| This past weekend, a local TV channel aired an American documentary film called "Street Thief." The film's protagonist, a burglar on the streets of Chicago, allowed the moviemakers to accompany him during an entire year of criminal activity. The movie's principal documentary achievement is in the central figure's willingness to involve the viewers in his intrigues and deliberations. In fact, the film, which sparked debate about the limits of the documentary genre upon its release in 2006, exposed viewers to the black box of the crime world: the mysterious realm of criminal intent.
Like any mental state, criminal intent is evasive, fluid and usually leaves behind no trace. What thief has not claimed to the police, "I didn't mean to take the money"? What rapist has not claimed in court, "I thought she wanted it"? And we, the lawyers, both defense attorneys and prosecutors, are coerced into constructing legal arguments about who intended to do what and when, when deep down we know that these are nothing but fictitious assumptions. This is why the confession of the street thief is so interesting and why so many people thought and still think that the film is not really a documentary, but a fraud.
Coincidentally, in the same weekend, the Israeli public was exposed to an additional rare public confession from another criminal conspirator. This self-exposure occurred closer to home, in an interview in which the one confessing was none other than GOC Northern Command Gadi Eisenkot. "What happened in the Beirut suburb of Dahiya in 2006 will happen in every village from which shots are fired in the direction of Israel," Eisenkot said to journalists from Yedioth Ahronoth. "We will wield disproportionate power against every village from which shots are fired on Israel, and cause immense damage and destruction. From our perspective, these are military bases. This isn't a suggestion. This is a plan that has already been authorized."
Hence, in two short sentences, one of the Israel Defense Force's senior commanders stated, with the world as his witness, his intention to violate the two central tenets of the international laws of war: the principle of distinction, which states that every time military force is used, it is imperative to differentiate enemy combatants from enemy civilians, and that attacks may be directed only at the former; and the proportionality principle, which states that even in attacks against enemy combatants, disproportional use of power is prohibited.
It is important to understand this: The international legal definition of an illegal military attack is one directed at civilians, or one that involves a disproportional use of force. It was as if Eisenkot, then, was standing on a hilltop, declaring his intention to commit war crimes, yelling to passersby, "My intentions are biggest of all!"
Upholding international law is not a privilege or a choice. It does not bend and shift depending on the complexities of regional geopolitics. Israel, as an active and essential member of the global community, relying on support and friendship from nations worldwide, has a responsibility and obligation to uphold the highest international standards of conduct.
Maybe we have taken Eisenkot's statements out of context; maybe he does not actually intend to carry out the attacks that he described. Perhaps his statement was meant merely to serve as a deterrent to further action from Hezbollah. But if that's the case, should we expect the victims of these proposed attacks not to take them seriously - to sit back and do nothing? Could we fathom such a reaction from ourselves or from the United States when Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls for Israel's demise? Can we not expect these potential victims of mass destruction to relate to our threats the way we respond to those of Hamas?
In case you're still thinking that we misunderstood the commander, that he meant something different, he then elaborated: "If there is firing [by Israel] into Shi'ite villages in Lebanon, that is the plan, aggressive shooting ... the possibility of harming the population is the only means for restraining [Hassan] Nasrallah."
Straight and to the point. Without the usual lip service of "IDF expresses condolences," or "in every war civilians are harmed." Eisenkot, contender on the new reality show "War Criminal Idol," was giving us a rare peek into the true goals behind the pulling of the trigger, goals usually clouded by a fog of operational and legal secrets. And these intentions are simple and clear, like the strategy of a terror organization: "to harm civilians until we achieve political goals."
Usually people hide their criminal intentions, because of the binding legal risk and moral embarrassment exposing them could cause. This is why the confessions of the street thief in the documentary were so interesting. This is why many thought that the film was a fraud. In Eisenkot's case, the situation is apparently simpler. He is not afraid and not ashamed.
Attorney Michael Sfard is an expert in international law and legal advisor to Yesh Din: Volunteers for Human Rights. |
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten