Eight months after High Court bans use of 'neighbor procedure,' Arabs are more at risk than before
Huge rise in number of houses IDF is razing during arrest ops
By Amos Harel
When the High Court of Justice decided to ban the use of any form of the "neighbor procedure" eight months ago, in which Palestinian civilians were forced to enter homes of barricaded fugitives, senior Israel Defense Forces officers warned that this would likely endanger soldiers' lives.
A Haaretz inquiry has shown that since the court's decision, the new arrest procedures are not any more dangerous to soldiers, but that is because the IDF is using more aggressive tactics during the actual operations. It turns out that the end result of the decision is different from the original intention: both the army and human rights groups, who closely follow developments in the territories, agree that the risk to the lives of Palestinian civilians is greater today. Furthermore, the new procedures result in more extensive damage to Palestinian homes in the territories.
Advertisement
In early October 2005, the High Court justices accepted the petition of human rights organizations against the "neighbor procedure." This tactic, employed hundreds of times in the territories during the first intifada, involved forcing the Palestinian neighbors of wanted militants to enter the homes of the barricaded fugitives in an effort to convince them to surrender, and consequently, also bring out information for the army on the conditions inside the home.
This forcing of Palestinian civilians to act as "agents" for the IDF drew intense public criticism, especially when a Palestinian from a village in the northern West Bank was shot and killed by his barricaded neighbor during the application of the "neighbor procedure."
Early warning
The IDF then employed a more complicated version of this tactic, called "early warning procedure," in which the neighbor could not be forced to enter the house in question unless it was done with his consent, and similarly the neighbor could not be forced to wear an army bullet-proof vest and helmet.
To the chagrin of the IDF the justices shot this procedure down as well.
Senior General Staff officers tried to convince the court of the necessity of the tactic, and even Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz volunteered to testify before the court. The justices were not impressed.
The current tactic is called "outstretched arm." This allows the army to use an interlocutor, someone who normally lives in the house, and only if they are still in the house at the time the soldiers arrive. In most cases the fugitives allow the civilians inside to exit the house, and in that case the army can ask a family member to use a bullhorn to call out to the fugitive to surrender, so long as this is done at a safe distance.
So, does the use of the new procedure endanger soldiers' lives?
"No, because they take no chances," says a senior IDF officer serving in the West Bank. "Not one of us will send a soldier to check a home in which it is known that a living, armed fugitive is barricaded, before we have carried out very aggressive action."
The operation is as follows: If the fugitive refuses to exit, warning shots are fired around the house and then at points in the home that appear suspicious. If the fugitive continues to refuse to surrender, a bulldozer is brought in and begins to pound the walls of the house. The final stage is for the bulldozer to raze the home with everyone in it. Only then are troops sent in to search for survivors.
Quick escalation results
In the army they complain that the outright ban on any form of the "neighbor procedure" diminishes the tactical options of the officers. "The result is that very quickly we escalate in means, in other words, we use the bulldozers," one officer says.
"More homes are damaged. In some of the cases the damage is not total because after a number of bulldozer blows, the fugitive realizes that he has no way out and opts to surrender," the officer added.
Data from the human rights group B'Tselem appears to confirm this trend.
More important, however, is whether the new procedures have made it safer for Palestinian civilians. In one incident, a 43-year old woman was killed when shots fired at a home of a fugitive strayed into her home. The soldiers say that the conditions at the site made accurate shooting difficult. An internal probe concluded that the soldiers violated safety regulations, but no Military Police investigation was initiated.
In the IDF they know that they have lost the battle over the "neighbor procedure." But in conversations with Haaretz the officers maintain that the court's decision reflects a certain dislocation from the operational realities in the territories, and that the moral argument accepted by the court has resulted in graver danger to the lives of Palestinian civilians and their property.
But there are those at the General Staff who say that "over and over [Supreme Court President] Aharon Barak has saved us from ourselves. Against rampant terrorism there were times when we lost our sense of judgment and brought excessive means to bear. The High Court, by intervening in matters such as the route of the separation fence and the neighbor procedure, brought us back to a rational state, even if the officers in the field may not like it."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/726988.html
Huge rise in number of houses IDF is razing during arrest ops
By Amos Harel
When the High Court of Justice decided to ban the use of any form of the "neighbor procedure" eight months ago, in which Palestinian civilians were forced to enter homes of barricaded fugitives, senior Israel Defense Forces officers warned that this would likely endanger soldiers' lives.
A Haaretz inquiry has shown that since the court's decision, the new arrest procedures are not any more dangerous to soldiers, but that is because the IDF is using more aggressive tactics during the actual operations. It turns out that the end result of the decision is different from the original intention: both the army and human rights groups, who closely follow developments in the territories, agree that the risk to the lives of Palestinian civilians is greater today. Furthermore, the new procedures result in more extensive damage to Palestinian homes in the territories.
Advertisement
In early October 2005, the High Court justices accepted the petition of human rights organizations against the "neighbor procedure." This tactic, employed hundreds of times in the territories during the first intifada, involved forcing the Palestinian neighbors of wanted militants to enter the homes of the barricaded fugitives in an effort to convince them to surrender, and consequently, also bring out information for the army on the conditions inside the home.
This forcing of Palestinian civilians to act as "agents" for the IDF drew intense public criticism, especially when a Palestinian from a village in the northern West Bank was shot and killed by his barricaded neighbor during the application of the "neighbor procedure."
Early warning
The IDF then employed a more complicated version of this tactic, called "early warning procedure," in which the neighbor could not be forced to enter the house in question unless it was done with his consent, and similarly the neighbor could not be forced to wear an army bullet-proof vest and helmet.
To the chagrin of the IDF the justices shot this procedure down as well.
Senior General Staff officers tried to convince the court of the necessity of the tactic, and even Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz volunteered to testify before the court. The justices were not impressed.
The current tactic is called "outstretched arm." This allows the army to use an interlocutor, someone who normally lives in the house, and only if they are still in the house at the time the soldiers arrive. In most cases the fugitives allow the civilians inside to exit the house, and in that case the army can ask a family member to use a bullhorn to call out to the fugitive to surrender, so long as this is done at a safe distance.
So, does the use of the new procedure endanger soldiers' lives?
"No, because they take no chances," says a senior IDF officer serving in the West Bank. "Not one of us will send a soldier to check a home in which it is known that a living, armed fugitive is barricaded, before we have carried out very aggressive action."
The operation is as follows: If the fugitive refuses to exit, warning shots are fired around the house and then at points in the home that appear suspicious. If the fugitive continues to refuse to surrender, a bulldozer is brought in and begins to pound the walls of the house. The final stage is for the bulldozer to raze the home with everyone in it. Only then are troops sent in to search for survivors.
Quick escalation results
In the army they complain that the outright ban on any form of the "neighbor procedure" diminishes the tactical options of the officers. "The result is that very quickly we escalate in means, in other words, we use the bulldozers," one officer says.
"More homes are damaged. In some of the cases the damage is not total because after a number of bulldozer blows, the fugitive realizes that he has no way out and opts to surrender," the officer added.
Data from the human rights group B'Tselem appears to confirm this trend.
More important, however, is whether the new procedures have made it safer for Palestinian civilians. In one incident, a 43-year old woman was killed when shots fired at a home of a fugitive strayed into her home. The soldiers say that the conditions at the site made accurate shooting difficult. An internal probe concluded that the soldiers violated safety regulations, but no Military Police investigation was initiated.
In the IDF they know that they have lost the battle over the "neighbor procedure." But in conversations with Haaretz the officers maintain that the court's decision reflects a certain dislocation from the operational realities in the territories, and that the moral argument accepted by the court has resulted in graver danger to the lives of Palestinian civilians and their property.
But there are those at the General Staff who say that "over and over [Supreme Court President] Aharon Barak has saved us from ourselves. Against rampant terrorism there were times when we lost our sense of judgment and brought excessive means to bear. The High Court, by intervening in matters such as the route of the separation fence and the neighbor procedure, brought us back to a rational state, even if the officers in the field may not like it."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/726988.html
Comments
Display the following comment