Защита гражданских лиц: почему система «Железный купол» соответствует гуманитарному праву

Why Giving Israel Defensive Weapons Is Completely Justified Under Humanitarian Law Error: Contact form not found. by Shlomo Levin “If somebody is walking down the street with a sword and you hand them a shield and they’re massacring people with their sword, you are complicit.” Craig Mokhiber, a former UN human rights lawyer, recently used this analogy to argue that Israel should face an arms embargo that includes defensive weapons. Mokhiber was responding to Congressman Ro Khanna (D-CA), who advocates cutting off Israel’s military aid but makes an exception for Iron Dome, which protects against incoming rockets and missiles. The exchange has circulated widely online, and other politicians who distinguish Iron Dome from other military assistance are also likely to face Mokhiber’s argument. But his comparison has it backwards, and providing Israel with Iron Dome actually fulfills humanitarian principles rather than violates them. Hamas and Hezbollah have repeatedly fired rockets and missiles toward Israeli population centers, often using unguided rockets that cannot be directed toward military targets. In the recent war with Iran, Iran launched cluster munitions that are inherently indiscriminate against Israeli cities. Those are clear violations of humanitarian law. Much has been said about Israel’s alleged violations of humanitarian law and what the consequences should be. But what are the consequences when Israel’s enemies violate those same rules? A key tenet of humanitarian law is that civilians do not lose their protected status, no matter the conduct of their army or government. So whatever one’s view on Gaza, it cannot follow that Israeli civilians should be exposed to missiles and rockets. Mokhiber’s analogy is therefore flawed — the Iron Dome shield is not intended primarily to protect the man with the sword, but rather to protect the innocent people around him. Of course, Mokhiber will retort that the Iron Dome is used to protect Israel’s military installations in addition to civilians. But the military benefits of Iron Dome do not negate that its primary purpose is to protect millions of civilians from rockets and missiles. The laws of war require that military advantage be weighed against harm to civilians. That same logic should apply in reverse: A system that provides significant protection for civilians should not be withheld simply because it also provides some military benefit as well. A second reason to provide defensive weapons to Israel is that defensive weapons may make Israel more willing to take the risks that any ceasefire or eventual peace agreement will require. In any such scenario, Israel’s population will remain in range of easily smuggled or easily manufactured rockets that can be launched from across its borders. Opponents will say that protecting Israeli civilians from missiles may help the Israeli government maintain support for the war. But knowing that Israel can better withstand future rocket attacks may also make its government more willing to accept the risks inherent in a ceasefire or peace agreement. So defensive weapons should be seen not merely as enabling Israel to continue fighting, but potentially as helping make it possible for the fighting to end. Politicians are free to take whatever positions they like about US military aid to Israel, but it is perfectly reasonable to maintain a distinction between weapons that can be used for attacks and weapons such as Iron Dome that are designed solely to intercept incoming rockets and missiles. Giving one side in a conflict a shield may provide an advantage. But if that shield primarily protects civilians, and may even help make Israel more willing to end the fighting, providing it is not complicity in war. In fact, it may be exactly what humanitarian values require. Shlomo Levin is the author of the Human Rights Haggadah, and he explores human rights through fiction at https://shalzed.com/.