On Sunday, August 11, the Israel Defense Force yet again ordered displaced Gazans to move on [click].
You know the drill by now: When the IDF suggests a place for dispossessed Gazans to move on to, like clockwork that new place is bombed, and Israel issues a statement claiming hamas fighters, or a Hamas tummel, or a Hamas earthworm was there!
We all know Netanyahu is guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes. Anyone in his government that condones what is happening in Gaza as well as the West Bank is likewise a criminal. But it’s time, I think, to apportion the guilt equitably and where it belongs.
Every general who receives orders to continue the offensive in Gaza and decides to follow them rather than reject them as the immoral filth they are is culpable. And from those generals on down to the lowest buck private, every member of the Israel Defense Forces who carries out those orders is culpable.
Remember, all members of the military have an obligation to disobey illegal orders.
If a country ratifies an international treaty or convention, that treaty or convention becomes the law of the land.
So, if a prime minister, or a field marshal, or a master sergeant issues an order that violates, say, the Fourth Geneva Convention, that order is illegal.
Israel ratified the Geneva Conventions on July 6, 1951.
They are, therefore, Israeli law.
Upon joining the IDF, every servicemember is issued a copy of the Israel Defense Forces: Ruach Tzahal - Code of Ethics [click]. If a servicemember is unfamiliar with the Geneva Conventions per se, he nonetheless has a clear understanding of his responsibilities, including the duty to disobey and report illegal orders.
In other words,every bombadier, every tank driver, every rifleman deployed in Gaza knows what he ought to do and knows what he is doing. And, if he cannot see the casm between the two, he is morally bankrupt.
He is also guilty of violating the Ruach Tzahal and of war crimes.
Links
Israel keeps up strikes in Gaza as fears of wider war grow [Opens in a new window]
…None of this was authorized at any level, nor could it have been authorized. Any soldier who was ordered to do any of this should have immediately understood that the order was illegal and would have been obligated to disobey and report the abuse.
This same rule would apply in the case of any clear law-of-war violation. In combat, commanders must make difficult decisions to launch strikes that risk civilian casualties. The law of war does not require that commanders avoid any risk of civilian casualties, but it does mandate that strikes meet the tests of necessity and proportionality, meaning the value of destroying the target outweighs the risk of civilian casualties. When a commander makes a judgment call that destroying a particular target is worth the risk of collateral damage and his judgment is reasonable, his subordinates have to carry out the order, although they themselves might have made a different judgment.
Still, certain strikes might be palpably illegal. The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits a wide array of attacks against protected persons. For example, attacks targeting civilians are explicitly prohibited under Article 27. So are attacks on hospitals, pursuant to Article 18. Reprisal attacks are also barred under Article 33, so if a commander orders his soldiers to harm the relatives of a terrorist or to destroy their property in retaliation for attacks on U.S. troops, that would be clearly illegal. His subordinates would be required to disobey the order. Recall that My Lai was a reprisal attack: Members of the unit later said the motivation was revenge for the recent killing of a popular sergeant by enemy forces.
When Can a Soldier Disobey an Order? [opens in a new window]
The Obligations of Israel and the Palestinian Authority under International Law (from 2001)[opens in a new window]
