served in an infantry unit in the northern Gaza strip.
“A few hours before you went in the whole area was bombed, if there’s anyone there who doesn’t clearly look innocent, you apparently need to shoot that person.” Defining ‘innocent’ he added: “If you see the person is less than 1.40 metres tall or if you see it’s a lady ... If it’s a man you shoot.”
In at least one instance described by soldiers, being female did not help two women who were killed because one had a mobile phone. A soldier described the incident: “After the commander told the tank commander to go scan that place, and three tanks went to check [the bodies] ... it was two women, over the age of 30 ... unarmed. They were listed as terrorists. They were fired at. So of course they must have been terrorists.”
The testimonies raise questions whether Israel fully met its obligations to protect civilians in a conflict area from unnecessary harm, requiring it not only to distinguish between civilians and combatants but also ensure that when using force, where there is the risk of civilian harm, that it is “proportionate”.
“One of the main threads in the testimonies,” said Michael Sfard, an Israeli human rights lawyer and legal adviser to Breaking the Silence, “is the presumption that despite the fact that the battle was being waged in urban area – and one of most densely populated in the world – no civilians would be in the areas they entered.”
That presumption, say soldiers, was sustained by virtue of warnings to Palestinians to leave their homes and neighbourhoods delivered in leaflets dropped by aircraft and in text and phone messages which meant – in the IDF’s interpretation – that anyone who remained was not a civilian.
Even at the time that view was deeply controversial because – says Sfard and other legal experts interviewed – it reinterpreted international law regarding the duty of protection for areas containing civilians.
Sfard added: “We are not talking about a [deliberate] decision to kill civilians. But to say the rules of engagement were lax gives them too much credit. They allowed engagement in almost any circumstances, unless there was a felt to be a risk to an IDF soldier.”
If the rules of engagement were highly permissive, other soldiers say that they also detected a darker mood in their units that further coloured the way that soldiers behaved. “The motto guiding lots of people was: ‘Let’s show them,’ recalls a lieutenant who served in the Givati Brigade in Rafah. “It was evident that was a starting point. Lots of guys who did their reserve duty with me don’t have much pity towards [the Palestinians].”
He added: “There were a lot of people there who really hate Arabs. Really, really hate Arabs. You could see the hate in their eyes.”
A second lieutenant echoed his comments. “You could feel there was a radicalisation in the way the whole thing was conducted. The discourse was extremely rightwing ... [And] the very fact that [Palestinians were] described as ‘uninvolved’ rather than as civilians, and the desensitisation to the surging number of dead on the Palestinian side. It doesn’t matter whether they’re involved or not … that’s something that troubles me.”
“The rules of engagement for soldiers advancing on the ground were: open fire, open fire everywhere, first thing when you go in,” recalled another soldier who served during the ground operation in Gaza City. The assumption being that the moment we went in [to the Gaza Strip], anyone who dared poke his head out was a terrorist.”
Soldiers were also encouraged to treat individuals who came too close or watched from windows or other vantage points as “scouts” who could be killed regardless of whether there was hard evidence they were spotting for Hamas or other militant groups. “If it looks like a man, shoot. It was simple: you’re in a motherfucking combat zone,” said a sergeant who served in an infantry unit in the northern Gaza strip.
“A few hours before you went in the whole area was bombed, if there’s anyone there who doesn’t clearly look innocent, you apparently need to shoot that person.” Defining ‘innocent’ he added: “If you see the person is less than 1.40 metres tall or if you see it’s a lady ... If it’s a man you shoot.”
In at least one instance described by soldiers, being female did not help two women who were killed because one had a mobile phone. A soldier described the incident: “After the commander told the tank commander to go scan that place, and three tanks went to check [the bodies] ... it was two women, over the age of 30 ... unarmed. They were listed as terrorists. They were fired at. So of course they must have been terrorists.”
The testimonies raise questions whether Israel fully met its obligations to protect civilians in a conflict area from unnecessary harm, requiring it not only to distinguish between civilians and combatants but also ensure that when using force, where there is the risk of civilian harm, that it is “proportionate”.
“One of the main threads in the testimonies,” said Michael Sfard, an Israeli human rights lawyer and legal adviser to Breaking the Silence, “is the presumption that despite the fact that the battle was being waged in urban area – and one of most densely populated in the world – no civilians would be in the areas they entered.”
That presumption, say soldiers, was sustained by virtue of warnings to Palestinians to leave their homes and neighbourhoods delivered in leaflets dropped by aircraft and in text and phone messages which meant – in the IDF’s interpretation – that anyone who remained was not a civilian.
Even at the time that view was deeply controversial because – says Sfard and other legal experts interviewed – it reinterpreted international law regarding the duty of protection for areas containing civilians.
Sfard added: “We are not talking about a [deliberate] decision to kill civilians. But to say the rules of engagement were lax gives them too much credit. They allowed engagement in almost any circumstances, unless there was a felt to be a risk to an IDF soldier.”
If the rules of engagement were highly permissive, other soldiers say that they also detected a darker mood in their units that further coloured the way that soldiers behaved. “The motto guiding lots of people was: ‘Let’s show them,’ recalls a lieutenant who served in the Givati Brigade in Rafah. “It was evident that was a starting point. Lots of guys who did their reserve duty with me don’t have much pity towards [the Palestinians].”
He added: “There were a lot of people there who really hate Arabs. Really, really hate Arabs. You could see the hate in their eyes.”
A second lieutenant echoed his comments. “You could feel there was a radicalisation in the way the whole thing was conducted. The discourse was extremely rightwing ... [And] the very fact that [Palestinians were] described as ‘uninvolved’ rather than as civilians, and the desensitisation to the surging number of dead on the Palestinian side. It doesn’t matter whether they’re involved or not … that’s something that troubles me.”
A group of Palestinian children and teenagers rescue possessions from a devastated area of northern Gaza during a ceasefire in last summer’s summer’s war
And the testimonies, too, suggest breaches of the IDF’s own code of ethics – The Spirit of the IDF – which insists: “IDF soldiers will not use their weapons and force to harm human beings who are not combatants or prisoners of war, and will do all in their power to avoid causing harm to their lives, bodies, dignity and property.”
Contrary to that, however, testimonies describe how soldiers randomly shelled buildings either to no obvious military purpose or for revenge.
One sergeant who served in a tank in the centre of the Gaza Strip recalls: “A week or two after we entered the Gaza Strip and we were all firing a lot when there wasn’t any need for it – just for the sake of firing – a member of our company was killed.
“The company commander came over to us and told us that one guy was killed due to such-and-such, and he said: ‘Guys, get ready, get in your tanks, and we’ll fire a barrage in memory of our comrade” … My tank went up to the post – a place from which I can see targets – can see buildings – [and] fired at them, and the platoon commander says: ‘OK guys, we’ll now fire in memory of our comrade’ and we said OK.”
How Israeli forces used artillery and mortars in Gaza, says Breaking the Silence, has raised other concerns beyond either the rules of engagement or the actions of specific units.
According to the group’s research during the war, the Israeli military operated two different sets of rules for how close certain weapons could be fired to Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians.
Yehuda Shaul, one of the founders of Breaking the Silence, and himself a former soldier, explains: “What our research during this project uncovered was that there were three designated ‘Operational Levels’ during the conflict – numbered one to three. What the operational level was was set higher up the chain of command. Above the level of the Gaza division. What those levels do is designate the likelihood of civilian casualties from weapons like 155mm artillery and bombs from ‘low’ damage to civilians to ‘high’.
“What we established was that for artillery fire in operational levels two and three Israeli forces were allowed to fire much closer to civilians than they were to friendly Israeli forces.”
Ahead of the conflict – in which 34,000 shells were fired into Gaza, 19,000 of them explosive – artillery and air liaison officers had been supplied with a list of sensitive sites to which fire was not to be directed within clear limits of distance. These included hospitals and UN schools being used as refugee centres, even in areas where evacuation had been ordered.
“Even then,” explains Shaul, “we have a testimony we took that a senior brigade commander issued order how to get around that, instructing that the unit fired first outside of the protected area and then calling for correction fire on to the location that they wanted to hit.
“He said: “If you go on the radio and ask to hit this building, we have to say no. But if you give a target 200 metres outside then you can ask for correction. Only thing that is recorded is the first target not the correction fire.”
And in the end, despite the high number of civilian casualties, the debriefings treated the destruction as an accomplishment that would discourage Hamas in the future.
“You could say they went over most of the things viewed as accomplishments,” said a Combat Intelligence Corps sergeant. “ “They spoke about numbers: 2,000 dead and 11,000 wounded, half a million refugees, decades worth of destruction. Harm to lots of senior Hamas members and to their homes, to their families. These were stated as accomplishments so that no one would doubt that what we did during this period was meaningful.
“They spoke of a five-year period of quiet (in which there would be no hostilities between Israel and Hamas) when in fact it was a 72-hour ceasefire, and at the end of those 72 hours they were firing again.”
Without responding to the specific allegations, the Israeli military said: “The IDF is committed to properly investigating all credible claims raised via media, NGOs, and official complaints concerning IDF conduct during operation Protective Edge, in as serious a manner as possible.
“It should be noted that following Operation Protective Edge, thorough investigations were carried out, and soldiers and commanders were given the opportunity to present any complaint. Exceptional incidents were then transferred to the military advocate general for further inquiry.”
And the testimonies, too, suggest breaches of the IDF’s own code of ethics – The Spirit of the IDF – which insists: “IDF soldiers will not use their weapons and force to harm human beings who are not combatants or prisoners of war, and will do all in their power to avoid causing harm to their lives, bodies, dignity and property.”
Contrary to that, however, testimonies describe how soldiers randomly shelled buildings either to no obvious military purpose or for revenge.
One sergeant who served in a tank in the centre of the Gaza Strip recalls: “A week or two after we entered the Gaza Strip and we were all firing a lot when there wasn’t any need for it – just for the sake of firing – a member of our company was killed.
“The company commander came over to us and told us that one guy was killed due to such-and-such, and he said: ‘Guys, get ready, get in your tanks, and we’ll fire a barrage in memory of our comrade” … My tank went up to the post – a place from which I can see targets – can see buildings – [and] fired at them, and the platoon commander says: ‘OK guys, we’ll now fire in memory of our comrade’ and we said OK.”
How Israeli forces used artillery and mortars in Gaza, says Breaking the Silence, has raised other concerns beyond either the rules of engagement or the actions of specific units.
According to the group’s research during the war, the Israeli military operated two different sets of rules for how close certain weapons could be fired to Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians.
Yehuda Shaul, one of the founders of Breaking the Silence, and himself a former soldier, explains: “What our research during this project uncovered was that there were three designated ‘Operational Levels’ during the conflict – numbered one to three. What the operational level was was set higher up the chain of command. Above the level of the Gaza division. What those levels do is designate the likelihood of civilian casualties from weapons like 155mm artillery and bombs from ‘low’ damage to civilians to ‘high’.
“What we established was that for artillery fire in operational levels two and three Israeli forces were allowed to fire much closer to civilians than they were to friendly Israeli forces.”
Ahead of the conflict – in which 34,000 shells were fired into Gaza, 19,000 of them explosive – artillery and air liaison officers had been supplied with a list of sensitive sites to which fire was not to be directed within clear limits of distance. These included hospitals and UN schools being used as refugee centres, even in areas where evacuation had been ordered.
“Even then,” explains Shaul, “we have a testimony we took that a senior brigade commander issued order how to get around that, instructing that the unit fired first outside of the protected area and then calling for correction fire on to the location that they wanted to hit.
“He said: “If you go on the radio and ask to hit this building, we have to say no. But if you give a target 200 metres outside then you can ask for correction. Only thing that is recorded is the first target not the correction fire.”
And in the end, despite the high number of civilian casualties, the debriefings treated the destruction as an accomplishment that would discourage Hamas in the future.
“You could say they went over most of the things viewed as accomplishments,” said a Combat Intelligence Corps sergeant. “ “They spoke about numbers: 2,000 dead and 11,000 wounded, half a million refugees, decades worth of destruction. Harm to lots of senior Hamas members and to their homes, to their families. These were stated as accomplishments so that no one would doubt that what we did during this period was meaningful.
“They spoke of a five-year period of quiet (in which there would be no hostilities between Israel and Hamas) when in fact it was a 72-hour ceasefire, and at the end of those 72 hours they were firing again.”
Without responding to the specific allegations, the Israeli military said: “The IDF is committed to properly investigating all credible claims raised via media, NGOs, and official complaints concerning IDF conduct during operation Protective Edge, in as serious a manner as possible.
“It should be noted that following Operation Protective Edge, thorough investigations were carried out, and soldiers and commanders were given the opportunity to present any complaint. Exceptional incidents were then transferred to the military advocate general for further inquiry.”
Palestinians and a horse flee after an Israeli strike hit a three-story building belonging to the Abdul Hadi family in Gaza City last summer
Israeli forces may have committed "grave violations" of the international laws of warfare during last summer's bloody Gaza conflict, according to the accounts of soldiers who fought in it.
A collection of harrowing testimonies published on Monday by Breaking the Silence, [PDF] an NGO run by former Israeli soldiers, describes lax rules of engagement that allowed troops wide discretion to open fire in built-up areas - leading to mass non-combatant casualties and devastating damage to homes and civilian infrastructure.
Forces operated under the assumption that they were entering areas that had been cleared of inhabitants after the Israeli army launched its military offensive, Operation Protective Edge, last July. Soldiers were told to target any Palestinian encountered as a "terrorist" and to shoot to kill.
Israeli forces may have committed "grave violations" of the international laws of warfare during last summer's bloody Gaza conflict, according to the accounts of soldiers who fought in it.
A collection of harrowing testimonies published on Monday by Breaking the Silence, [PDF] an NGO run by former Israeli soldiers, describes lax rules of engagement that allowed troops wide discretion to open fire in built-up areas - leading to mass non-combatant casualties and devastating damage to homes and civilian infrastructure.
Forces operated under the assumption that they were entering areas that had been cleared of inhabitants after the Israeli army launched its military offensive, Operation Protective Edge, last July. Soldiers were told to target any Palestinian encountered as a "terrorist" and to shoot to kill.
The sister (C) of Palestinian Mahmud Abbas, who was killed by an Israeli air strike, mourns during his funeral in Gaza City
In reality, many residents had remained behind in neighbourhoods where military officials had dropped leaflets or made phone calls ordering inhabitants to evacuate - leaving them at the mercy of massive shelling, air attacks or gunfire from troops who identified them as militants.
Israeli forces also made devastating use of inaccurate missiles such as cannon and mortars in civilians areas, causing widespread destruction and breaching two basic principles of the law of war - distinction and proportionality - according to Michael Sfard, Breaking the Silence's legal adviser.
The distinction principle required combatants to minimise civilian casualties by distinguishing between them and fighters.
Proportionality forbids belligerents from attacking military targets if the damage to civilians is expected to be greater than the military advantage gained from its destruction.
Basing its report on testimonies from more than 60 participating soldiers and officers, Breaking the Silence said its findings painted a "very disconcerting picture" about Israeli forces' conduct in Gaza and cast "grave doubt on the IDF's [Israeli Defence Force] ethics".
"The more disturbing picture that arises from these testimonies reflects systematic policies that were dictated to IDF forces of all ranks and in all zones ," the 136-page report says.
In reality, many residents had remained behind in neighbourhoods where military officials had dropped leaflets or made phone calls ordering inhabitants to evacuate - leaving them at the mercy of massive shelling, air attacks or gunfire from troops who identified them as militants.
Israeli forces also made devastating use of inaccurate missiles such as cannon and mortars in civilians areas, causing widespread destruction and breaching two basic principles of the law of war - distinction and proportionality - according to Michael Sfard, Breaking the Silence's legal adviser.
The distinction principle required combatants to minimise civilian casualties by distinguishing between them and fighters.
Proportionality forbids belligerents from attacking military targets if the damage to civilians is expected to be greater than the military advantage gained from its destruction.
Basing its report on testimonies from more than 60 participating soldiers and officers, Breaking the Silence said its findings painted a "very disconcerting picture" about Israeli forces' conduct in Gaza and cast "grave doubt on the IDF's [Israeli Defence Force] ethics".
"The more disturbing picture that arises from these testimonies reflects systematic policies that were dictated to IDF forces of all ranks and in all zones ," the 136-page report says.
A ball of fire rises from a building following an Israeli air strike in Gaza City
"The guiding military principle of ' minimum risk to our forces, even at the cost of harming innocent civilians', alongside efforts to deter and intimidate the Palestinians, led to massive and unprecedented harm to the population and the civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip.
Policymakers could have predicted these results prior to the operation and were surely aware of them throughout."
Nearly 2,200 Palestinians - the vast majority of them civilians, according to the United Nations - were killed in the 51-day conflict, which also resulted in 73 deaths on the Israeli side, most of them soldiers. Around 18,000 homes were destroyed or severely damaged.
Israel's leaders said they embarked on the offensive to stop indiscriminate rocket and missile fire at Israeli communities from Hamas, the Islamist group that runs Gaza.
While previous reports on the conflict - including from B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights group - have accused Israel of breaching international law, the Breaking the Silence investigation carries extra weight for being based on the first-hand testimony of soldiers in the field.
"The guiding military principle of ' minimum risk to our forces, even at the cost of harming innocent civilians', alongside efforts to deter and intimidate the Palestinians, led to massive and unprecedented harm to the population and the civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip.
Policymakers could have predicted these results prior to the operation and were surely aware of them throughout."
Nearly 2,200 Palestinians - the vast majority of them civilians, according to the United Nations - were killed in the 51-day conflict, which also resulted in 73 deaths on the Israeli side, most of them soldiers. Around 18,000 homes were destroyed or severely damaged.
Israel's leaders said they embarked on the offensive to stop indiscriminate rocket and missile fire at Israeli communities from Hamas, the Islamist group that runs Gaza.
While previous reports on the conflict - including from B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights group - have accused Israel of breaching international law, the Breaking the Silence investigation carries extra weight for being based on the first-hand testimony of soldiers in the field.
Palestinian men cover their heads as they run away after a bomb from an Israeli air strike hit a house in Gaza City
Some accounts describe scenarios in which rules of engagement were virtually absent, along with a cavalier attitude to Palestinian deaths and the destruction of their homes and property.
"The rules of engagement for soldiers advancing on the ground were: open fire, open fire everywhere, first thing when you go in," said one infantry soldier who operated in Gaza City. "The assumption being that the moment we went in [to the Gaza Strip], anyone who dared poke his head out was a terrorist."
Another infantry sergeant, whose unit was in northern Gaza, said: "There weren't really any rules of engagement. It was more protocols. They told us, 'There aren't supposed to be any civilians there. If you spot someone, shoot'. Whether it posed a threat or not wasn't a question, and that makes sense to me. If you shoot someone in Gaza, it's cool, no big deal.
"They told us 'Don't be afraid to shoot.' And they made it clear to us that there were no uninvolved civilians."
On one occasion, two women were killed after being spotted in an orchard in southern Gaza by Israeli forces stationed more than half-a-mile away. The women were "implicated" as targets after drone footage showed them talking on mobile phones. The pair were listed as "terrorists" even though later inspection by an Israeli commander found them to be unarmed.
Some accounts describe scenarios in which rules of engagement were virtually absent, along with a cavalier attitude to Palestinian deaths and the destruction of their homes and property.
"The rules of engagement for soldiers advancing on the ground were: open fire, open fire everywhere, first thing when you go in," said one infantry soldier who operated in Gaza City. "The assumption being that the moment we went in [to the Gaza Strip], anyone who dared poke his head out was a terrorist."
Another infantry sergeant, whose unit was in northern Gaza, said: "There weren't really any rules of engagement. It was more protocols. They told us, 'There aren't supposed to be any civilians there. If you spot someone, shoot'. Whether it posed a threat or not wasn't a question, and that makes sense to me. If you shoot someone in Gaza, it's cool, no big deal.
"They told us 'Don't be afraid to shoot.' And they made it clear to us that there were no uninvolved civilians."
On one occasion, two women were killed after being spotted in an orchard in southern Gaza by Israeli forces stationed more than half-a-mile away. The women were "implicated" as targets after drone footage showed them talking on mobile phones. The pair were listed as "terrorists" even though later inspection by an Israeli commander found them to be unarmed.
A woman gestures in her house that was destroyed in an Israeli airstrike in Khazaa, Gaza
Some testimonies record soldiers behaving in an inappropriate - even cruel - manner while other accounts describe a racist atmosphere.
A sergeant stationed at Deir al-Balah in central Gaza described how his unit was ordered at 7am to begin firing at random targets in al-Bureij, a nearby refugee camp, despite it being quiet and there being no apparent threat.
"We are carrying out a Good Morning al-Bureij guys," the commander said, according to the sergeant. "Basically to wake up the neighbourhood, to show these guys that 'the IDF is here', and to carry out deterrence."
Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, and other Israeli officials have previously pinned responsibility for Israeli firing in civilian areas on Hamas, accusing the group of using the Gaza population as "human shields".
Soldiers described losing their sense of morality after weeks of combat. One recounted how he fired a heavy machine gun at a man on a bicycle after failing in his attempts to hit cars and taxis with tanks shells.
"I saw a cyclist, just happily pedalling along. I said OK, that guy I'm taking down," said the sergeant. "I calibrated the range, and didn't hit - it hit a bit ahead of him and then suddenly he starts pedalling like crazy, because he was being shot at, and the whole tank crew is cracking up, 'Wow, look how fast he is.'
"After that I spoke about it with some other gunners and it turns out there was a sort of competition between all sorts of guys, 'Let's see if this gunner hits a car, or if that gunner'."
Houses were routinely destroyed if they were considered to occupy a "superior" - or higher - position to those where Israeli troops were stationed, as a precaution to stop them being occupied by militants.
Homes and orchards were flattened by bulldozers.
One soldier called the destruction levels "insane" while another compared the scene to "a science fiction move, with cows in the streets".
Mr Sfard called for an independent inquiry into the army's rules of engagement, which he said allowed far greater firepower than in previous Gaza conflict or the 2006 war with Hizbollah in Lebanon.
"International law demands that an investigation into suspicions of violations of the laws of war be carried out by an independent body."
He said: "Israel does have the needed legal framework for such an investigation but it takes political will and a political decision, which in the current climate seems unlikely."
Lieutenant Colonel Peter Lerner, a spokesman for the IDF, said other reports contradicted Breaking the Silence's findings that Israel's conduct had broken the laws of war.
"Other reports have reached a different conclusion and they don't seem to get media attention," he said. "However, we will look at this report to see if there is any matter requiring further investigation or action."
Some testimonies record soldiers behaving in an inappropriate - even cruel - manner while other accounts describe a racist atmosphere.
A sergeant stationed at Deir al-Balah in central Gaza described how his unit was ordered at 7am to begin firing at random targets in al-Bureij, a nearby refugee camp, despite it being quiet and there being no apparent threat.
"We are carrying out a Good Morning al-Bureij guys," the commander said, according to the sergeant. "Basically to wake up the neighbourhood, to show these guys that 'the IDF is here', and to carry out deterrence."
Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, and other Israeli officials have previously pinned responsibility for Israeli firing in civilian areas on Hamas, accusing the group of using the Gaza population as "human shields".
Soldiers described losing their sense of morality after weeks of combat. One recounted how he fired a heavy machine gun at a man on a bicycle after failing in his attempts to hit cars and taxis with tanks shells.
"I saw a cyclist, just happily pedalling along. I said OK, that guy I'm taking down," said the sergeant. "I calibrated the range, and didn't hit - it hit a bit ahead of him and then suddenly he starts pedalling like crazy, because he was being shot at, and the whole tank crew is cracking up, 'Wow, look how fast he is.'
"After that I spoke about it with some other gunners and it turns out there was a sort of competition between all sorts of guys, 'Let's see if this gunner hits a car, or if that gunner'."
Houses were routinely destroyed if they were considered to occupy a "superior" - or higher - position to those where Israeli troops were stationed, as a precaution to stop them being occupied by militants.
Homes and orchards were flattened by bulldozers.
One soldier called the destruction levels "insane" while another compared the scene to "a science fiction move, with cows in the streets".
Mr Sfard called for an independent inquiry into the army's rules of engagement, which he said allowed far greater firepower than in previous Gaza conflict or the 2006 war with Hizbollah in Lebanon.
"International law demands that an investigation into suspicions of violations of the laws of war be carried out by an independent body."
He said: "Israel does have the needed legal framework for such an investigation but it takes political will and a political decision, which in the current climate seems unlikely."
Lieutenant Colonel Peter Lerner, a spokesman for the IDF, said other reports contradicted Breaking the Silence's findings that Israel's conduct had broken the laws of war.
"Other reports have reached a different conclusion and they don't seem to get media attention," he said. "However, we will look at this report to see if there is any matter requiring further investigation or action."
Israeli destruction in Beit Hanoun during the summer 2014 attack on Gaza
Israel's military command perhaps pushes for escalation in order to increase the army's budget, claims a military budget officer in an anonymous Facebook posting. “Wars, operations, exceptional events, they were our way to close gaps in the budget and even build up a reserve for the coming years...Facts are traitors which incite against the army and the state”.
Posting anonymously on Facebook, the officer claims he was compelled to write after reading an interview with a senior military official about Israel's NIS 70 billion defence budget.
“This interview is full of nauseating smugness of the officer, who is trying to again peddle the same lies and threats that if the army is not given more and more billions, he will be forced, no choice, to kill soldiers. That's how it is, if you don't pay, you will bury (the dead).
Indirectly, of course, because if there is no money we will have to again send soldiers in tin cans into Gaza, but the subtext is clear.
Yet amongst all the usual lies, he notes that the budget requested by the army for Operation Protective Edge also serves the ongoing budget of the army...”
The officer adds that “As a budget officer, wars, operations, exceptional events, they were our way to close gaps in the budget and even build up a reserve for the coming years.
In the (Gaza) disengagement, for example, the army succeeded in blackmailing so much money from the state that already in July we managed to close our contracts going forward and we sought where to shove the remaining money. All sorts of projects that weren't approved in the past, building auditoriums, gyms, offices, everything that required money and a lot of it.
It's difficult for me to explain the excitement that could be felt in the hallways of the budget department every time that such an event began. A few qassam rockets made everyone put on combat uniforms and pull from the attic the presentations and files which show, with a disporportionate exaggeration, how much money we've already spent on the operation, that we need it to be returned quickly or the army would collapse.
For every ten soldiers placed to guard a post, we demanded a budget for their uniforms, the food, the ammunitions they are liable to use, heavy combat equipment, depreciation for tanks that would maybe come out of the storerooms, pension for those soldiers for that day and everything possible to put in the presentation with a number beside it. True, the army is supposed to fund the daily existence of these soldiers from its budget, because if there was no operation they would be eating in any event, but facts are traitors which incite against the army and the state.
Occasionally I would feel that the senior command would get so excited from the mountains of money expected to arrive, I had the feeling, God forbid this is just a feeling, of course, that perhaps they pushed for escalation. Only a feeling...”
Speaking to the Haaretz newspaper, the Israeli army spokesperson responded that: “This is an individual statement that does not reflect the numerous approval and supervision processes that exist for the defense budget. All of the funds transferred to the army pass through stringent approval procedures in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and the cabinet, and implementation is supervised by the comptroller general division in the finance ministry.”
Israel's military command perhaps pushes for escalation in order to increase the army's budget, claims a military budget officer in an anonymous Facebook posting. “Wars, operations, exceptional events, they were our way to close gaps in the budget and even build up a reserve for the coming years...Facts are traitors which incite against the army and the state”.
Posting anonymously on Facebook, the officer claims he was compelled to write after reading an interview with a senior military official about Israel's NIS 70 billion defence budget.
“This interview is full of nauseating smugness of the officer, who is trying to again peddle the same lies and threats that if the army is not given more and more billions, he will be forced, no choice, to kill soldiers. That's how it is, if you don't pay, you will bury (the dead).
Indirectly, of course, because if there is no money we will have to again send soldiers in tin cans into Gaza, but the subtext is clear.
Yet amongst all the usual lies, he notes that the budget requested by the army for Operation Protective Edge also serves the ongoing budget of the army...”
The officer adds that “As a budget officer, wars, operations, exceptional events, they were our way to close gaps in the budget and even build up a reserve for the coming years.
In the (Gaza) disengagement, for example, the army succeeded in blackmailing so much money from the state that already in July we managed to close our contracts going forward and we sought where to shove the remaining money. All sorts of projects that weren't approved in the past, building auditoriums, gyms, offices, everything that required money and a lot of it.
It's difficult for me to explain the excitement that could be felt in the hallways of the budget department every time that such an event began. A few qassam rockets made everyone put on combat uniforms and pull from the attic the presentations and files which show, with a disporportionate exaggeration, how much money we've already spent on the operation, that we need it to be returned quickly or the army would collapse.
For every ten soldiers placed to guard a post, we demanded a budget for their uniforms, the food, the ammunitions they are liable to use, heavy combat equipment, depreciation for tanks that would maybe come out of the storerooms, pension for those soldiers for that day and everything possible to put in the presentation with a number beside it. True, the army is supposed to fund the daily existence of these soldiers from its budget, because if there was no operation they would be eating in any event, but facts are traitors which incite against the army and the state.
Occasionally I would feel that the senior command would get so excited from the mountains of money expected to arrive, I had the feeling, God forbid this is just a feeling, of course, that perhaps they pushed for escalation. Only a feeling...”
Speaking to the Haaretz newspaper, the Israeli army spokesperson responded that: “This is an individual statement that does not reflect the numerous approval and supervision processes that exist for the defense budget. All of the funds transferred to the army pass through stringent approval procedures in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and the cabinet, and implementation is supervised by the comptroller general division in the finance ministry.”
Breaking the Silence, an organization of veteran Israeli soldiers, harshly slammed the Israeli army for its operational policy during last summer’s aggression on Gaza, saying it led to “immense and unprecedented harm to the civilian population and infrastructures in the Gaza Strip,” Monday reported the Israeli daily Haaretz.
According to WAFA, the organization’s report, which contained testimonies of 60 Israeli soldiers and officers who fought in Gaza last summer, said the testimonies “are indicative of a general principle that governed the entire military operation: minimum risk to the Israeli forces, even if it meant civilian casualties.”
The group said that the army adopted a principle that “anyone found in an IDF area, which the IDF had occupied, was not a civilian. That was the assumption,” one of the soldiers told Breaking the Silence.
An infantry soldier said also any home which Israeli forces entered and used would be destroyed afterward by large D9 bulldozers. “At no point until the end of the operation … did anyone tell us what the operational usefulness was in exposing the houses,” he was quoted by Haaretz.
“During a conversation, the unit commanders explained that it wasn’t an act of revenge. At a certain point we realized this was a trend. You leave a house and there’s no longer a house. The D9 comes and exposes it.”
Another soldier said, “There was one senior commander who really loved the D9 and was really in favor of flattening; he worked a lot with them. Let’s just say that anytime he was in a certain place, all the infrastructures around the building were totally destroyed – nearly every house had a shell in it.”
Another infantry soldier also recalled an incident in which a force identified two suspicious figures walking in an orchard, only a few hundred meters away. The lookouts couldn’t immediately identify them, so a drone was sent up to take a look. It was two women walking through the orchard, talking on cell phones. “The aircraft took aim at these women and killed them,” he said.
According to the soldier, reports Haaretz, the fact that the women were carrying only cell phones was reported to the battalion commander. “Despite this, in the reports written afterward, the women were classified as terrorists – lookouts who were operating in the area.” “[The tank commander] left and we moved on. They were counted as terrorists. They were shot, so it’s clear they were terrorists,” he said.
Haaretz revealed other reports of shooting at civilians. A woman who was clearly unstable and posed no threat was reportedly ordered by the battalion commander to walk westward, toward an area where tanks were stationed. When the woman approached the tank force, she was machine-gunned to death.
Another soldier who fought in northern Gaza spoke of an old man being shot when he approached a force one afternoon. Previously, the forces had been briefed to look out for an older man who might be carrying grenades. “The guy who was in the [guard] position – I don’t know what came over him; he saw a civilian, shot him, and didn’t hit him so well. The civilian was lying there writhing in pain,” the soldier said.
Meanwhile, an Armored Corps soldier said that after the death of a fellow platoon member, the platoon commander announced they would fire a volley of shells in his memory. “Fire like they do at funerals, but with shells and at houses. It wasn’t [firing] in the air. You just chose [where to fire]. The tank commander said, ‘Choose the house that’s furthest away, it will hurt them the most.’ It was a type of revenge,” he said.
Another Armored Corps soldier said that after three weeks of fighting, a competition developed between the members of his unit – who could succeed in hitting moving vehicles on a road that carried cars, trucks and even ambulances.
“So I found a vehicle, a taxi, and I tried to shell it but missed,” he recalled. “Two more vehicles came, and I tried another shell or two, but couldn’t do it. Then the commander came and said, ‘Yallah [which means come on], stop it, you’re using up all the shells. Cut it out.’ So we moved to the heavy machine gun,” he added.
He said he understood he was firing at civilians. Asked about it, he said, “I think, deep inside, it bothered me a little. But after three weeks in Gaza, when you’re firing at everything that moves, and even things that don’t move, at a psychotic pace, you don’t really … good and bad get a little mixed up and your morality starts to get lost and you lose your compass. And it becomes like a computer game. Really, really cool and real.”
See also: Special UN Report: 2014 Israeli Assault on Gaza Hit 7 UNRWA Schools
DCI-Palestine: Israel Willfully Targeted & Murdered Gaza Children
AP Investigation: 89% of "Protective Edge" Victims Were Civilians
VIDEO: Gaza City's Devastated Al-Shuja'eyya Suburb
According to WAFA, the organization’s report, which contained testimonies of 60 Israeli soldiers and officers who fought in Gaza last summer, said the testimonies “are indicative of a general principle that governed the entire military operation: minimum risk to the Israeli forces, even if it meant civilian casualties.”
The group said that the army adopted a principle that “anyone found in an IDF area, which the IDF had occupied, was not a civilian. That was the assumption,” one of the soldiers told Breaking the Silence.
An infantry soldier said also any home which Israeli forces entered and used would be destroyed afterward by large D9 bulldozers. “At no point until the end of the operation … did anyone tell us what the operational usefulness was in exposing the houses,” he was quoted by Haaretz.
“During a conversation, the unit commanders explained that it wasn’t an act of revenge. At a certain point we realized this was a trend. You leave a house and there’s no longer a house. The D9 comes and exposes it.”
Another soldier said, “There was one senior commander who really loved the D9 and was really in favor of flattening; he worked a lot with them. Let’s just say that anytime he was in a certain place, all the infrastructures around the building were totally destroyed – nearly every house had a shell in it.”
Another infantry soldier also recalled an incident in which a force identified two suspicious figures walking in an orchard, only a few hundred meters away. The lookouts couldn’t immediately identify them, so a drone was sent up to take a look. It was two women walking through the orchard, talking on cell phones. “The aircraft took aim at these women and killed them,” he said.
According to the soldier, reports Haaretz, the fact that the women were carrying only cell phones was reported to the battalion commander. “Despite this, in the reports written afterward, the women were classified as terrorists – lookouts who were operating in the area.” “[The tank commander] left and we moved on. They were counted as terrorists. They were shot, so it’s clear they were terrorists,” he said.
Haaretz revealed other reports of shooting at civilians. A woman who was clearly unstable and posed no threat was reportedly ordered by the battalion commander to walk westward, toward an area where tanks were stationed. When the woman approached the tank force, she was machine-gunned to death.
Another soldier who fought in northern Gaza spoke of an old man being shot when he approached a force one afternoon. Previously, the forces had been briefed to look out for an older man who might be carrying grenades. “The guy who was in the [guard] position – I don’t know what came over him; he saw a civilian, shot him, and didn’t hit him so well. The civilian was lying there writhing in pain,” the soldier said.
Meanwhile, an Armored Corps soldier said that after the death of a fellow platoon member, the platoon commander announced they would fire a volley of shells in his memory. “Fire like they do at funerals, but with shells and at houses. It wasn’t [firing] in the air. You just chose [where to fire]. The tank commander said, ‘Choose the house that’s furthest away, it will hurt them the most.’ It was a type of revenge,” he said.
Another Armored Corps soldier said that after three weeks of fighting, a competition developed between the members of his unit – who could succeed in hitting moving vehicles on a road that carried cars, trucks and even ambulances.
“So I found a vehicle, a taxi, and I tried to shell it but missed,” he recalled. “Two more vehicles came, and I tried another shell or two, but couldn’t do it. Then the commander came and said, ‘Yallah [which means come on], stop it, you’re using up all the shells. Cut it out.’ So we moved to the heavy machine gun,” he added.
He said he understood he was firing at civilians. Asked about it, he said, “I think, deep inside, it bothered me a little. But after three weeks in Gaza, when you’re firing at everything that moves, and even things that don’t move, at a psychotic pace, you don’t really … good and bad get a little mixed up and your morality starts to get lost and you lose your compass. And it becomes like a computer game. Really, really cool and real.”
See also: Special UN Report: 2014 Israeli Assault on Gaza Hit 7 UNRWA Schools
DCI-Palestine: Israel Willfully Targeted & Murdered Gaza Children
AP Investigation: 89% of "Protective Edge" Victims Were Civilians
VIDEO: Gaza City's Devastated Al-Shuja'eyya Suburb
1 apr 2015
Posing as IDF reservist, Oren Hazan gives false testimony to Breaking The Silence group on rights abuses by IDF in Gaza
Freshman Likud party MK Oren Hazan was accused Wednesday of attempting to embarrass an Israeli left-wing NGO by providing it with false testimony detailing fictitious human rights abuses committed by IDF soldiers in the Gaza Strip.
Hazan apparently acted in hope that the fake attestation would be published and thus cast serious doubt on the organization’s credibility.
According to Breaking The Silence, an organization dedicated to collecting testimonies from current and former IDF soldiers about their military service in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, a routine fact-checking procedure revealed numerous inconsistencies in an account submitted several months ago by a man calling himself Asaf Hazan, who claimed to be a reservist who fought during last summer’s 50-day war between Israel and Hamas.
Given the problematic nature of the testimony, the NGO decided not to publish it.
An investigation by Channel 10 published Tuesday revealed that the fabricated account had been given not by Asaf Hazan, but rather by Oren Hazan, who was elected to Knesset last month on the Likud party’s 30th slot. Hazan later admitted he had provided false testimony to Breaking the Silence, but insisted that his made-up description had in fact been published.
“After the exposure of the affair, MK Hazan continues with his lies and says that we published the testimony, but lo and behold he cannot prove it… this is because we never released it,” a statement on Breaking The Silence’s Hebrew Facebook page read.
“The many attempts by public bodies and individuals to discredit us and the soldiers of the IDF who testified before us will always fail, due to the fact that in our system, as part of the organization’s professional work, all accounts are carefully and rigorously examined in order to ensure reliability.”
Hazan, 33, has already caused a stir over his previous occupation as manager of a casino on the Bulgarian Riviera. After being elected to Knesset, Hazan rebuffed criticism of his former job, saying it was entirely aboveboard, and claimed he was the victim of unjust media prejudice. “I’m the second generation of media abuse, only because I’m not a member of the [media] establishment,” Hazan, who is the son of disgraced Likud MK Yehiel Hazan, wrote on Facebook.
Yehiel Hazan was convicted of forgery, fraud and breach of trust after double-voting in the Knesset in 2003 and attempting to cover up the evidence. He was sentenced to four months of community service and a six-month suspended prison term.
Freshman Likud party MK Oren Hazan was accused Wednesday of attempting to embarrass an Israeli left-wing NGO by providing it with false testimony detailing fictitious human rights abuses committed by IDF soldiers in the Gaza Strip.
Hazan apparently acted in hope that the fake attestation would be published and thus cast serious doubt on the organization’s credibility.
According to Breaking The Silence, an organization dedicated to collecting testimonies from current and former IDF soldiers about their military service in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, a routine fact-checking procedure revealed numerous inconsistencies in an account submitted several months ago by a man calling himself Asaf Hazan, who claimed to be a reservist who fought during last summer’s 50-day war between Israel and Hamas.
Given the problematic nature of the testimony, the NGO decided not to publish it.
An investigation by Channel 10 published Tuesday revealed that the fabricated account had been given not by Asaf Hazan, but rather by Oren Hazan, who was elected to Knesset last month on the Likud party’s 30th slot. Hazan later admitted he had provided false testimony to Breaking the Silence, but insisted that his made-up description had in fact been published.
“After the exposure of the affair, MK Hazan continues with his lies and says that we published the testimony, but lo and behold he cannot prove it… this is because we never released it,” a statement on Breaking The Silence’s Hebrew Facebook page read.
“The many attempts by public bodies and individuals to discredit us and the soldiers of the IDF who testified before us will always fail, due to the fact that in our system, as part of the organization’s professional work, all accounts are carefully and rigorously examined in order to ensure reliability.”
Hazan, 33, has already caused a stir over his previous occupation as manager of a casino on the Bulgarian Riviera. After being elected to Knesset, Hazan rebuffed criticism of his former job, saying it was entirely aboveboard, and claimed he was the victim of unjust media prejudice. “I’m the second generation of media abuse, only because I’m not a member of the [media] establishment,” Hazan, who is the son of disgraced Likud MK Yehiel Hazan, wrote on Facebook.
Yehiel Hazan was convicted of forgery, fraud and breach of trust after double-voting in the Knesset in 2003 and attempting to cover up the evidence. He was sentenced to four months of community service and a six-month suspended prison term.
Page: 2 - 1
