Purity of arms

The code of purity of arms (Hebrew: טוהר הנשק‎, Tohar HaNeshek) is one of the values stated in the Israel Defense Force's official doctrine of ethics, The Spirit of the IDF.

According to Norman Solomon, the concepts of Havlaga and purity of arms arise out of the ethical and moral values stemming from the tradition of Israel, extrapolation from the Jewish Halakha, and the desire for moral approval and hence political support from the world community. Despite doubts when confronted by indiscriminate terrorism, purity of arms remains the guiding rule for the Israeli forces. These foundations have elicited a fair degree of consensus among Jews, both religious and secular.

Text of "Purity of Arms"

“	"Purity of Arms" (Morality in Warfare) - The soldier shall make use of his weaponry and power only for the fulfillment of the mission and solely to the extent required; he will maintain his humanity even in combat. The soldier shall not employ his weaponry and power in order to harm non-combatants or prisoners of war, and shall do all he can to avoid harming their lives, body, honor and property.	”
—IDF Spirit

Origins

The IDF Doctrine Statement is not a religious document, but the underlying religious basis was articulated by Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren (1917–94), who had served in the IDF as both paratrooper and chief chaplain.

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.^{[citation needed]}

Criticism of

Colonel Dov Yirmiah has referred to ‘the lies about humanitarianism and “purity of arms”, and refers to purity of arms as a phrase that is ‘sickening and false.’ Dov’s book My War Diary: Lebanon June 5 -- July 1, 1982 has been described as having ‘crushed the myth’ of the purity of arms of the IDF.

Stanley Cohen has criticised the Israeli army's 'purity of arms', which asserts that force is used only when morally justified for self-defence as being an ‘elaborate myth’.

Jewish and universal moral sources of the doctrine

The "Spirit of the IDF," a text within the IDF's main doctrine, requires "honoring the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish...state," while two of its four sources are "the tradition of the Jewish People throughout their history" and "universal moral values based on the value and dignity of human life." It can be understood from this that Jewish religious law does not determine IDF policy per se.

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 portrayed as a measure designed to hurt the real enemy while minimizing civilian casualties. However, criticism of the practice has centred on its consistency with international humanitarian law, and the tendency for innocent civilian bystanders to be killed in the process. The practice was challenged before the Israeli Supreme Court which held that while terrorists were civilians under the law of armed conflict, they were somewhat 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." However, the Court (which importantly found it had jurisdiction to consider targeted killings) expanded the definition of both 'for such time' and 'direct part in hostilities' to cover those providing services to unlawful combatants in any period before a potential attack. 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.' This ruling has been accepted into international law.

Rabbinic opinion

Some rabbis oppose the stipulation of avoiding harm to non-combatants, arguing that Jewish law specifically rejects this requirement during wartime. Some instances:

• Rabbis associated with the Israeli settlement movement in the West Bank and Gaza demanded in 2004 that terrorism must be fought without regard for the safety of the enemy civilian population.
• In the 2006 Lebanon War, the main organization of Modern Orthodox rabbis in the United States called on the Israeli military to be less concerned with avoiding civilian casualties on the opposing side. They argue that because the Hezbollah hides among the civilian population, it would be immoral not to attack Hezbollah—as Hezbollah poses an extreme threat to the Israeli civilian population. Thus, it would be unreasonable to not attack Hezbollah, which will result in allowing Hezbollah to kill Israelis, all based on the premise of avoiding Lebanese casualties.

See also

• Havlagah

References

• Dan Yahav, Purity of Arms. Ethos Myth and Reality. 1936-1956, Tel-Aviv, Tamuz Publisher, 2002.
• Michael Prior, Zionism and the State of Israel, Routledge, 1999.

External links

• Goodbye, “Purity Of Arms” – Goodbye, Morality, by David J. Forman, founder of Rabbis for Human Rights.
• Convoy of 35 and purity of arms (Hebrew)