Haaretz has just published a revealing story (Hebrew version) adding further details to the failed IDF commando raid last November, which led to the killing of a Sayeret Matkal commander and nearly 20 Palestinian militants who detained them at a Gaza checkpoint. In the aftermath of the disaster, two senior IDF commanders have been either forced to retire or relieved of command.
The most shocking detail in the article is that the unit leader, Lt. Col. Mahmoud Kheireddine, was killed in crossfire by his own men. And the officer who killed him is is under consideration for a commendation for his “grace under fire.”
Equally odd is that IDF military censorship has prohibited from Day 1 the reporting of Kheireddine’s name, though I did so the day after the operation happened. For nine months no Israeli reporter could whisper his name. Why? Censorship is supposed to protect national security. How does suppressing the name of a senior officer killed by his own troops do this? What it does is covers the ass of the senior commanders who try to sweep up the mess made by operations like this. They would prefer not to have to explain too much to the public about their own failures, so they bury them. That’s why no one was held to account for these operational failures.
The report, written by Israeli military reporter, Amos Harel, verges on being a travesty. It relies on anonymous army sources who trumpet the operation as an example of extraordinary courage and sacrifice on the part of both the troops on the ground and their commanders:
These investigations also reveal breathtaking drama. If not for the resourcefulness of the soldiers in the field and their commanders, the night could have ended in a colossal catastrophe. The description of the events will rightly generate amazement at the courage of the soldiers operating deep in enemy territory and the ability to extract them once they were discovered.
The report hews so closely to the military narrative that even facts which have been widely reported outside Israel are portrayed as unknown or mysterious:
For some reason, which the army is not explaining in detail, something about their behavior stirred the suspicions of local Palestinians, among them members of Hamas’ military wing.
Actually, the AP reported, based on eyewitness interviews in Gaza, the precise reason Hamas suspected the unit:
…The scheme began to unravel when the team made its way to Abassan. Suspicious residents alerted Hamas security, which stopped their van.
One official said the leader of the Israeli group, reportedly a member of Israel’s Arab Druze minority, spoke the local dialect fluently and remained calm.
But several things did not appear right. He said a woman was sitting between two men, even though their IDs showed them to be members of different families. Under local customs, it is frowned upon for a woman to sit alongside men who are not her relatives.
“That was the major reason for the suspicions,” he said. Under further questioning, the team told Hamas that they were going to visit a woman who does not live in the area.
This again indicates how poorly the unit prepared for its mission. Not understanding such local customs and adhering to them was one of the fatal blows which exposed it. This would seem almost elementary intelligence work and you wouldn’t expect a unit as elite and prestigious as Sayeret Matkal to make such a grave mistake.
Here is how the English edition describes how Kheireddine died:
M. distracted the Hamas men and in the split second that this gave A., the latter acted. He pulled out his handgun and opened fire. Three Hamas men were killed, but apparently Lt. Col. M. was hit by the same fire.
The Hebrew version is somewhat more explicit and makes clear that the commander was killed by Officer A.:
M. [Kheireddine] distracted the members of Hamas and in the split-second afforded him by this, A. managed to act. He drew out his pistol and opened fire. Three Hamas members were killed in the shooting, but it appears that the bullets also killed Officer M.
Hamas reported last November that the commando operation involved planting listening devices throughout Gaza enabling army intelligence to intercept critical communications within the Hamas military wing. The Islamist group presented pictures of electronic surveillance equipment. Experts whom I’ve questioned said that the pictured objects appeared to be older specimens of surveillance technology. The IDF agrees in part, with a telling caveat:
The army says the equipment that the Palestinians presented as captured is not important and does not reveal information that would let Hamas cause damage in the future.
This may be true as far as it goes. But if Hamas captured more advanced technological equipment it likely would not have displayed this to the camera. It would have whisked it off to be examined by its own engineers, or even examined by Iranian or Hezbollah personnel who would be most interested in knowing the technology the IDF was using. Note that the IDF is only admitting that the images Hamas published featured old technology. It is not admitting that more advanced devices might have been captured as well.
Harel alludes to another unanticipated failure (though he refuses to use the term) by Sayeret Matkal and military intelligence:
From the description of the partial details in Arab-language media, it seems that there are a few parallels here to the uncovering of the operation attributed to the Mossad in which senior Hamas man Mahmoud Mabhouh was assassinated in Dubai in January 2010. After that operation, as in the case in Khan Yunis, the Dubai police published photographs of people allegedly involved, and fake passports.
Actually, there were far more than “partial details” and not only in the “Arab language media,” but on many social media platforms. The government and military censor pressured Facebook and Twitter to ban the photographs of the commandos which Hamas was circulating. Facebook actually censored my posting of this Wanted poster and suspended my account as “punishment.” Why? As I asked at the time, why did these international social media companies cave to Israeli pressure and censor their users despite the fact that the picture and the story in general was a major news story? Is it the job of such companies to protect Israeli soldiers who violate the sovereignty of other states and territories and murder their residents?
Despite their best efforts, the identities of the unit members were exposed widely and they were compromised for any future such covert operations.
Further, if the Mossad was caught flat-footed when Dubai revealed it had CCTV footage of virtually the entire assassination operation leading to the murder of Mahmoud al Mabouh, why would Sayeret Matkal not have anticipated this possibility? Why wouldn’t the operatives themselves have noticed surveillance cameras in the stores and other locations they visited in Gaza? This too is an operational failure which Harel refuses to acknowledge fully.
The story closes by noting that the operation was not judged deficient as a result of the investigations that examined it. None of the commanders or troops involved face any disciplinary proceedings. Though two senior officers lost their jobs, a number of personnel are being considered for commendations. Amidst all this flag-waving, it’s extraordinary that while Haaretz says that the operation was riddled with error, it appears no individual made any errors; or at least no one will face any consequences as a result of these systemic misjudgments.
Another unseemly piece missing from Harel’s report is the “cover” the unit used in order to move freely around Gaza. They assumed the identity of an existing humanitarian relief NGO in Gaza which distributes wheelchairs to those wounded by IDF sniper fire during the Great March of Return. Not only is this a gross violation of international law, it jeopardized the safety of those doing genuine relief work in Gaza. It shows the complete and utter disregard for human decency of the IDF. It is a despicable violation of every norm; a cynical exploitation of the IDF’s own murderous campaign to kill and maim hundreds of Gazans seeking little more than freedom and dignity.
Ahh, how easy it is to sit home, in our safe, tony neighborhood, and judge men of action who risk their lives in service to their country. How easy it is.
“Facebook actually censored my posting of this Wanted poster and suspended my account as “punishment.”
Maybe because the founders of Facebook want their social media platform to bring friends and family together, and not to be used to expose undercover agents, putting their lives at risk. Should Facebook allow exposing the identities of DEA agents working in Latin America? Obviously not.
“Not only is this a gross violation of international law, it jeopardized the safety of those doing genuine relief work in Gaza. It shows the complete and utter disregard for human decency of the IDF.”
Please cite the specific international law that was violated.
@P Spot:
“Men of action?” You mean invaders and killers?
Are you daft? Mark Zuckerberg couldn’t give a s*** about “bringing friends together.” He wants to make money. If bringing anyone together will make him more money, he’s for it. If someone or something threatens his golden goose in any way, he’ll throttle it. That means if the Israel Lobby and right wing censorious ministers pose a threat, then users like me will be put on ice.
Such bulls***. How have any lives been “put at risk?” Are there Hamas assassins lurking the streets of Petah Tikva? If so, you must let me know. I’d be happy to expose them as well. As for “undercover agents,” that is not what this unit was. It was a military force invading another territory. These were soldiers whose stupidity almost unleashed another war.
These are not DEA agents. Sayeret Matkal was not hunting drug dealers. It was invading and violating territorial sovereignty. It had no right to be there. And there is no reason Facebook should become the IDF’s handmaiden.
Try this on for size: this is a blog post written by a professor of international law:
Under this rubric, the Gaza operation was a war crime. I hope it will be prosecuted as such some day.
You are done in this thread.
Richard
Two things
I can see the smile on your face as you write the headline. How happy it must make you that he was killed by Israeli fire.
Second your fake outrage at the violation of international law about the idf going undercover as aid workers.. if only you seemed as outraged by all the things the arabs do which are war crimes. Like firing rockets from civilian areas, or tunneling under kibbutz. Your outrage as always is selective
@Moshe:
IF you can see the smile on my face you are either hallucinating, clairvoyant, or smoking an illegal substance. Further, you may not predict or imagine my thoughts. You inevitably will not be not just wrong. but malevolently so.
I am not happy when anyone is killed, whether Israeli or Palestinian. I never said a single word that would justify your disgusting lies about my purported views.
You have a very easy way to end Palestinian resistance to your country’s strangulation of its territory. You can negotiate a peace agreement with Palestinians and end the conflict. The fact that refuse to do so, offers Palestinians every justification for defending themselves and resisting your illegal acts (collective punishment of civilians through siege violates international law).
If you ever falsely portray my feelings or views again you will be banned. Take that as a warning.
A gross violation of international law?
Really?
Let me try to make this as easy.
(b) The mere use of undercover units does not constitute a violation of the prohibition of perfidy and treachery. Only undercover operations aimed at the killing or wounding of an adversary are prohibited as perfidious and treacherous.
(d) Undercover operations aimed at the gathering of information are not prohibited as perfidious or treacherous acts and could be considered acts of espionage.
See, link below, at Abstract.
https://en.idi.org.il/media/6191/combatants_dressed_as_civilians.pdf
And see, Recommendations, supra.
“Undercover operations should be conducted for purposes of information gathering or to capture persons–an undercover combat operation aimed at the killing (or injuring) of an adversary could be considered as treacherous or perfidious and, therefore, should be avoided. While undercover operations for the destruction of military objectives are permissible as well, such operations can be conducted as long as no person is expected to be killed or injured as a direct result of such an operation.”
I await your response, and relevant citations.
@ P Spot:
It’s convenient that you omitted the salient portion of the provision of international law, which is that a hostile power may not kill treacherously. Donning civilian clothing and impersonating a Palestinian relief organization and then killing 20 Palestinians using that “cover” certainly constitutes “treachery” and “perfidy.” In fact, Israel’s policies in general toward the Palestinians fit those words. But that’s another story.
False. The statute does not say “aimed at.” It says that any killing involving the use of treachery is a violation. Thus, the killing of the Palestinians by the commandos was an act of treachery.
Isn’t it curious you left out the next sentence, which you yourself quoted:
That’s a loophole big enough to drive a Mack truck through. If Sayeret Matkal didn’t ‘expect to kill or injure anyone’ in this mission then why were the soldiers armed? Why was the IAF put on notice to be ready to bomb the neighborhood to smithereens in the event the operation was exposed? You see you are hoisted on your own petard due to your laziness or incompetence in reading your own sources.
If you try to argue that the operation’s primary mission was not to kill Palestinians and therefore it didn’t expect to kill anyone, I’m afraid that’s a loser. The best prognosis for the operation if it succeeded was that it would not kill them. But the worst was that all hell would break loose and lots of Palestinians would be killed. Which is what happened. Sorry, you lose.
As I wrote, do not comment further in this thread.
My patience is wearing thin. Prepare for landing at Ben Gurion. We hope you’ve had a pleasant trip. Hasbara Air flight 101 will be landing shortly.
What is morally permissive and what is legally permissive are two different things.
You claim that the Mista’arvim operation violated International Law and I am asking you for a cite to that law, because I can’t find what law was violated.
Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949? Hague Conventions? Treaties? Customary Law?
Which one(s)?
I’m am struggling to get a sense of your sentiment here.
Are you a concern troll–pretending to care about the operational capability of the IDF and Israeli (or Hamas?) casualties?
Or is it schadenfreude, gleefully rejoicing at the misfortune of your adversary, Israel?
Who is your audience here? The anti-Israel crowd who loves hearing about an Israeli failure? Or to Israel supporters who want to see their army improve its competence and avoid failures in the future?
I find it hard to believe that you actually wish the IDF well.
@ DrS:
Oh, I doubt it.
I don’t respond to bad faith questions like yours.
If you think that you’re an idiot. Are you?
Are you my media advisor? My brand manager? I’ve been doing this for 20 years. My audience is clear. And if you can’t figure out who my audience is (hint, you’re among them), it’s not my responsibility to school you on the subject.
I find it hard to believe you’re not a jackass.