Last week, two events occurred that could turn out to be highly consequential in terms of Israel’s future: the direction of Israel’s liberal democracy system, and the current fighting. These two issues are especially critical in a situation in which the government’s decision-making process is somewhat blurred.
Last Monday, a group of extreme right-wing individuals, accompanied by a few MKs from the Religious Zionist Party, Otzma Yehudit, the Likud, and one minister from Otzma Yehudit (Amichai Eliahu), broke into the Sde Teiman military base. Hundreds of Gazan prisoners from the current Israel-Hamas war are being held there, and many are members of Hamas’s Nukhba commandos who participated in the October 7 atrocities.
None of these detainees has stood trial. They are being guarded by IDF reservists who are not trained prison guards. The conditions in the detention camp are admittedly poor, and probably not completely in keeping with the standards required by international law.
Because of Israel’s problems with various international legal bodies, which accuse it and its leaders of responsibility for war crimes allegedly committed during the current fighting in Gaza, Israel is doing its best to deal with the more serious and/or visible complaints about breaches of international law that have allegedly taken place, including those in Sde Teiman.
One case involves suspicion that a group of reservists sodomized a Nukhba prisoner, who was rushed to the hospital due to heavy bleeding from his rectum, allegedly caused by a foreign object having been pushed into his body.
The medical team that treated him concluded that the injury could not have been self-inflicted, and over three weeks ago an investigation was opened against 10 reservists. On Monday, a group of military police entered the camp, all with their faces covered, to take nine of the reservists under investigation to Beit Lid, where there is a military court.
The right-wingers’ excuse for the attack on Sde Teiman – which moved to Beit Lid when the suspected reservists were transferred there by the military police – was that the military advocate general’s office, and the attorney general’s office, were acting against “our brave reservists” and that it is perfectly legitimate to hurt members of Nukhba “who deserve to die.”
In fact, no one has said that the reservists are guilty – just that there appears to be evidence that they, or some of them, were involved in what happened. As to the fate of the Nukhba members – of course they deserve to be punished severely if they have committed heinous crimes, but first they must be charged and stand trial.
Regardless of religious belief systems, international law still holds some value within Israel.
Though international law is not popular in some Israeli circles – and certain religious and extreme right-wing groups advocate that international law should be disregarded – it is a fact that from the beginning of Zionism, the official policy was to advance Zionist goals by means of “the law of the nations.” Israel was founded on the basis of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (the Partition Plan), which has the force of international law.
One may believe that Israel was founded on the basis of God’s promise to the Jewish people, but that is a religious belief, and the law of the land is not based on religious beliefs unless these are passed into state law by the Knesset.
THE BREAK-INS into the two military camps were illegal, and parliamentary immunity does not apply to the MKs in such cases. The accusations against the legal system, and its decisions in this case, are false, even though the military police might have acted with greater tact. After the investigations against the reservists end, and it is decided whether or not they shall stand trial, we shall certainly be made aware of the truth under the current legal and judicial systems.
Those responsible for the attacks on the two military camps were widely criticized not only by the defense forces and the legal establishment but also by a majority of the politicians, including coalition members. However, there was great disappointment with the rather feeble reaction of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who appeared to downgrade the seriousness of what had happened and failed to call for, or apply any measures against those responsible for the incidents.
The only fact that might mitigate the gravity of Netanyahu’s weak response, in this case, is that he must have been deep into the last-minute preparations for the assassinations of Hezbollah commander-in-chief Fuad Shukr in Beirut, and allegedly of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, on the night between Tuesday and Wednesday (July 30-31).
THIS BRINGS us to last week’s second serious event. Israel’s decision to assassinate Shukr – considered to be responsible for the strategy of Hezbollah’s rocket, missile, and drone attacks on northern Israel since October 8, 2023, and for the killing of 12 Druze children in the Golan Heights village of Majdal Shams on July 27 – and Haniyeh, whose assassination date was more fortuitous, were both consciously taken by the Israeli government, though Israel has not formally claimed responsibility for the latter.
In both cases, it was known that even though Israel has frequently declared that it seeks to avoid a full-scale war, the two assassinations could trigger an escalation.
There seems much greater public consensus over the killing of Shukr.
His death was also sought by the US for his alleged involvement in the deaths of 241 American military personnel in their barracks at Beirut’s International Airport in October 1983 in a Lebanese terrorist attack, which the US has said was carried out by Hezbollah.
The parallel attack on Haniyeh in Tehran, where he was attending the swearing-in ceremony of Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, is more controversial in Israel. This is despite the fact that Haniyeh – viewed as one of the top Hamas leaders and considered “a man fated to die” (I Samuel 20:31) – was directly involved in the negotiations to work out an agreement between Israel and Hamas on the release of the remaining 115 hostages. His death could further complicate the negotiations.
However, killing Haniyeh in Tehran, at an official Iranian government guest house, is considered a major screw-up for the Iranians. It embarrassed Iranian authorities, who are liable to take much greater revenge against Israel than it would have under different circumstances.
At the time of this writing, Israel is preparing for a major joint attack by Iran, Hezbollah, and possibly additional Iranian proxies. It may be much more destructive than the rocket, drone, and ballistic missile attacks that Iran launched against Israel in April 2024. The US, responding to the Iranian threats, has once again increased its military presence in the region, hoping to reduce the chance of the event spiraling into a full-scale regional war.
We shall find out soon whether Israel acted judiciously in its actions, or whether the price it will pay in terms of physical destruction and the deaths of both civilians and military forces will be exorbitant.
The writer worked in the Knesset for many years as a researcher, and has published extensively both journalistic and academic articles on current affairs and Israeli politics. Her most recent book, Israel’s Knesset Members – A Comparative Study of an Undefined Job, was published by Routledge.