Maramara streisand the taking of the marmara intro feat sinister sveta
The code of purity of arms (Hebrew: טוהר הנשק, Tohar HaNeshek) is one of the values stated in the Israel Defense Forces' official doctrine of ethics, The Spirit of the IDF.
Contents
- Maramara streisand the taking of the marmara intro feat sinister sveta
- Purity of arms
- Tactical and ethical dilemmas
- Dissenting Rabbinic opinion
- Criticism
- References
According to Rabbi Norman Solomon, the concepts of Havlaga and purity of arms arise out of the ethical and moral values stemming from the tradition of Israel, extrapolation from the Jewish Halakha, and the desire for moral approval and hence political support from the world community. Despite doubts when confronted by indiscriminate terrorism, purity of arms remains the guiding rule for the Israeli forces. These foundations have elicited a fair degree of consensus among Jews, both religious and secular.
Others have challenged this image, but according to Gideon Levy, the "majority of the Israelis is still deeply convinced that their army, the IDF, is the most moral army of the world, and nothing else". A notable proponent of this image is Colonel Richard Kemp, a retired British army officer, who called the IDF the most moral army in the world on Israel's Channel 2 News. The High Level Military Group, composed of military experts from Australia, Colombia, France, Germany, India, Italy, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Spain, released an assessment on Operation Protective Edge acknowledging Israel made "unprecedented efforts" to avoid civilian casualties exceeding international standards.
Purity of arms
Tactical and ethical dilemmas
In combat and other confrontation situations several of the values within the Spirit of the IDF code are concomitantly evoked, such as:
Selective targeting (or targeted killing) of terrorist leaders is considered by the IDF as a legitimate mode of operation and part of a state's counterterrorism, anticipatory, self-defense activities that are designed to prevent the continuation of terrorism. Selective targeting of terrorist activists is used as a measure designed to hurt the real enemy while minimizing civilian casualties. The practice was challenged before the Israeli Supreme Court, which held that while terrorists were civilians under the law of armed conflict, they were not protected by the prohibition in Article 51(3) of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, which provides that civilians enjoy immunity from deliberate attack "unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities". The Court found that the meaning of both "for such time" and "direct part in hostilities" covered those providing services to unlawful combatants in any period before a potential attack; therefore terrorists did not qualify for this immunity, a ruling that has been accepted into international law.
The decision received a mixed reception from the international community, with one scholar expressing concern that it threatened "to undermine international law's protection of civilians in armed conflict by shifting the balance toward military advantage and increasing the likelihood of collateral damage".
Dissenting Rabbinic opinion
Some rabbis oppose the stipulation of avoiding harm to non-combatants, arguing that Jewish law specifically rejects this requirement during wartime. Some instances:
Criticism
Others challenge the idea that the IDF is either particularly moral or follows the concept of "Purity of Arms". Criticism of the concept has centered on its consistency with international law, and the tendency for civilians to be killed in the process. Certain actions that have marked the army's history are at the origins of the criticism. Among these are massacres that took place during the 1948 War, at Qibya, at Kafr Qasim, against prisoners of war, at Sabra and Shatila, or at Qana. To these may be added controversial operations such as the Battle of Jenin, Operation Cast Lead, and the Gaza Flotilla Raid. A number of these events led to rifts in Israeli society. The massacre of Sabra and Shatila in particular occasioned demonstrations that assumed an historic dimension within Israel.
According to Avi Shlaim, "purity of arms" is one of the key features of "the conventional Zionist account or old history" whose "popular-heroic-moralistic version of the 1948 war" is "taught in Israeli schools and used extensively in the quest for legitimacy abroad". Benny Morris adds, "[t]he Israelis' collective memory of fighters characterized by "purity of arms" is also undermined by the evidence of [the dozen case] of rapes committed in conquered towns and villages." According to him, "after the war, the Israelis tended to hail the "purity of arms" of its militiamen and soldiers to contrast this with Arab barbarism, which on occasion expressed itself in the mutilation of captured Jewish corpses. (...) This reinforced the Israelis' positive self-image and helped them 'sell' the new state abroad and (...) demonized the enemy."
Following the Qibya massacre, Yeshayahu Leibowitz questioned the moral character of operations of the Israeli army. He points out that at the contrary of the time of diaspora, Jews established in Israel have the possibility to resort to force and that if in 1948 they had no choice, at Qibya the Israeli nation showed his moral limits.
Israeli Colonel Dov Yirmiah has referred to "the lies about humanitarianism and 'purity of arms'", and refers to purity of arms as a phrase that is "sickening and false". Dov's book My War Diary: Lebanon June 5 – July 1, 1982 has been described as having "crushed the myth" of the purity of arms of the IDF.
According to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt the claim that the IDF is the most moral army in the world is "yet another myth".
A former head of the Mossad, Zvi Zamir stated that the fact that Israel Defense Forces soldiers have shot at unarmed people on the Syrian–Israeli border showed the IDF's "purity of arms" was being eroded.