Skip to main content

ASU Global menu

Skip to Content Report an accessibility problem ASU Home My ASU Colleges and Schools Sign In
Arizona State University Arizona State University
ASU Library KEEP

Main navigation

Home Browse Collections Share Your Work
Copyright Describe Your Materials File Formats Open Access Repository Practices Share Your Materials Terms of Deposit API Documentation
Skip to Content Report an accessibility problem ASU Home My ASU Colleges and Schools Sign In
  1. KEEP
  2. Theses and Dissertations
  3. Barrett, The Honors College Thesis/Creative Project Collection
  4. Israel's Targeted Killings in the Gaza Strip: Israeli Justifications and International Law
  5. Full metadata

Israel's Targeted Killings in the Gaza Strip: Israeli Justifications and International Law

Full metadata

Description

The purpose of this paper is to analyze how Israel justifies its use of targeted killings. Israel's targeted killings became prominent during the Second Intifada and became an official part of Israeli counterterrorism. Shortly afterwards, in 2002, the State of Israel was sued by the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel and the Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment. They asserted that Israel's policy of targeted killings was a human rights violation because Israel was not involved in an international armed conflict with Hamas. However, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the policy is legal because Israel is involved in an international armed conflict, and therefore, targeted killings can be used as a method of warfare. According to IHL, there are two paradigms that are applicable to targeted killings. The law enforcement paradigm is used during times of peace to deal with domestic threats while the hostilities paradigm is used during international and non-international armed conflicts to achieve concrete military advantages. Therefore, because the Supreme Court claims that there is an armed conflict present, the hostilities paradigm is used, and IHL is needed to interpret Israel's targeted killings. Based on the laws and the case studies of five high-ranking Hamas militants who are representative of Israel's usual targets, I found that Israel generally abides by the Israeli Supreme Court rules and IHL but often encounters problems with the proportionality requirements. This leaves the legality of the cases dependent upon the person analyzing the killings. If one argues that there is no armed conflict present, then the law enforcement paradigm must be used, in which case Israel's actions would be illegal according to human rights law. Also, a critic can argue that the value of the targets killed during the strikes is not worth the civilian collateral damage and thus claim that the strikes are illegal. Based on my research, I concluded that Israel is in an international armed conflict, and therefore, IHL is applicable, under the hostilities paradigm. I also believe that Israel can argue that the strikes that incurred collateral damage were proportional due to the military value of the targets. However, an international court must clarify the laws concerning the use of targeted killings. This is because in cases like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the legality of the strikes strongly depends upon the person interpreting the law, and therefore, there can be disagreements over which paradigm is applicable. In addition, because targeted killing is becoming a global trend, the ambiguity of the law will continue to cause problems, and so the international community will need to address this issue carefully.

Date Created
2016-05
Contributors
  • Secker, Kaitlin Frances (Author)
  • Peskin, Victor (Thesis director)
  • Manekin, Devorah (Committee member)
  • School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor)
  • School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
  • Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Topical Subject
  • Targeted Killings
  • Israel and Hamas
  • International Humanitarian Law
Resource Type
Text
Extent
47 pages
Language
eng
Copyright Statement
In Copyright
Primary Member of
Barrett, The Honors College Thesis/Creative Project Collection
Series
Academic Year 2015-2016
Handle
https://hdl.handle.net/2286/R.I.37452
Level of coding
minimal
Cataloging Standards
asu1
System Created
  • 2017-10-30 02:50:58
System Modified
  • 2021-08-11 04:09:57
  •     
  • 1 year 7 months ago
Additional Formats
  • OAI Dublin Core
  • MODS XML

Quick actions

About this item

Overview
 Copy permalink

Share this content

Feedback

ASU University Technology Office Arizona State University.
KEEP

Contact Us

Repository Services
Home KEEP PRISM ASU Research Data Repository
Resources
Terms of Deposit Sharing Materials: ASU Digital Repository Guide Open Access at ASU

The ASU Library acknowledges the twenty-three Native Nations that have inhabited this land for centuries. Arizona State University's four campuses are located in the Salt River Valley on ancestral territories of Indigenous peoples, including the Akimel O’odham (Pima) and Pee Posh (Maricopa) Indian Communities, whose care and keeping of these lands allows us to be here today. ASU Library acknowledges the sovereignty of these nations and seeks to foster an environment of success and possibility for Native American students and patrons. We are advocates for the incorporation of Indigenous knowledge systems and research methodologies within contemporary library practice. ASU Library welcomes members of the Akimel O’odham and Pee Posh, and all Native nations to the Library.

Number one in the U.S. for innovation. ASU ahead of MIT and Stanford. - U.S. News and World Report, 8 years, 2016-2023
Maps and Locations Jobs Directory Contact ASU My ASU
Copyright and Trademark Accessibility Privacy Terms of Use Emergency COVID-19 Information