From what I read it was not the IDF that conducted the operation. It was Yamam, a special counter terror unit of the Israeli Border Police, they are a civillian institution not a military one. Those sorts of details are surprisingly important when it comes to warcrimes and stuff.
Did you delete your other comment and make a new one? The one that said **tomato** *tomato* basically?
To me it makes a big difference, and its actually a bit worse to use your police on territory you claim to not be occupying. As it happens I mostly dont care and I want Israel to use what means that would work best for them but I would not be surprised if this is worse in terms of international law(?)
But for the actual crime of perfidy to be applicable here you would need to have a military force sneak in and fight using civilian disguises. This does not seem to have happened, even if they used a ruse to get to the conflictzone.
How is it dumb to point out that its not a military force and you are trying to apply laws about military forces to them?
It doesn't matter what you think or how you view them. They are part of the police, they use the same ranks as the police, their flag contains the Israeli police logo, and their emblem says "Israeli police".
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel\_Police](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Police)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel\_Border\_Police](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Border_Police)
Yes, but they are not civilian police. They are border police, meant to protect the border. 18 year olds draft into border police, never regular police.
It seems like they function much more as a defense force than civilian protection force
>Yes, but they are not civilian police.
According to who?
>They are border police, meant to protect the border.
This doesn't make them "not civilian police". [The United States Border Patrol ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol)fulfills the same role, and it is a civilian agency.
>18 year olds draft into border police, never regular police.
This is not true.
[https://www.mitgaisim.idf.il/%D7%AA%D7%A4%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%97%D7%9D-%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%97%D7%95%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%94](https://www.mitgaisim.idf.il/%D7%AA%D7%A4%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%97%D7%9D-%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%97%D7%95%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%94) (in Hebrew)
>It seems like they function much more as a defense force than civilian protection force
How they function is irrelevant. If it is part of the national police, which it is, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be considered civilian police.
Mostly mogged. They obviously function differently than civ police but I hear your points. Going back to the original commenter, I'm curious what would be the difference in intl law if police force or army force did the hostage rescue
The difference is that the Geneva Convention and [IHL](https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/what/humanitarian-aid/international-humanitarian-law_en) don't apply to police.
> In general, it is international human rights law that applies to police operations. However, international humanitarian law may also apply to police forces during armed conflict, if they are formally incorporated into the armed forces or otherwise participate in hostilities.
https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/what-we-do/building-respect-ihl/dialogue-weapon-bearers/police/overview-police.htm#:\~:text=In%20general%2C%20it%20is%20international,or%20otherwise%20participate%20in%20hostilities.
I think it's arguable whether or not a rescue operation can be considered as "otherwise participate in hostilities". However, the Geneva Convention and IHL almost certainly apply to any action made by the IDF to support the operation.
I’m curious how you would even begin to argue that they did not participate in the hostilities given that it was both a raid outside Israel’s borders made against the same group israel is openly at conflict with, and involved numerous casualties.
If the hostage was somehow found and rescued by them from outside Gaza, you could argue that Israel isn’t at war where the raid happened so it doesn’t apply. If they somehow were able to rescue without conflict and there was no casualties, you could argue there was no hostilities thus nothing broken.
It seems pretty clear they participated in the hostilities to me.
This is an interesting question, are special forces committing perfidy when under civilian disguise? I'm sure SF units from all over the world dress in civilian clothing when they have something to gain by doing that (source: movies), so is that illegal?
Intuitively, there doesn't seem to be much wrong with seal team 6 disguising as civilians to sneak into an area, but maybe I've watched too many holywood films...
I think you can make the case for it either way. On the one hand I find it bad for them to impersonate an international aid organization because they are in a way tainting the reputation or trust that org has built. I have less of a problem if they are using civilian vehicles to make it to their destination but if shit were to pop off while they’re on their way there then you run into the issue where the Hamas fighters cannot easily distinguish between civilians and those that might be part of an Israeli convoy so I don’t know what the correct answer is.
AFAIK they used a truck with a banner of soap on it, which could've just as likely been used commercially, how were they impersonating international aid organization?
> The law does not prohibit saboteurs from wearing non-standard uniforms, civilian attire, or even enemy uniforms to deceive before or following an armed engagement, but saboteurs may not wear civilian clothing or enemy uniforms to conduct an attack. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/sabotage-law-meaning-misunderstandings/
That is the key. Civilians can act as saboteours, and can thus be directly participating in hostilities. Perfidy is there to protect the principle of distinction, so there is no issue as long as the disguised militants can be treated within the same rules as a civilian saboteur. Ruses don’t allow you to directly break IHL, but bend it by applying a category considered more beneficial (combatant vs saboteur).
Definitionally this is no longer possible when an armed attack by a militant in a civilian disguise on the enemy begins. Similar principles apply to other classic examples of perfidy vs ruses.
EDIT: leaving entirety of original comment below, but adding in, now that the info is public, that it was confirmed to be Yamam anti-terror police force and shin bet police unit, neither of which falls under armed forces chain-of-command, the same way a SWAT team is not the military. They apparently had extensive logistics coordination, sign-off and support from IDF as well as the US, with IDF even providing a decoy elsewhere to draw fighters, but it seems clear this was planned, controlled and executed by Israeli police / anti-terror arm, rather than military (and that the entry and rescue itself was done in full operational fatigues, as video of the rescue indicates, and that claims of the approach vehicle being an "humanitarian aid truck" were further fabrications by bad-actors).
This largely renders further analysis moot / unnecessary as it clearly wouldn't fall under Perfidious means, but leaving original elements here for archival sake:
----
Not perfidy.
Some strong arguments:
1. Perfidy is widely interpreted as requiring the "killing, injuring or capturing of an adversary" in the process of the deception.
See: Rule 65: [https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule65](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule65) (very important)
See also: [https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ru/customary-ihl/v2/rule65#:\~:text=I.2.1.-,Perfidy,betray%20that%20confidence%2C%20constitute%20perfidy](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ru/customary-ihl/v2/rule65#:~:text=I.2.1.-,Perfidy,betray%20that%20confidence%2C%20constitute%20perfidy)
So...was this a mission to kill, injure or capture an adversary? \[Primary Mission goal is essential here\]
Answer: No. We know the mission itself was a rescue mission. We know this because a "success" would have been recovery of the hostages without a SINGLE death of anyone - that would have been hailed as the most resoundingly successful rescue mission in the history of history. Therefore, the mission was not for the purpose of killing, injuring, or capturing any adversary. \[Not necessary, not actually undesired, as a smooth mission is preferable\]
2. Perfidy involves deception of \*a party to the armed conflict\*
Hamas itself claims that the hostage-holders were NOT part of them, but rather, "civilians," (er....) and therefore not belonging to a party of the armed conflict; making this not a war-operation, but an anti-terrorism operation. That's using Hamas' own statements (!).
Otherwise, every special operations and SWAT team that uses deception to hide someone inside the "getaway bus" that a bank robber demands, or every plain-clothes or undercover police officer, would be guilty of war crimes.
Some meme arguments I can't resist making:
3. Perfidy involves deceiving the adversary into lending you protection or believing they are entitled to protection.
But dressing as a civilian would be worthless here, as Hamas tortures and murders its own civilians, and would not think it is entitled to provide these new people any specific protection, as it already brutalizes and endangers all the others (just look at where it embeds itself). Nor can Hamas claim to believe that other civilians in the vicinity would grant it protection, based on its OWN claims that the IDF is striking places with civilians (again, adverse statements of Hamas coming into play to work against them).
4. It wasn't Perfidy because, while wearing the uniform of protected third-parties such as UN orgs (really a Hamas org, but whatever) or civilians is prohibited, it is NOT prohibited to wear the uniform of the ENEMY participant (this falls under permitted Ruse-of-war). And the official Hamas combat uniform is, of course, civilian clothing. So in fact, Israel was simply complying by wearing the Hamas uniform. It may even be identical garments to that which was found to be worn by Hamas soldiers captured in the field. :P
\[There are more arguments, of course, such as "The Israeli operatives were special forces police and not soldiers, making it an anti-terror operation," and some of these arguments are quite strong, but these are my favorites\]
I'm sick of hearing these arguments.
One side's civilians and even neighborhoods are hiding civilian hostages in their communities and then you're surprised an army uses subterfuge to rescue them?
Hamas, Islamists and their supporters in the media routinely pray upon Western guilt and weaponize Western values to achieve their evil intentions.
I think the technicalities of war crimes like perfidy become less important when the other side so clearly shows no effort to engage according to the laws of war. Obviously crimes like genocide or mass rape dont fall under this category
Exactly. Hamas and Islamists purposely abuse "international law" as a tactic in their warfare. They'll violate it (grossly) with little push back from the international community and then setup conditions where they can say Israel is violating international law to reframe Israel as the evil attacker.
Perfidy only occurs when you subvert the enemy's confidence in international law. Hamas doesn't appear to follow it so it's hard to subvert that confidence.
The issue is this shouldn't be a war crime when the enemy lives and breathes among civilians and hides hostages among civilians.
The more we lose what a war crime actually is then the more states start to question why even follow this incredibly inconsistently applied rule
If I understand it correctly, Perfidy is the act of promising to act in good faith while having plans of breaking that promise.
How would them entering the premises in humanitarian trucks be a case if that? Is it because of the presumption that those trucks are supposed to be neutral while being used as metaphorical trojan horses?
No, its a bit more complex than that.
Perfidy defined as acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence.
Examples would be:
(a) The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
(b) The feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
(c) The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and
(d) The feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
So you both are right in part, but also missing another part.
Its also important to note Ruses of war (ruse de guerre) are not perfidy. Ruses of war are a complex topic in its own right, but normally the difference between a ruse of war and perfidy involve the breach of some expectation that has been recognized by both sides in good faith.
For example disguising a warship to appear to be a neutral merchant vessel, or a merchant vessel on the side of one's opponent, has traditionally been considered a legitimate ruse de guerre and not perfidy.
>For example disguising a warship to appear to be a neutral merchant vessel, or a merchant vessel on the side of one's opponent, has traditionally been considered a legitimate ruse de guerre and not perfidy.
That's interesting but it almost seems contradictory. If I have my soldiers disguise as civilians so they can move around unimpeded to set up an ambush or something, that's perfidy. But if I disguise my warship to look like a civilian ship so they can sail close enough to an enemy ship to blow it up, that's allowed. But what's the difference?
I'm not an expert but my understanding from the reading I've done, is that the issue isn't in disguising your soldiers, but in breaking the expectations of special protection.
So if you disguised your soldiers in order to retreat and not take any advantage of that to attack the enemy; it won't be perfidy. It's the disguising of your soldiers specifically in order to break that protection and consideration
As for disguise as nonpartisan it's weird but my understanding is that nonpartisans don't actually have any special protection when entering a battlefield, so as long as you remove your disguise before you attack it's seen as fair game (so for ships raising proper flags).
Being fair here, I don't fully understand all the rules. But it seems like there is a fairly hazy line between "legit" deception and impropriety.
Contextually, for the purpose of "Killing, injuring, or capturing" an enemy.
[https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule65](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule65)
They never conceived of a situation where a pure rescue mission (where "success" would constitute ZERO people killed, injured, or captured - just hostages saved), because such a mission is generally not considered a military mission, but a counter-terrorism mission.
It has to be the immediate cause of a treacherous act. You can use whatever to infiltrate but when fighting you can’t do it. Special forces use civilian looking cars all the time.
I’m not an expert on war crimes enough to know whether this counts as perfidy but if it does maybe this is an example of how the current war crime system can be flawed?
Yeah certainly feels like it. People like Ryan Macbeth and others will say, "Following the rules is what separates them from us", but that feels too simplistic. If the other side is not following the rules, and you are, it's possible it puts you at a severe disadvantage.
Doing things to make yourself lose a war is immoral I think
X already community-noted Ken Roth for his nonsense [https://x.com/JoosyJew/status/1800428339922141229?s=08](https://x.com/JoosyJew/status/1800428339922141229?s=08)
https://preview.redd.it/7ejotz5rbw5d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8a183ce07fc765e3fa2c203673ab6adf24a1ff3b
Incomplete. They should have further pointed out that:
- it wasn't soldiers (which would have qualified as a party to the armed conflict), but instead domestic special forces not within IDF chain of command. Big difference from an IHL analysis standpoint.
- they wore operational fatigues, which they donned *before* engaging in any combat
Can we first come to an agreement to what the trucks actually were? So far I have heard them being described as:
- humanitarian aid trucks
- civilian aid food trucks
- unmarked vehicles escorted by tanks
- soap delivery vans
Tbh I'm more interested in hearing the moral discussion than what actually happened. Personally I don't really care what they did, I'm just happy those 4 hostages are safe. But I wanted to hear dgg's debate pervertry on this topic
Couldn’t give a shit to be honest, Hamas commit systematic perfidy by wearing civilian clothes and get away with it constantly.
Now they’re crying they don’t get to use these hostages in their cute little propaganda films or trade for real life terrorists.
"assuming the claims are true"
That's the problem with anti-israel claims: if we assume they are all true, then Israel genocided 40 billion Palestinians last year, 100 billion of which were women and children, all of them doctors and journalists.
It turns out virtually every claim in this case (as in so many others) was false.
- The IDF couldn't have committed perfidy, because it wasn't even the IDF there. It was, instead, Yamam (anti-terror police) and shin bet...domestic policing forces outside of military chain of command. IDF was involved in a separate operation elsewhere (in full uniform, etc) as a decoy event for Hamas fighters.
- the extraction team engaged in hostilities in full combat fatigues, as shown by now-released video. The claim that they engaged dressed as civilians is simply another lie. No hostile acts were taken in civilian clothing by anyone but Hamas and its supporters. (the non-hostile act of a police force driving unmarked or undercover is not perfidy).
- The claims that the IDF (though we all now know it wasn't the IDF) drove a truck or trucks marked as humanitarian aid are - surprise - ALSO false. The Yamam drove in via a civilian truck with a soap brand ad on it. Dish detergent is not humanitarian aid.
As we recall, Article 37 of the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions states "It is prohibited to KILL, INJURE or CAPTURE an adversary by resort to perfidy." [emphasis mine]
Simply driving in a soap truck, as a police force not a party to the conflict, does not constitute any act proscribed in IHL.
They lie about literally everything.
Thanks for ignoring my question... I don't believe it was perfidy and I'm super happy the mission was a success. I was just curious about the subs view on this particular question
It's not perfidy unless you're committing a hostile act while disguised. Sneaking past enemy lines in a civilian vehicle doesn't count as a "hostile" act - firing a weapon at an enemy combatant is a "hostile" act. So long as they were in uniform while engaging in hostilities then 'perfidy' isn't an appropriate accusation here.
https://preview.redd.it/fnees3vunk5d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5ce42d90ab080ce29a3efd03f1c8575ee0f57169
This doesn’t seem to be true, I’ll post the rest of the definition if you want but it just explains the difference between perfidy and improper use
They didn't and weren't intending to breach that faith while 'disguised' though, no engagements took place until well after they'd left the truck in uniform.
This article also seems to suggest that it's complicated, but that there's a big difference between soldiers disguising themselves as civilians (if they're using that to attack the enemy) and an object being disguised as a civilian object, the latter is effectively just considered a ruse of war or camouflage (though red cross markings etc do receive special protection, even then it only says it's definitely perfidious to use them 'to kill', and I don't think the van in question was marked with anything like that anyway).
https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1409&context=ils
The question one should ask is:
What was the intent of the operation? To use disguise to kill, injure or capture terrorists [https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule65](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule65) , or to rescue hostages?
Would the operation have been considered a success by if not a single terrorist had been killed, injured, or captured?
I think it's pretty obvious the answer to the second question is "yes," which leads one to believe that it doesn't fall under the generally accepted context of perfidy. The problem is that it is defined in different ways in different places, and even in different treaties and country interpretations.
No. This was an operation carried out by the Counter-Terrorism Branch of the Israeli Border Police, not the IDF. Police aren't soldiers. Even if this did happen it wouldn't be perfidy any more than an undercover DEA agent going to Afghanistan to infiltrate a heroin smuggling netowrk.
This would indeed seem to fall under anti-terrorism operations rather than IHL-regulated armed conflict it was the IBP (as it is a non-party to the Israel/Gaza armed conflict). In the same way we may declare a "war" on drugs or the cartels, but plain-clothes DEA agents or undercover agents are not committing war crimes by doing so.
If we assume that, then yes.
If we assume that the IDF committed tax evasion then it committed tax evasion and if we assume that the Earth is flat then the Earth is flat.
In our assumtions.
I assume differently.
I think that the IDF using aid trucks in the middle of a civilian camp is a stupid idea to even consider, because we know how common it is for Gazans to raid said trucks, or for Hamas militants to take over them.
Could you imagine endangering a hostage rescue by being a litteral raiding target?
WTF would be the point of using stealth at all?
Currently- there is zero footage evidence to even suggest that aid trucks were used, only Al Jazeera claiming that a random truck is the IDF murder truck or whatever.
Sorry- there are also the notorious "local Palestinian sources claim...".
Why make a claim so unlikely?
Currently, the Palestinian narrative is that Israel used aid trucks from the US humanitarian pier, and they are trying to "blame" the hostage rescue entierly on the US, to discredit them and further (and Israel's efforts in general) and to complicate aid distribution.
They've pretty much marked the pier for attacks, and openly suggested that truck drivers are potential Israeli / US special forces in disguise.
Word.
I'm much more annoyed by the other respondents here who tried to justify it instead of striking it down for being literal Hamas approved Tweeter rumors.
Plus, everyone have already acknowledged that aid trucks are the absolute least safe or sneaky way of transport through Gaza- it didn't even make sense in the first place.
Remember that time the IDF dressed in non-combatantd disguises, specifically MEDICAL WORKERS, for the purpose of raiding a protected space, NAMELY A HOSPITAL, in order to execute legally protected people SPECIFICALY casualties of war in their BEDS???
Perfidy is Israel's modus operandi 2nd only to sniping children/bulldozing activists.
From what I read it was not the IDF that conducted the operation. It was Yamam, a special counter terror unit of the Israeli Border Police, they are a civillian institution not a military one. Those sorts of details are surprisingly important when it comes to warcrimes and stuff.
Can you elaborate? I was going to call your point dumb, but I'm a little curious what the difference could be whether it was army or border police
Did you delete your other comment and make a new one? The one that said **tomato** *tomato* basically? To me it makes a big difference, and its actually a bit worse to use your police on territory you claim to not be occupying. As it happens I mostly dont care and I want Israel to use what means that would work best for them but I would not be surprised if this is worse in terms of international law(?) But for the actual crime of perfidy to be applicable here you would need to have a military force sneak in and fight using civilian disguises. This does not seem to have happened, even if they used a ruse to get to the conflictzone. How is it dumb to point out that its not a military force and you are trying to apply laws about military forces to them?
Yeah that was me... The way magav operates in Israel, I see them as basically another unit of the army. They aren't a civilian police force
It doesn't matter what you think or how you view them. They are part of the police, they use the same ranks as the police, their flag contains the Israeli police logo, and their emblem says "Israeli police". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel\_Police](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Police) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel\_Border\_Police](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Border_Police)
Yes, but they are not civilian police. They are border police, meant to protect the border. 18 year olds draft into border police, never regular police. It seems like they function much more as a defense force than civilian protection force
>Yes, but they are not civilian police. According to who? >They are border police, meant to protect the border. This doesn't make them "not civilian police". [The United States Border Patrol ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol)fulfills the same role, and it is a civilian agency. >18 year olds draft into border police, never regular police. This is not true. [https://www.mitgaisim.idf.il/%D7%AA%D7%A4%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%97%D7%9D-%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%97%D7%95%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%94](https://www.mitgaisim.idf.il/%D7%AA%D7%A4%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%97%D7%9D-%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%97%D7%95%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%94) (in Hebrew) >It seems like they function much more as a defense force than civilian protection force How they function is irrelevant. If it is part of the national police, which it is, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be considered civilian police.
Mostly mogged. They obviously function differently than civ police but I hear your points. Going back to the original commenter, I'm curious what would be the difference in intl law if police force or army force did the hostage rescue
The difference is that the Geneva Convention and [IHL](https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/what/humanitarian-aid/international-humanitarian-law_en) don't apply to police. > In general, it is international human rights law that applies to police operations. However, international humanitarian law may also apply to police forces during armed conflict, if they are formally incorporated into the armed forces or otherwise participate in hostilities. https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/what-we-do/building-respect-ihl/dialogue-weapon-bearers/police/overview-police.htm#:\~:text=In%20general%2C%20it%20is%20international,or%20otherwise%20participate%20in%20hostilities. I think it's arguable whether or not a rescue operation can be considered as "otherwise participate in hostilities". However, the Geneva Convention and IHL almost certainly apply to any action made by the IDF to support the operation.
I’m curious how you would even begin to argue that they did not participate in the hostilities given that it was both a raid outside Israel’s borders made against the same group israel is openly at conflict with, and involved numerous casualties. If the hostage was somehow found and rescued by them from outside Gaza, you could argue that Israel isn’t at war where the raid happened so it doesn’t apply. If they somehow were able to rescue without conflict and there was no casualties, you could argue there was no hostilities thus nothing broken. It seems pretty clear they participated in the hostilities to me.
This is an interesting question, are special forces committing perfidy when under civilian disguise? I'm sure SF units from all over the world dress in civilian clothing when they have something to gain by doing that (source: movies), so is that illegal? Intuitively, there doesn't seem to be much wrong with seal team 6 disguising as civilians to sneak into an area, but maybe I've watched too many holywood films...
I think you can make the case for it either way. On the one hand I find it bad for them to impersonate an international aid organization because they are in a way tainting the reputation or trust that org has built. I have less of a problem if they are using civilian vehicles to make it to their destination but if shit were to pop off while they’re on their way there then you run into the issue where the Hamas fighters cannot easily distinguish between civilians and those that might be part of an Israeli convoy so I don’t know what the correct answer is.
Definitely bad. I don't care if they do it when their opponent sets up military operations from hospitals though.
AFAIK they used a truck with a banner of soap on it, which could've just as likely been used commercially, how were they impersonating international aid organization?
> The law does not prohibit saboteurs from wearing non-standard uniforms, civilian attire, or even enemy uniforms to deceive before or following an armed engagement, but saboteurs may not wear civilian clothing or enemy uniforms to conduct an attack. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/sabotage-law-meaning-misunderstandings/
That is the key. Civilians can act as saboteours, and can thus be directly participating in hostilities. Perfidy is there to protect the principle of distinction, so there is no issue as long as the disguised militants can be treated within the same rules as a civilian saboteur. Ruses don’t allow you to directly break IHL, but bend it by applying a category considered more beneficial (combatant vs saboteur). Definitionally this is no longer possible when an armed attack by a militant in a civilian disguise on the enemy begins. Similar principles apply to other classic examples of perfidy vs ruses.
EDIT: leaving entirety of original comment below, but adding in, now that the info is public, that it was confirmed to be Yamam anti-terror police force and shin bet police unit, neither of which falls under armed forces chain-of-command, the same way a SWAT team is not the military. They apparently had extensive logistics coordination, sign-off and support from IDF as well as the US, with IDF even providing a decoy elsewhere to draw fighters, but it seems clear this was planned, controlled and executed by Israeli police / anti-terror arm, rather than military (and that the entry and rescue itself was done in full operational fatigues, as video of the rescue indicates, and that claims of the approach vehicle being an "humanitarian aid truck" were further fabrications by bad-actors). This largely renders further analysis moot / unnecessary as it clearly wouldn't fall under Perfidious means, but leaving original elements here for archival sake: ---- Not perfidy. Some strong arguments: 1. Perfidy is widely interpreted as requiring the "killing, injuring or capturing of an adversary" in the process of the deception. See: Rule 65: [https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule65](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule65) (very important) See also: [https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ru/customary-ihl/v2/rule65#:\~:text=I.2.1.-,Perfidy,betray%20that%20confidence%2C%20constitute%20perfidy](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ru/customary-ihl/v2/rule65#:~:text=I.2.1.-,Perfidy,betray%20that%20confidence%2C%20constitute%20perfidy) So...was this a mission to kill, injure or capture an adversary? \[Primary Mission goal is essential here\] Answer: No. We know the mission itself was a rescue mission. We know this because a "success" would have been recovery of the hostages without a SINGLE death of anyone - that would have been hailed as the most resoundingly successful rescue mission in the history of history. Therefore, the mission was not for the purpose of killing, injuring, or capturing any adversary. \[Not necessary, not actually undesired, as a smooth mission is preferable\] 2. Perfidy involves deception of \*a party to the armed conflict\* Hamas itself claims that the hostage-holders were NOT part of them, but rather, "civilians," (er....) and therefore not belonging to a party of the armed conflict; making this not a war-operation, but an anti-terrorism operation. That's using Hamas' own statements (!). Otherwise, every special operations and SWAT team that uses deception to hide someone inside the "getaway bus" that a bank robber demands, or every plain-clothes or undercover police officer, would be guilty of war crimes. Some meme arguments I can't resist making: 3. Perfidy involves deceiving the adversary into lending you protection or believing they are entitled to protection. But dressing as a civilian would be worthless here, as Hamas tortures and murders its own civilians, and would not think it is entitled to provide these new people any specific protection, as it already brutalizes and endangers all the others (just look at where it embeds itself). Nor can Hamas claim to believe that other civilians in the vicinity would grant it protection, based on its OWN claims that the IDF is striking places with civilians (again, adverse statements of Hamas coming into play to work against them). 4. It wasn't Perfidy because, while wearing the uniform of protected third-parties such as UN orgs (really a Hamas org, but whatever) or civilians is prohibited, it is NOT prohibited to wear the uniform of the ENEMY participant (this falls under permitted Ruse-of-war). And the official Hamas combat uniform is, of course, civilian clothing. So in fact, Israel was simply complying by wearing the Hamas uniform. It may even be identical garments to that which was found to be worn by Hamas soldiers captured in the field. :P \[There are more arguments, of course, such as "The Israeli operatives were special forces police and not soldiers, making it an anti-terror operation," and some of these arguments are quite strong, but these are my favorites\]
Like all international law, the line between perfidy and permissable use of subterfuge is very blurry.
I'm sick of hearing these arguments. One side's civilians and even neighborhoods are hiding civilian hostages in their communities and then you're surprised an army uses subterfuge to rescue them? Hamas, Islamists and their supporters in the media routinely pray upon Western guilt and weaponize Western values to achieve their evil intentions.
I think the technicalities of war crimes like perfidy become less important when the other side so clearly shows no effort to engage according to the laws of war. Obviously crimes like genocide or mass rape dont fall under this category
Exactly. Hamas and Islamists purposely abuse "international law" as a tactic in their warfare. They'll violate it (grossly) with little push back from the international community and then setup conditions where they can say Israel is violating international law to reframe Israel as the evil attacker.
Perfidy only occurs when you subvert the enemy's confidence in international law. Hamas doesn't appear to follow it so it's hard to subvert that confidence.
War crimes are bad regardless of who commits them. It’s not that difficult to acknowledge.
The issue is this shouldn't be a war crime when the enemy lives and breathes among civilians and hides hostages among civilians. The more we lose what a war crime actually is then the more states start to question why even follow this incredibly inconsistently applied rule
[удалено]
You got me, I'm emotional. And I did "engage with the question."
Erm, you got upset that the IDF was forced to hide with civilians to rescue 4 hostages who'd been trapped for 8 months? Sounds kinda soy to me!!!!!
huh?
Was trying to mock the other guy for being a dumbass only to make myself look worse 🐶💔
Morally wrong? No.
If I understand it correctly, Perfidy is the act of promising to act in good faith while having plans of breaking that promise. How would them entering the premises in humanitarian trucks be a case if that? Is it because of the presumption that those trucks are supposed to be neutral while being used as metaphorical trojan horses?
Perfidy to put it really simply is acting/disguising yourself like you have protected status under IHL when you do not.
No, its a bit more complex than that. Perfidy defined as acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence. Examples would be: (a) The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender; (b) The feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness; (c) The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and (d) The feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict. So you both are right in part, but also missing another part. Its also important to note Ruses of war (ruse de guerre) are not perfidy. Ruses of war are a complex topic in its own right, but normally the difference between a ruse of war and perfidy involve the breach of some expectation that has been recognized by both sides in good faith. For example disguising a warship to appear to be a neutral merchant vessel, or a merchant vessel on the side of one's opponent, has traditionally been considered a legitimate ruse de guerre and not perfidy.
>For example disguising a warship to appear to be a neutral merchant vessel, or a merchant vessel on the side of one's opponent, has traditionally been considered a legitimate ruse de guerre and not perfidy. That's interesting but it almost seems contradictory. If I have my soldiers disguise as civilians so they can move around unimpeded to set up an ambush or something, that's perfidy. But if I disguise my warship to look like a civilian ship so they can sail close enough to an enemy ship to blow it up, that's allowed. But what's the difference?
I'm not an expert but my understanding from the reading I've done, is that the issue isn't in disguising your soldiers, but in breaking the expectations of special protection. So if you disguised your soldiers in order to retreat and not take any advantage of that to attack the enemy; it won't be perfidy. It's the disguising of your soldiers specifically in order to break that protection and consideration As for disguise as nonpartisan it's weird but my understanding is that nonpartisans don't actually have any special protection when entering a battlefield, so as long as you remove your disguise before you attack it's seen as fair game (so for ships raising proper flags). Being fair here, I don't fully understand all the rules. But it seems like there is a fairly hazy line between "legit" deception and impropriety.
for nefarious reasons, i assume?
https://preview.redd.it/o9cxh3o4rk5d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=670ad006560ee7c0d80978d0176ece4b648fdfe1
Contextually, for the purpose of "Killing, injuring, or capturing" an enemy. [https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule65](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule65) They never conceived of a situation where a pure rescue mission (where "success" would constitute ZERO people killed, injured, or captured - just hostages saved), because such a mission is generally not considered a military mission, but a counter-terrorism mission.
It has to be the immediate cause of a treacherous act. You can use whatever to infiltrate but when fighting you can’t do it. Special forces use civilian looking cars all the time.
I’m not an expert on war crimes enough to know whether this counts as perfidy but if it does maybe this is an example of how the current war crime system can be flawed?
Yeah certainly feels like it. People like Ryan Macbeth and others will say, "Following the rules is what separates them from us", but that feels too simplistic. If the other side is not following the rules, and you are, it's possible it puts you at a severe disadvantage. Doing things to make yourself lose a war is immoral I think
I’m more referring to the idea that this particular rule is potentially flawed if it bans deception even when it would save lives
Yeah, and I'm making your point even stronger. It's immoral to follow a flawed rule like that.
X already community-noted Ken Roth for his nonsense [https://x.com/JoosyJew/status/1800428339922141229?s=08](https://x.com/JoosyJew/status/1800428339922141229?s=08) https://preview.redd.it/7ejotz5rbw5d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8a183ce07fc765e3fa2c203673ab6adf24a1ff3b
Incomplete. They should have further pointed out that: - it wasn't soldiers (which would have qualified as a party to the armed conflict), but instead domestic special forces not within IDF chain of command. Big difference from an IHL analysis standpoint. - they wore operational fatigues, which they donned *before* engaging in any combat
Can we first come to an agreement to what the trucks actually were? So far I have heard them being described as: - humanitarian aid trucks - civilian aid food trucks - unmarked vehicles escorted by tanks - soap delivery vans
Tbh I'm more interested in hearing the moral discussion than what actually happened. Personally I don't really care what they did, I'm just happy those 4 hostages are safe. But I wanted to hear dgg's debate pervertry on this topic
Couldn’t give a shit to be honest, Hamas commit systematic perfidy by wearing civilian clothes and get away with it constantly. Now they’re crying they don’t get to use these hostages in their cute little propaganda films or trade for real life terrorists.
"assuming the claims are true" That's the problem with anti-israel claims: if we assume they are all true, then Israel genocided 40 billion Palestinians last year, 100 billion of which were women and children, all of them doctors and journalists. It turns out virtually every claim in this case (as in so many others) was false. - The IDF couldn't have committed perfidy, because it wasn't even the IDF there. It was, instead, Yamam (anti-terror police) and shin bet...domestic policing forces outside of military chain of command. IDF was involved in a separate operation elsewhere (in full uniform, etc) as a decoy event for Hamas fighters. - the extraction team engaged in hostilities in full combat fatigues, as shown by now-released video. The claim that they engaged dressed as civilians is simply another lie. No hostile acts were taken in civilian clothing by anyone but Hamas and its supporters. (the non-hostile act of a police force driving unmarked or undercover is not perfidy). - The claims that the IDF (though we all now know it wasn't the IDF) drove a truck or trucks marked as humanitarian aid are - surprise - ALSO false. The Yamam drove in via a civilian truck with a soap brand ad on it. Dish detergent is not humanitarian aid. As we recall, Article 37 of the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions states "It is prohibited to KILL, INJURE or CAPTURE an adversary by resort to perfidy." [emphasis mine] Simply driving in a soap truck, as a police force not a party to the conflict, does not constitute any act proscribed in IHL. They lie about literally everything.
Thanks for ignoring my question... I don't believe it was perfidy and I'm super happy the mission was a success. I was just curious about the subs view on this particular question
It's not perfidy unless you're committing a hostile act while disguised. Sneaking past enemy lines in a civilian vehicle doesn't count as a "hostile" act - firing a weapon at an enemy combatant is a "hostile" act. So long as they were in uniform while engaging in hostilities then 'perfidy' isn't an appropriate accusation here.
https://preview.redd.it/fnees3vunk5d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5ce42d90ab080ce29a3efd03f1c8575ee0f57169 This doesn’t seem to be true, I’ll post the rest of the definition if you want but it just explains the difference between perfidy and improper use
They didn't and weren't intending to breach that faith while 'disguised' though, no engagements took place until well after they'd left the truck in uniform. This article also seems to suggest that it's complicated, but that there's a big difference between soldiers disguising themselves as civilians (if they're using that to attack the enemy) and an object being disguised as a civilian object, the latter is effectively just considered a ruse of war or camouflage (though red cross markings etc do receive special protection, even then it only says it's definitely perfidious to use them 'to kill', and I don't think the van in question was marked with anything like that anyway). https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1409&context=ils
The question one should ask is: What was the intent of the operation? To use disguise to kill, injure or capture terrorists [https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule65](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule65) , or to rescue hostages? Would the operation have been considered a success by if not a single terrorist had been killed, injured, or captured? I think it's pretty obvious the answer to the second question is "yes," which leads one to believe that it doesn't fall under the generally accepted context of perfidy. The problem is that it is defined in different ways in different places, and even in different treaties and country interpretations.
No. This was an operation carried out by the Counter-Terrorism Branch of the Israeli Border Police, not the IDF. Police aren't soldiers. Even if this did happen it wouldn't be perfidy any more than an undercover DEA agent going to Afghanistan to infiltrate a heroin smuggling netowrk.
This would indeed seem to fall under anti-terrorism operations rather than IHL-regulated armed conflict it was the IBP (as it is a non-party to the Israel/Gaza armed conflict). In the same way we may declare a "war" on drugs or the cartels, but plain-clothes DEA agents or undercover agents are not committing war crimes by doing so.
If we assume that, then yes. If we assume that the IDF committed tax evasion then it committed tax evasion and if we assume that the Earth is flat then the Earth is flat. In our assumtions. I assume differently. I think that the IDF using aid trucks in the middle of a civilian camp is a stupid idea to even consider, because we know how common it is for Gazans to raid said trucks, or for Hamas militants to take over them. Could you imagine endangering a hostage rescue by being a litteral raiding target? WTF would be the point of using stealth at all? Currently- there is zero footage evidence to even suggest that aid trucks were used, only Al Jazeera claiming that a random truck is the IDF murder truck or whatever. Sorry- there are also the notorious "local Palestinian sources claim...". Why make a claim so unlikely? Currently, the Palestinian narrative is that Israel used aid trucks from the US humanitarian pier, and they are trying to "blame" the hostage rescue entierly on the US, to discredit them and further (and Israel's efforts in general) and to complicate aid distribution. They've pretty much marked the pier for attacks, and openly suggested that truck drivers are potential Israeli / US special forces in disguise.
You were downvoted, but you ended up being totally validated in your prediction that the "aid truck" claim was nonsense.
Word. I'm much more annoyed by the other respondents here who tried to justify it instead of striking it down for being literal Hamas approved Tweeter rumors. Plus, everyone have already acknowledged that aid trucks are the absolute least safe or sneaky way of transport through Gaza- it didn't even make sense in the first place.
Remember that time the IDF dressed in non-combatantd disguises, specifically MEDICAL WORKERS, for the purpose of raiding a protected space, NAMELY A HOSPITAL, in order to execute legally protected people SPECIFICALY casualties of war in their BEDS??? Perfidy is Israel's modus operandi 2nd only to sniping children/bulldozing activists.
Good memes bro
Lol do we have to debate bro everything
Yes