Targeted killing by Israel
[4][5] The term gained widespread use in 2000 during the Second Intifada, when Israel became the first state to publicly outline a policy of "liquidation" and "preemptive targeted killing" in November 2000.
[7] Israel first publicly acknowledged its use of the tactic at Beit Sahour near Bethlehem in November 2000, when four laser-guided missiles from an Apache helicopter were used to kill a Tanzim leader, Hussein Abayat, in his Mitsubishi pickup truck, with collateral damage killing two 50 year-old housewives waiting for a taxi nearby, and wounding six other Palestinians in the vicinity.
[9][10] The public admission was due to the fact an attack helicopter had been used, which meant the execution could not be denied, something that remains possible when assassinations of targets by snipers takes place.
[12][13] The majority of Israeli targeted killings have taken place in Area A of the West Bank lying within the jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority.
Most[citation needed] fall within a series of campaigns, including Operation Wrath of God (launched in response to the 1972 Munich massacre), Israeli actions in the wake of the al-Aqsa Intifada (2000–), and strikes during the 2008–09 Gaza War.
[15] Killings in the past were often premised on revenge for earlier crimes and required a quasi-judicial commission to convict the target of culpability before action was taken.
According to the former Legal Advisor to the State Department Judge Abraham Sofaer: ...killings in self-defense are no more "assassinations" in international affairs than they are murders when undertaken by our police forces against domestic killers.
On 14 December 2006, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that targeted killing is a legitimate form of self-defense against terrorists, and outlined several conditions for its use.
[20][21] The practice of targeted killing developed in the post-World War II period, throughout which Israel has exercised the option more than any other Western democracy, according to Israeli investigative journalist Ronen Bergman.
[23] Notable targeted killings by the Israeli military were Hamas leaders Jamil Jadallah (October 2001),[24] Mahmoud Abu Hanoud (November 2001),[25] Salah Shahade (July 2002), Ibrahim al-Makadmeh (March 2003), Ismail Abu Shanab (August 2003), Ahmed Yassin (March 2004), Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi (April 2004) and Adnan al-Ghoul (October 2004), all targeted during the Second Intifada.
[27] Other notable targeted killing involving multiple targets include Operation Wrath of God against Black September Organization and PLO personnel alleged to have been directly or indirectly involved in the 1972 Munich massacre, which led to the Lillehammer affair; and then Operation Spring of Youth against top PLO leaders in Beirut in 1973, namely Muhammad Najjar, Kamal Adwan, and Kamal Nasser.
It is far better than the ratio achieved by Great Britain and the United States in Iraq or Afghanistan, where both nations employ targeted killings of terrorist leaders.
"[citation needed] However, in a July 2011 article published in the Michigan War Studies Review, "Targeted Killings: A Modern Strategy of the State", A.E.
The whole of international law is now based on the notion that an act that is forbidden today becomes permissible if executed by enough countries.’ [34]The exact nature of the proof required by the Israelis for the killings is classified, as it involves clandestine military intelligence-oriented means and operational decisions.
All Mossad targeted killings must have the approval of the Prime Minister,[35] rather than being a part of a published justice system executed by lawyers and judges.
They contend they are a measured response to terrorism, that focuses on actual perpetrators of militant attacks, while largely avoiding innocent casualties.
[37] The IDF claims that targeted killings are only pursued to prevent future terrorist acts, not as revenge for past activities as such they are not extrajudicial.
They argue that Israeli governments have long used targeted killings as a last resort, when there were no peaceful options for bringing suspected terrorists to account.
[39] The context of the Infinity Journal article related specifically to Hamas' calls for ceasefires and "calms" in 2004 after the majority of their leadership had been successfully targeted by Israeli forces.
Some hold that such strikes do not reduce terrorism, but encourage more recruits to join militant factions, and are a setback to the Middle East peace process.
[40] In 2003, 27 Israeli Air Force pilots composed a letter of protest to the Air Force commander Dan Halutz, announcing their refusal to continue to perform attacks on targets within Palestinian population centers, and claiming that the occupation of the Palestinians "morally corrupts the fabric of Israeli society".
[43] As such in a legal opinion, Israeli attorney general Elyakim Rubinstein wrote: "The laws of combat which are part of international law, permit injuring, during a period of warlike operations, someone who has been positively identified as a person who is working to carry out fatal attacks against Israeli targets, those people are enemies who are fighting against Israel, with all that implies, while committing fatal terror attacks and intending to commit additional attacks—all without any countermeasures by the PA."[44] Gal Luft of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security has argued that because the Palestinian National Authority is not a state, and because few governments recognize Hamas' control in Gaza, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not bound by the set of norms, rules, and treaties regulating other state conflicts.
[11] John Podhoretz has written for the New York Post that if the conflict were between states, targeted killing would be in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention (Part 3, Article 1, Section 28) which reads: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."
[45][46] Opponents of Israeli targeted killings, among them human rights groups and members of the international community including Britain, the European Union,[42] Russia, France, India, China, Brazil, South Africa and all Arab States, have stated that targeted killings violate international laws and create an obstruction to the peace process.
