Tel Aviv, Israel — Over decades, Israeli military tactics and the use of targeted assassinations have evolved, marking a dramatic shift in the approach taken towards Hamas and other Palestinian groups. This evolution is evident when examining Israel’s increasing reliance on what some see as disproportionate force in conflicts, notably in Gaza.
Historically, Israel has targeted key figures within Palestinian groups whom they deem threats to national security. The list of these targeted assassinations, which includes notable figures such as Ghassan Kanafani and Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, spans over six decades beginning in 1956. The figures targeted over the years predominantly include Palestinians, involving various high-profile leaders from different factions.
During a press conference on July 13, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu discussed an attempt to eliminate Hamas’s military commander Mohammed Deif. This strike, which involved multiple fighter jets and drones, was concentrated on the densely-populated al-Mawasi camp in Gaza, currently home to roughly 80,000 displaced Palestinians.
The attack resulted in the deaths of at least 90 individuals, among them women and children, and left 300 others injured. This incident sparked significant controversy, especially as the targeted area had been previously designated as a ‘safe zone’. The level of civilian casualties and the use of U.S.-made bombs have once more brought Israel’s military strategies under scrutiny.
Despite the unclear outcome regarding Deif’s fate, Netanyahu defended the operation, asserting that such attempts send a global message about the dwindling future of Hamas. However, this stance, suggesting that the targeting of Hamas leaders weakens the organization’s influence, is debated. Critics argue that instead of curtailing Hamas, such actions have historically bolstered its support base.
The increase in assassination attempts correlates strongly with rising civilian casualties, a fact not fully captured by existing public records or lists, such as Wikipedia’s “List of Israeli assassinations”. This discrepancy underlines the broader consequences of assassination missions, particularly on non-combatants.
Reflecting back on earlier policies, during the second Palestinian Intifada, Israel’s assassination of Salah Shehade, head of Hamas’s Qassam Brigades, resulted in significant collateral damage, including the death of Shehade’s family and other civilians. This event led to an uproar within Israel and among international observers, pushing 27 Israeli pilots to refuse participation in further assassinations over Gaza.
In the years following, official investigations and military doctrines have adapted. Notably, the principle of proportionality, which is a foundational aspect of the laws of armed conflict, has been reinterpreted to fit new military tactics. This principle historically argues that the harm to civilians must not outweigh the direct military gain from an action.
Organizations suchthes’ According to Breaking the Silence, a group of Israeli military veterans, current military strategies advocate for preventing Israeli casualties at the cost of Palestinian civilian lives and even encourage attacks on civilian infrastructure to deter Hamas.
Such strategies have led to severe accusations against Israel, including claims of war crimes and crimes against humanity. These accusations are founded on the significant discrepancies between the perceived military advantage and the actual heavy toll on civilian life.
An officer with the Israeli army’s International Law Department outlined in 2009 that the military’s role is to empower itself through legal frameworks that justify its actions. Concurrently, Daniel Reisner, a former department head, has suggested that persistent practices, if conducted by enough states, might shift international legal standards.
Today, as Israel continues actions in Gaza and debates around legality and morality of military operations intensify, there is a significant possibility that international norms related to armed conflict may be reshaped. This potential shift raises profound questions about the future of international law and the protection it offers to civilian populations amidst conflict scenarios.