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.
Despite doubts when confronted by indiscriminate terrorism, purity of arms remains the guiding rule for the Israeli forces.[1]
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.[1]
These foundations have elicited a fair degree of consensus among Jews, both religious and secular, and are incorporated in the official Doctrine Statement of the Israel Defense Forces.[1]
Contents |
| “ | "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[2] |
||
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.[1]
In the Convoy of 35 incident, a group of Jewish fighters reputedly chose not to kill an elderly Arab shepherd who subsequently informed his fellow villagers, which led to the killing of the Jewish fighters. This illustrates the dilemmas that can arise in combat and other confrontation situations, in which several of the values within the Spirit of the IDF code are concomitantly evoked, such as:
Dealing with such dilemmas requires a coherent response on the part of officer and soldier alike.
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." [2] 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.[3] 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.'[4]
Some rabbis oppose the stipulation of avoiding harm to non-combatants, arguing that Jewish law specifically rejects this requirement during wartime. Some instances: