العربية
HE
العربية
HE
Israel's targeted killings policy officially began with the outbreak of the second intifada in September 2000. The essence of this policy is the extrajudicial execution of Palestinians wanted by Israel and suspected of initiating, planning and carrying out "terrorist attacks" against Israeli citizens. As a result of Israel's targeted killings policy, hundreds of Palestinians, many of whom innocent civilians, have been killed or injured.
The first petition against Israel's targeted killings policy was filed in 2001 by MK Mohammad Barakeh. However, the Supreme Court refused to hear the petition and rejected it outright claiming the issue was not justiciable and that it remained at the sole discretion of the Israeli governing authorities.
In January 2002, another petition against the policy was filed. In it, the petitioners claimed that the policy blatantly violated the provisions and principles of international and Israeli law as well as fundamental principles of human morality. Killing a person when he poses no immediate danger to others, the petitioners claimed, is tantamount to performing an extrajudicial execution, which is strictly forbidden under both international and Israeli law and is considered a war crime when committed in the course of an armed conflict.
In a precedential ruling given on December 14, 2006, five years after the petition was filed, three Supreme Court justices: President Aharon Barak (Emeritus), President Beinisch and Vice President Rivlin, ruled that the State of Israel may, under certain conditions, carry out targeted killings of activists of Palestinian "terrorist organizations" in the Occupied Territories. The justices retreated from their previous position on the non-justiciability of the issue and established that it was essentially a legal matter regulated by the principles of international law and should, considering the human rights violations involved, be subjected to judicial review by the Court. Moreover, the justices ruled that an armed conflict of an international character existed between Israel and Palestinian "terrorist organizations", in the framework of which Palestinians are not combatants, but civilians who participate in hostilities. Accordingly, the Court ruled that as for such time during which these activists directly participate in hostilities, they may be considered legitimate targets by Israel, even during periods of rest and reorganization. However, the Court did stress that a civilian who had directly participated in hostilities a single time or sporadically and thereafter disengaged from such activity is a civilian who, upon disengaging from the activity, is entitled to protection from attacks. On this issue, the Court ruled that the legality of each targeted killing must be examined on its merits and, in this context, one must first ensure that there is well based information against the person targeted before a decision to kill him is made. Second, the Court ruled that where an alternative means which is less harmful is available, targeted killings should be avoided. Third, a thorough and independent investigation must be conducted after the fact as regards the accuracy of the targeted killing and the circumstances under which the man whom it was directed was hit. Fourth, one must avoid, to the extent possible, any harm to innocents while carrying out targeted killings. Such harm, the Court determined, must withstand the proportionality test and, where appropriate, compensation for harm to an innocent civilian may be considered.
Lastly, it must be noted that the Court declined to rule on the question whether activists of Palestinian "terrorist organizations" fall under the category of "illegal combatants" as Israel claimed and ruled that international law does not currently recognize such a category and that there was no need to rule on this matter in the context of this petition.
