B'Tselem report raises fundamental question about criminal accountability

Despite Israeli rhetoric about precision strikes and avoidance of civilian casualties during Operation Pillar of Defence, B’Tselem’s report portrays a grim reality. According to the report, the Israeli military is responsible for the deaths of 167 Palestinians, including civilians and seven persons annihilated by targeted assassination.

Shin Bet has released statistics concerning Palestinian resistance – out of 1,667 launched rockets, 436 were intercepted by the Iron Dome. Four Israeli civilians and two security service members were killed.

Israel has prided itself upon comparisons to Operation Cast Lead, which had a significantly higher death toll within a longer timeframe. The military is also reported to have ‘minimised harm to Palestinian civilians’ through the use of its technological capabilities that enabled the use of “pin-point surgical strikers.”  However B’Tselem’s report has established that, apart from an increase in deaths in during the second half of Operation Pillar of Defence, the number of civilians killed is significantly higher than that of Palestinians involved in the armed resistance.

Criminal investigations into the deaths of civilians caused by the Israeli military, epitomised by the strike on the Dalu family home in Gaza, have predictably been absent. The deaths of 12 Palestinians were minimised as ‘collateral damage’ and the narration was justified as an ‘error’ in identifying the correct house.  This was later altered to a strike aimed against ‘a senior terrorist operative and several other terrorists that were responsible for launching many dozens of missile and rocket attacks’. Other cases concerning Palestinian civilian deaths were closed as the IDF had determined that there was no suspicion of a criminal offence. Other complaints have been described as ‘incomplete’. However, the general impression given by Israel is that there was no violation of international law during the onslaught.

The report states otherwise. B’Tselem stated that Israel did not always issue a warning in advance for civilians to flee from a targeted area, or else the military failed to ascertain that residents had left. The firing of missiles close to a target was misunderstood by Palestinian civilians, thus the allegedly ‘clear warning’ is easily disputed. The definition of legitimate targets was not restricted to issues of military advantage. Residences allegedly belonging to Hamas members were targeted, despite the fact that homes do not fall under legitimate targets in international law.

B’Tselem acknowledges its limitations in fully investigating suspicions of human rights violations. However, the report raises a fundamental question to the discrepancy of civilian deaths. It was discovered that during the second half of Operation Pillar of Defence there was a fourfold increase in fatalities. Israel took great case to assure the international community that the strikes on Gaza were carried out ‘in accordance with international law’ while asserting Israel’s right to defend itself. The so-called ‘concern’ on Israel’s behalf regarding Palestinian collateral damage should be perceived within the superior might of the Israeli military. Once again, accountability seems destined to be resolved behind closed doors. Investigations into international law violations remain shackled to the abstract, as Israel and the international community revel in the knowledge that responsibility for human rights violations is perpetually consigned to the oppressed.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.