IDF’s ethics guru slams High Court ban on human shields

[Donald Ian Rankin]

Asa Kasher endorses military court conviction of two Givati soldiers, but says ‘neighbor procedure’ can sometimes save lives.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=190354

Sunday’s highly publicized military court conviction of two Givati soldiers for using a Palestinian boy as a human shield should serve as an opportunity to contest the Supreme Court’s sweeping prohibition of such behavior, formally known in the IDF as “neighbor procedure,” Prof. Asa Kasher, author of the IDF’s code of ethics, said Tuesday.

“What those two soldiers did was wrong,” said Kasher in a telephone interview, endorsing the military court ruling. “But there are situations in which the use of the enemy’s civilian population to defuse a potentially explosive situation is not only ethically permissible, it also saves lives.”

In many instances of confrontation between IDF forces and a terror suspect who has barricaded him or herself inside a building, neighbors who are either family from the same clan or friends can peacefully and effectively neutralize the situation, Kasher explained.

Neighbors often have a vested interest in preventing the IDF from destroying the building where the suspect is hiding because they live in the same building; relatives or loved ones also have a desire to save the terrorist’s life, Kasher explained.

[Jefferson23]

1. Like a good neighbor....the IDF is there!!!! n/t

[Tripmann]

2. Can't have the worlds most moral army (tm) risking their lives when theres kiddies to do it for them

:sarcasm:

[whosinpower]

3. It is NOT the same thing

Having a relative or neighbor willingly - WITHOUT HAVING TO OBLIGE UNDER DURESS - is fundamentally different from making an 11 year old child search bags in case they are booby trapped.

Shame on him for muddying the waters.

[aranthus]

4. That was his point. It's not the same thing.

The Israeli Supreme Court ruling bans even use of even voluntary civilians. The Professor agreed that what the soldiers did was wrong. He was merely arguing that a ban that extensive is counterproductive and not necessary. He was making a nuanced point; not trying to muddy the waters.

That being said, the court ruling is right and the Professor is wrong for several reasons. First, the military is supposed to be protecting civilians. Allowing the military to use civilians, even those who volunteer, is contrary to their mission. Second, civilians can be helpful without being put in harm's way. While it might be a good idea to have a family member talk to someone barricaded in a house, you don't have to send the civilian into the house to do it. Third, inserting a civilian into that kind of a situation reduces the control that the military has over the situation, and increases the variables and chances for a bad outcome. Civilians aren't trained for that type of work. They aren't hostage negotiators or trained in combat, and once the military lets the civilian into the barricade, they lose control of them. Fourth, there's the obvious potential for abuse. Let the army use "volunteers" and you'll find a lot more Palestinians "volunteering." Fifth, there's no good way for authority to monitor for abuse. Let's say a Palestinian volunteers to help out in a barricade situation, and things go horribly wrong. The civilian's heirs sue, or complain to the world press, or spread it around that he was forced to "volunteer." How do we know? It would end up being a liar's contest between the soldiers and whoever was complaining.

Sometimes you have to prohibit helpful behavior to prevent really bad behavior. If the court is going to err, it should weigh on the side of protecting civilians.

[oberliner]

5. Interesting distinction

Seems to make sense.

Do other armies have similar policies?