’Israeli’ Military Chief Doesn’t Own the Rules of Engagement

Local Editor

Despite how the controversy over "Israeli" Military Chief Gadi Eisenkot's remarks have played out, the open-fire regulations are not only a military issue, but a political one as well.

According to the rules of engagement, the use of force will be restricted to the level, magnitude and duration needed for so-called self-defense. This implies, allegedly, that a soldier must not empty a clip on a "13-year-old girl holding scissors or a knife when there is a barrier between them" as Eisenkot said last week.

In contrast to the Zionist approach, in other countries, the rules of engagement are not a military matter, but a political one. They are political because they place supreme authority in the hands of soldiers and police to take human life, and they sharpen the dilemma between protecting the lives of soldiers and police on the one hand, and respecting the lives of non-militaries and fighters belonging to a minority group.

The rules of engagement are political whether they heed or challenge the principles of international law.

However, Eisenkot forgot to note that these instructions also derive from directives emanating from the political arena. Or, rather, he did not forget, but correctly pegged the principles guiding the political culture in "Israel", which place the rules for killing in the hands of the army.

As Eisenkot did when he made public the ""Israeli" occupation army's strategy" document in August, in his remarks about the rules of engagement, he shared with all "Israelis" a policy that should have been worked through only with the politicians.

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team