|
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.
|
