[News] Challenging the Dahiya Doctrine

[Anti-Imperialist News]

Challenging the Dahiya Doctrine

By 
<http://palestinethinktank.com/author/guest-post/>Guest 
Post • Oct 22nd, 2009 at 20:24
http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/10/22/brenda-heard-challenging-the-dahiya-doctrine/

WRITTEN BY BRENDA HEARD

“Part of the functions of reports such as this is 
to attempt, albeit in a very small way, to 
restore the dignity of those whose rights have 
been violated in the most fundamental way of all 
–the arbitrary deprivation of life. It is 
important that the international community 
asserts formally and unequivocally that such 
violence to the most basic fundamental rights and 
freedoms of individuals should not be overlooked and should be condemned.”

<http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf>–The 
Goldstone Report, p 524 ¶ 1682

The tragic 
<http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1116912.html>tale 
of the Samouni family of Gaza has become well 
known. “We feel [we are] in an exile, even though 
we are in our homeland, on our land,” says Salah 
Samouni in a 
<http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121720.html>recent 
Haaretz article. “We sit and envy the dead. They 
are the ones who are at rest.”  The interesting 
part, though, is not the renewed images of the 
dead.  The interesting part is the backdrop of 
suggestion: the Samouni family felt that their 
longstanding, amicable relationship with the 
Israeli powers would protect them; they were 
naively mistaken.  They were to be victims to the Dahiya Doctrine.

The Haaretz report states that Salah’s father, 
Talal, ‘had been employed by Jews’ for nearly 40 
years and that whenever he was sick, ‘the 
employer would call, ask after his health, and 
forbid him to come to work before he had 
recovered.’”  They had managed to get along.

Haaretz notes that the “Samounis were always 
confident that, in the event of any military 
invasions into Gaza, they could always manage to 
get along with the Israeli army. Until 2005, 
before Israel's disengagement from the Strip, the 
Jewish settlement of Netzarim was located right 
next door, and several family members worked 
there from time to time. When the joint 
Israeli-Palestinian patrols were active, Israeli 
soldiers and Palestinian security officials 
sometimes asked the Samounis to ‘lend’ them a 
tractor to flatten a patch of land or repair the 
Salah al-Din Road (for example, when a diplomatic 
convoy needed to pass through).

While Samouni family members worked on their 
tractors, gathering sand, the soldiers would 
watch them. ‘When the soldiers wanted us to 
leave, they would fire above our heads. That's 
what experience taught me,’ recalls Salah 
Samouni. . . . The older men of the family. . . 
worked in Israel until the 1990s in different 
localities, including Bat Yam, Moshav Asseret 
(near Gedera) and the ‘Glicksman Plant.’ They all 
believed that the Hebrew they had learned would 
assist and if necessary save them during encounters with soldiers.”

Even up until the mass killing, the Samouni 
family still clung naively to the notion that 
their working relationship with the IDF would 
protect them.  Haaretz reports that “on January 
4, under orders from the army, Salah Samouni and 
the rest of the family left their home, which had 
been turned into a military position, and moved 
to the other, the home of Wael [Samouni], located 
on the southern side of the street. The fact that 
it was the soldiers who had relocated them, had 
seen the faces of the children and the older 
women, and the fact that the soldiers were 
positioned in locations surrounding the house 
just tens of meters away, instilled in the family 
a certain amount of confidence – despite the IDF 
fire from the air, from the sea and from the 
land, despite the hunger and the thirst.”

And then the IDF shelled that home, killing 21 of 
the Samouni family.  Their usefulness had expired.

The Samouni’s had not thrown stones at Israeli 
tanks and had not waved angry fists at Israeli 
soldiers.  Instead, they had worked dutifully for 
the Jewish population and had learned its 
language.  But they were not spared.  They were 
not spared because they had not themselves been 
Jewish.  They were not spared because “peaceful 
co-existence” is merely a phrase bandied about by 
politicians seeking camouflage.

On 18 January 2009, 
<http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121720.html>reports 
Haaretz, “after the IDF left the Gaza Strip, the 
rescue teams returned to the neighborhood. Wael's 
house was found in ruins: IDF bulldozers had 
demolished it entirely – with the corpses 
inside.”  Evidence destroyed.  When Haaretz 
questioned Israeli military about the behaviour 
of the military forces in the Samouni family's 
neighbourhood, an IDF spokesman said that all of 
the claims had been examined, and that ‘Upon 
completion of the examination, the findings will 
be taken to the military advocate general, who 
will decide about the need to take additional 
steps.’”  Whether the Haaretz article intended 
genuine concern or a subtle sneer, it works both ways.

The Goldstone Mission, however, was not convinced 
of the usefulness of Israeli 
self-investigation.  Paragraph 1629 of the 
<http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf>Goldstone 
Report notes that the “Mission concludes that 
there are serious doubts about the willingness of 
Israel to carry out genuine investigations in an 
impartial, independent, prompt and effective way 
as required by international law.”  This 
long-term unwillingness to abide by international 
law is so thoroughly documented in the Report 
that 
<http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/12/docs/DraftReport12thSpecialSession.pdf>the 
UN Human Rights Council on 16 October 2009 not 
only expressed “serious concern at the lack of 
implementation by the occupying Power, Israel, of 
previously adopted resolutions and 
recommendations of the Council relating to the 
human rights situation in the Occupied 
Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,” 
but also condemned the “non-cooperation by the 
occupying power, Israel, with the independent 
international fact-finding [Goldstone] mission.”

The common denominator of the 
<http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121720.html>Haaretz 
article and the 
<http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf>Goldstone 
Report and the 
<http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/12/docs/DraftReport12thSpecialSession.pdf>UN 
Human Rights Council Report is the challenge to 
the Israeli military concept known as the “Dahiya 
doctrine.”  The Goldstone Report states that “The 
Israeli military conception of what was necessary 
in a future war with Hamas seems to have been 
developed from at least the time of the 2006 
conflict in southern Lebanon. It finds its origin 
in a military doctrine that views 
disproportionate destruction and creating maximum 
disruption in the lives of many people as a 
legitimate means to achieve military and political goals.” (¶1209)
<http://palestinethinktank.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/ruins-of-gaza.jpg>
In supporting the Goldstone Report, the UN Human 
Rights Council has acknowledged the premise that 
the responsibility for the most recent Lebanon 
and Gaza wars lies squarely with one unique 
factor: Israeli political goals.  The UN-welcomed 
Report notes historical context by underscoring 
that the “specific means Israel has adopted to 
meet its military objectives in the Occupied 
Palestinian Territory and in Lebanon have 
repeatedly been censured by the United Nations 
Security Council, especially its attacks on 
houses.  The military operations from 27 December 
to 18 January did not occur in a vacuum, either 
in terms of proximate causes in relation to the 
Hamas/Israeli dynamics or in relation to the 
development of Israeli military thinking about 
how best to describe the nature of its military objectives.” (¶1189)

The Goldstone Report, while situated within the 
Gaza conflict of 2008, found itself striking at 
the root of that conflict, a root that stretches 
back at least two years prior:

“In its operations in southern Lebanon in 2006, 
there emerged from Israeli military thinking a 
concept known as the Dahiya doctrine, as a result 
of the approach taken to the Beirut neighbourhood 
of that name.  Major General Gadi Eisenkot, the 
Israeli Northern Command chief, expressed the 
premise of the doctrine: ‘What happened in the 
Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in 
every village from which Israel is fired on. [
] 
We will apply disproportionate force on it and 
cause great damage and destruction there. From 
our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, 
they are military bases. [
] This is not a 
recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved.’

After the war in southern Lebanon in 2006, a 
number of senior former military figures appeared 
to develop the thinking that underlay the 
strategy set out by Gen. Eiskenot. In particular 
Major General (Ret.) Giora Eiland has argued 
that, in the event of another war with Hizbullah, 
the target must not be the defeat of Hizbullah 
but ‘the elimination of the Lebanese military, 
the destruction of the national infrastructure 
and intense suffering among the population
 
Serious damage to the Republic of Lebanon, the 
destruction of homes and infrastructure, and the 
suffering of hundreds of thousands of people are 
consequences that can influence Hizbollah’s 
behaviour more than anything else’.” (¶1191­1192)

The Report again points to the similarity of 
goals and strategies of Israeli policies in both 
Lebanon and Gaza and quotes at length the October 
2008 reflections of Col. (Ret.) Gabriel Siboni:

“With an outbreak of hostilities, the IDF will 
need to act immediately, decisively, and with 
force that is disproportionate to the enemy's 
actions and the threat it poses. Such a response 
aims at inflicting damage and meting out 
punishment to an extent that will demand long and 
expensive reconstruction processes. The strike 
must be carried out as quickly as possible, and 
must prioritize damaging assets over seeking out 
each and every launcher. Punishment must be aimed 
at decision makers and the power elite
 In 
Lebanon, attacks should both aim at Hizbollah’s 
military capabilities and should target economic 
interests and the centres of civilian power that 
support the organization. Moreover, the closer 
the relationship between Hezbollah and the 
Lebanese Government, the more the elements of the 
Lebanese State infrastructure should be targeted. 
Such a response will create a lasting memory 
among 
 Lebanese decision makers, thereby 
increasing Israeli deterrence and reducing the 
likelihood of hostilities against Israel for an 
extended period. At the same time, it will force 
Syria, Hizbollah, and Lebanon to commit to 
lengthy and resource-intensive reconstruction 
programmes
 This approach is applicable to the 
Gaza Strip as well. There, the IDF will be 
required to strike hard at Hamas and to refrain 
from the cat and mouse games of searching for 
Qassam rocket launchers. The IDF should not be 
expected to stop the rocket and missile fire 
against the Israeli home front through attacks on 
the launchers themselves, but by means of 
imposing a ceasefire on the enemy.” (¶1193)

The Report emphasises that the Dahiya Doctrine of 
debilitating punishment was far from 
bluster.  The Mission, states the Report has been 
“able to conclude from a review of the facts on 
the ground that it witnessed for itself that what 
is prescribed as the best strategy appears to 
have been precisely what was put into practice.” 
(¶1195)  In fact, the Report continues, the 
“operations were carefully planned in all their 
phases. Legal opinions and advice were given 
throughout the planning stages and at certain 
operational levels during the campaign. There 
were almost no mistakes made according to the 
Government of Israel. It is in these 
circumstances that the Mission concludes that 
what occurred in just over three weeks at the end 
of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 was a 
deliberately disproportionate attack designed to 
punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian 
population, radically diminish its local economic 
capacity both to work and to provide for itself, 
and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of 
dependency and vulnerability.” (¶1690)  What was 
born in Lebanon in 2006 as a bombardment of the 
Dahiya district of Beirut had evolved into the blitzkrieg of Gaza.

In challenging the Dahiya Doctrine, the UN Human 
Rights Council confirms the ultimate finding of 
the Goldstone Report: aggressive annihilation in 
the quest for political gain violates the rule of 
law which safeguards the balance of civilised 
societies.  It is not merely the vicious act 
which must be condemned, but the concept 
itself.  It is agreed that the responsibility for 
these atrocities lies “in the first place with 
those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw 
the operations.” (¶1692)  In carrying forward the 
recommendations of the Report, the UN Human 
Rights Council supports the principles of 
international law and that Israel’s “longstanding 
impunity has been a key factor in the 
perpetuation of violence in the region and in the 
reoccurrence of violations.” (¶1761)  These are 
facts that, unlike the Samouni family home, can 
not be demolished and reduced to rubble.

By Brenda Heard
Friends of Lebanon
<http://www.friendsoflebanon.org/>www.friendsoflebanon.org




Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20091023/d1ad8463/attachment.htm>