Targeted killings

Yediot Ahronot’s military correspondent Alex Fishman claims the IDF’s modus operandi in the Gaza Strip has changed. He says, "The political leadership has given the IDF and General Security Service (GSS) much more leeway and flexibility regarding ‘targeted killings’ of wanted terrorists.” Fishman prefers the term "pinpoint eliminations”, however he also mentioned, “surgical strikes."

Why do Fishman and other correspondents torment their readers by using oblique terminology? Perhaps they are simply articulating the same fondness military spokespeople have for bandying with words. Why do they avoid the word assassination? After all, the political leaders, "flak catchers," commentators and the actual “dispatchers" have few qualms about "doing the job," so why don't they call a spade a spade?

This is not a new dilemma, in fact nine years ago Professor Steven R. David, Associate Dean at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland clarified the matter in a paper he presented at the Begin-Sadat Center conference on democracy and limited war held in Tel Aviv. Under the heading - “Fatal choices: Israel's policy of targeted killing” he wrote, “Targeted killing is the intentional slaying of a specific individual or group of Individuals undertaken with explicit governmental approval. It is not ‘assassination’ for three reasons. First, assassination typically has a pejorative connotation of ‘murder by treacherous means.’ whether the Israeli killing of alleged Palestinian terrorists is ‘treacherous’ or not is a debatable proposition that should not be assumed a priori by employing loaded terms such as assassination.

Second, assassination usually refers to the killing of senior political officials. For the most part—though not exclusively—Israel has focused on killing Palestinian terrorists and those who plan the actual attacks. Finally, Israel itself does not use the term, ‘assassination’, and instead prefers ‘targeted thwarting’ or ‘interceptions.’

While it is not necessary to accept Israeli terminology for its actions, neither does it make sense to accept the terminology of its critics.

Targeted killing accurately refers to what the Israelis actually do, with a minimum of semantic baggage implying approval or disapproval of their actions.”

A few months ago The Economist tackled the problem in a lead article, “Moreover, celebrity legal eagle Alan Dershowitz correctly infers that ‘those who have opposed the very concept of targeted killings should be railing against the killing of Osama Bin Laden’. But they aren't.

Among others, these critics include officials in Britain, France, Italy, Russia, the EU, Jordan, and the United Nations. [Jack Straw, the former British foreign secretary] once said, ‘The British government has made it repeatedly clear that so-called targeted assassinations of this kind are unlawful, unjustified and counterproductive.’ The French foreign ministry has declared ‘that extrajudicial executions contravene international law and are unacceptable.’ The Italian Foreign Minister has said, ‘Italy, like the whole of the European Union, has always condemned the practice of targeted assassinations.’ The Russians have asserted that ‘Russia has repeatedly stressed the unacceptability of extrajudicial settling of scores and 'targeted killings.’ Javier Solana has noted that the ‘"European Union has consistently condemned extrajudicial killings.’ The Jordanians have said, ‘Jordan has always denounced this policy of assassination and its position on this has always been clear.’ And Kofi Annan has declared ‘that extrajudicial killings are violations of international law.’
Yet none of these nations, groups or individuals have criticized the targeted killing of Osama Bin Laden by the US. The reason is obvious. All the condemnations against targeted killing were directed at one country. Guess which one? Israel, of course.”

Well with the passage of time the abovementioned critics who once considered targeted killings unacceptable, extremely terrible and unhelpful have changed their minds. It's no secret that President Obama has sanctioned the killing of more suspected terrorists than his predecessors. His administration has increased the use of unmanned drone strikes and so-called kill/capture missions on al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership both on and off the traditional battlefield. While some analysts quote successes, like the U.S. Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden, others say the strategy lacks proper legal boundaries.

Professor Dershowitz criticised the critics further, "These critics characterize such actions as 'extrajudicial executions' and demand that terrorist leaders and functionaries be treated as common criminals who must be arrested and brought to trial.

The operation that resulted in Bin Laden's death was a military action calculated to kill rather than to 'arrest' him. It is possible, though highly unlikely, that he could have been captured alive and brought to trial. The decision to employ military personnel with guns, rather than a drone firing rockets, was probably made by generals rather than lawyers.

Had it been militarily preferable to fire a rocket, that option would almost certainly have been selected."

Ilya Somin, a professor of law at George Mason University, has argued:

“In my view, targeting terrorist leaders is not only defensible, but actually more ethical than going after rank and file terrorists or trying to combat terrorism through purely defensive security measures. The rank and file have far less culpability for terrorist attacks than do their leaders, and killing them is less likely to impair terrorist operations. Purely defensive measures, meanwhile, often impose substantial costs on innocent people and may imperil civil liberties. Despite the possibility of collateral damage inflicted on civilians whom the terrorist leaders use as human shields, targeted assassination of terrorist leaders is less likely to harm innocents than most other strategies for combating terror and more likely to disrupt future terrorist operations.

That does not prove that it should be the only strategy we use, but it does mean that we should reject condemnations of it as somehow immoral.”

The author of the article in The Economist expressed his concern about this question, ”I think it underlies my discomfort with Mr Somin's sensible argument as well as the widespread official condemnation of ‘extrajudicial’ and ‘unlawful’ targeted killings. As Hobbes taught, if private reason is authoritative—if each of us is left to judge what is right—we are left with a chaos of conflicting claims. In that case it seems that ‘justice’ boils down to Thrasymachus' slogan : ‘Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger’.

Because America is generally ‘the stronger’, many Americans are pretty satisfied with Thrasymachean international justice. In a Thrasymachean world, America's authority to declare, as Mr Obama did declare, that ‘justice has been done’ through American assassination is based ultimately upon America's superior strength. A civil global order would require that private reason be subordinated to public reason—that national judgment be subordinated to international law. The aspiration to an order of global public reason expressed in the quotations offered up by Mr Dershowitz often is, as Mr Dershowitz argues, cynically opportunistic. But it is just as often admirably authentic.”

Transposing this argument to our region we often hear criticism of Israel for its use of disproportionate force, too much “clout” in its various military confrontations. In our microcosm Israel is generally considered to be the strongest nation in the arena. Even now when the US president is more critical of the present Israeli government we can still eliminate terrorists whenever an opportunity arises.

Nevertheless there are limitations as Alan Dershowitz pointed out, ” Indeed, in Israel, the use of targeted killings has been closely regulated by its Supreme Court and permitted only against terrorists who are actively engaged in ongoing acts of terrorism. In the United States, on the other hand, the decisions to use this tactic is made by the President alone, without any form of judicial review. So let the world stop applying a double standard to Israel and let it start judging the merits and demerits of military tactics such as targeted killing. On balance, targeted killing, when used prudently against proper military targets, can be an effective, lawful, and moral tool in the war against terrorism.”

A distinction should be made between operations carried out or allegedly carried out by the Mossad such as the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai and regular IDF actions against terrorists, both leaders and rank and file operatives.

The use of armed UAV’s (unmanned aerial vehicles) has also been criticised sometimes because only the stronger side has them while the freedom fighter/terrorist (you choose) moves helplessly exposed on the ground.

In a recent issue of Jane’s Defence Weekly the targeting mechanism of US Predator UAV was said to employ, ”High-precision zoom lens cameras, and video cameras with both electric optic and infrared capability that can see at night, can lock on a target for their two Hellfire missiles when they are so far away that the target can neither see them nor hear them.”

We all use similar targeting techniques. France has been deploying its medium altitude, long endurance ‘Harfang’ drones over Libya, operating from Sigonella air base in Sicily. They were transferred from Afghanistan to support the Libyan theatre of operation.

In March 2010, Department of State Legal Advisor Koh said: "U.S. targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war ." He said the U.S. is in "an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Takiban, and the associated forces", and therefore has the lawful right to use lethal force to protect its citizens ‘consistent with its right to self-defense’ under international law.

In another issue of Jane’s Defence Weekly Frank Pace, the President of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, the company that manufactures the Predator and the Reaper(UAVs) (very appropriate names) prophesied that “Almost everything will be unmanned in probably less than 100 years.”

The same issue of the magazine published an assessment of the total worldwide unmanned aerial vehicle market. Israel was ranked third after the US and China and ahead of Russia.

We too reserve the right to strike at our enemies using fair means and foul.

Aptly put by Shakespeare in Macbeth " Fair is foul, and foul is fair:/ Hover through the fog and filthy air," inspired by Saul’s visit to the witch at Ein Dor, sometimes written Endor. 1 Samuel 28:3-25.

After the death of his son in World War 1 Rudyard Kipling used the séance at Ein Dor as the theme of his poem En-Dor

Oh the road to En-dor is the oldest road
And the craziest road of all!
Straight it runs to the Witch’s abode,
As it did in the days of Saul,
And nothing has changed of the sorrow in store
For such as go down on the road to En-dor!

Looking out from the breakfast room/cafeteria in our factory I can see the road to Ein Dor. Not the miserable village described by Mark Twain in Innocents Abroad but a kibbutz built on the same site just 6km north of Ein Harod.

Have a good weekend

Beni 1^st of September, 2011.