4 No. 72 JUSTICE his year, 2024, marks 100 years since the death of Franz Kafka. In Kafka's renowned work, “The Trial,” there is a passage which describes an encounter between the book's protagonist, Josef K., and the portrait artist for the judges. Josef notices that the painter depicts the Goddess of Justice with the traditional scales in her hand, but portrays her in an unusual manner – with wings and in motion. The painter explains that it is a depiction that combines two symbols – Justice and Victory. Josef replies: “Justice and Victory – it is not a good combination ... Justice must be steady and stationary, lest the scales sway and render a just verdict impossible.” Israel is currently in the midst of a war, among the harshest we have known. It began with a vile terrorist attack that shook us to our core. The effects of this war on us as a society and as a state, and in all aspects of life, both national and personal, are yet to fully reveal themselves. The captivating session ahead will specifically focus on the legal aspects of this war. At the outset of this session, I wish to emphasize that in my view, the pursuit of justice can, and in fact must occur even when the situation is not “steady and immovable,” as Kafka put it. In my eyes, the Goddesses of Justice and Victory can indeed coexist harmoniously. The ability to balance the imperative to achieve victory in war and defeat our enemies, while also ensuring adherence to the law and acting in accordance with its light, is the essence of the work of the MAG (Military Advocate General’s) Corps and the entire public legal system. Not only do the values of the pursuit of victory and respect for the rule of law not conflict with each other, they complement one another. This is not merely a phrase or a cliché; it is the reality in which we operate, a reality that guides the MAG and the military in general, even in the midst of battle, as we look towards the future warfronts, chief among them at this moment the Gaza Strip. The law of armed conflict, as set out in international law, was conceived and codified primarily by states. These states sought to legally regulate their relations across various domains, including the battlefield. The motivation of many states, especially after World War II, was to protect civilian populations and mitigate the impact of war on them – but at the same time, they did not seek to forfeit their ability to defend themselves. The laws of war were certainly not intended to weaken states or prevent them from achieving their objectives on the battlefield. Still, the modern battlefield is vastly different from what existed in the distant past. Armies no longer confront each other in open terrain until one surrenders. Warfare has become more complex – in the realm of diversified combat methods and within the urban sphere. Nonetheless, the laws of war contain within them the necessary mechanisms to provide the right response, even in highly complex combat environments – such as, for example, the Gaza Strip. This audience is surely familiar with the characteristics of the densely populated urban space within the Gaza Strip, and the despicable tactics employed by Hamas and other terrorist organizations in the area to exploit the environment. These terror organizations continue to enmesh themselves within the civilian population. This constitutes a grave and serious violation of the laws of war. This intentional violation exploits the IDF's clear and public commitment to the law and is done to make it difficult for the IDF to achieve its objectives on the battlefield. The Goal of Victory and the Pursuit of Justice in the “Swords of Iron” War* Major General Yifat Tomer Yerushalmi IDF Military Advocate General * This is a translated, edited version of an address delivered at “Democracy Under Fire” | The Annual Conference of the Rubinstein Center for Constitutional Challenges, Reichman University, on June 19, 2024. T
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=