Purity of Arms - Tactical and Ethical Dilemmas

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

Human Life

"The IDF servicemen and women will act in a judicious and safe manner in all they do, out of recognition of the supreme value of human life. During combat they will endanger themselves and their comrades only to the extent required to carry out their mission."

Comradeship

"The IDF servicemen and women will act out of fraternity and devotion to their comrades, and will always go to their assistance when they need their help or depend on them, despite any danger or difficulty, even to the point of risking their lives."

Dealing with such dilemmas requires a coherent response on the part of officer and soldier alike.

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.'