6 No. 72 JUSTICE are influenced by context and circumstance. These laws allow the IDF to conduct its war against terrorist organizations that deliberately embed themselves within civilian populations, while also performing its mission in accordance with the law. Indeed, the laws of war are intended to reduce the suffering caused to the civilian population by the fighting, but they were not created to prevent the side that seeks to adhere to them from achieving its objectives. In my view, the path to victory necessarily involves adherence to the laws of war. Adhering to these laws allows us to uphold our values as a law-abiding army of a democratic state. Operation “Iron Swords,” a war forced upon us, is a war against Hamas and other terrorist organizations, and against them alone. It is not a war against the civilian population. In this context, international law supports the achievement of the war's objectives; it does not contradict them. Adherence to the laws of war also allows us to maintain legitimacy with respect to our actions, as well as the continued support of our allies. Adherence to the laws of war is the metric used to assess our combat activities. Our commitment to the laws of war impacts the military's ability to procure supplies, the degree to which we have diplomatic support for our operations, and indeed, it is a prerequisite for our ability to continue fighting. Consider, for example, the proceedings at the International Court of Justice, where South Africa callously uses treaties and tribunals in a disingenuous manner to accuse Israel of “genocide.” The proceedings are still ongoing, but it is important to emphasize that the decisions made so far are interim decisions, primarily focusing on the necessity of allowing humanitarian aid to the civilian population – a necessity that we, as a nation, do not dispute. Although the discussion is far from over, and our ability to influence it is far from finished, our critics are already using the mere existence of the proceedings and the issuance of orders as if they indicate a determination that Israel is committing “genocide,” which is entirely untrue. Precisely for this reason, it is important to note the words of the outgoing president of the Court, Judge Joan Donoghue, who presided over the case in its early stages. She recently found it necessary to clarify in an interview with the BBC that the Court made no findings on this matter (whether it is plausible that Israel has committed genocide). Despite the many complexities arising from recent international legal proceedings, my opinion on this matter is unequivocal – the most effective way to deal with these proceedings, both with the institutions themselves and especially in mobilizing influential countries and other actors on the international stage, is to double down on our commitment to the laws of war and make sure that we act in accordance with them. Without this fundamental commitment, both in principle and in practice, we will not have the necessary tools to contend with these various arenas. A session that is included in this conference addresses the legal future of the state in the international arena. It is very difficult to know what the future will look like. I can say with confidence, however, that we in the Military Advocate General’s Corps have always worked, and will continue to work, not only to warn about developments in the international legal arena, but more fundamentally, to do our part to address them in the best way possible. We are constantly working – as we always have long before the war started – to continuously instill within the IDF the commitment to international law and all of its relevant rules. We will continue to be integrated at various levels of the IDF force-using apparatus; advising commanders and working with them to ensure that the war’s objectives are achieved in accordance with the law. At the same time, we will continue to retrospectively examine any behavior that raises suspicions of legal violations, including the laws of war, and investigate and prosecute those responsible for such violations. This is our duty as the Military Advocate General’s Corps – a unit that operates within the IDF as a partner and also as a gatekeeper. We must fulfill our role to ensure that the IDF wins its war on all fronts, and does so while upholding the law and maintaining justice, so that the Goddess of Justice and the Goddess of Victory can coexist, as seen in the story with which I began. I would like to conclude my remarks with words written by the late Professor Amnon Rubinstein, of blessed memory, to whom this conference is dedicated. Professor Rubinstein excelled in various fields. He devoted his academic work mainly to administrative and constitutional law. In one of his articles, he highlighted a fundamental principle that applies to the laws of war as it does to constitutional law. He wrote: “There are those who tend to forget that even a democratic state has the right, and in fact the duty, to defend itself and its citizens from all threats – external, security-based, and other threats.” Professor Rubinstein never forgot this fundamental truth. He believed, throughout his public and academic
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=