On Sunday, Israel's disputed northern frontier saw the first deadly clashes between civilians and the Israeli army since 1974.
Hundreds of protesters from Syria and Lebanon marched south toward the two countries' disputed borders with Israel to mark the "Nakba" - or "catastrophe" - on the date Palestinians mourn their uprooting as a result of Israel's founding in 1948.
What began as a mass march by unarmed Palestinian refugees and activists soon turned bloody, with, reportedly, 14 killed and hundreds wounded.
There has been much controversy over the justifiability of the Israeli military's use of force in the event of border transgressions.
But experts say there is a fundamental difference between Israel's use of force in disputed border regions on the one hand, and military action in the occupied Palestinian territories on the other.
The distinction lies in whether a boundary constitutes an agreed or internationally recognised border between two countries - or whether it is a de facto border through disputed territory occupied by one of the two states separated by that border.
In light of the first violence in 36 years on territories under dispute by three countries, which involved two state armies and large mobs of civilians, legal experts ask if the IDF had the right to shoot civilian protesters from Lebanon and Syria.
Disputed terrain
Israel does not have internationally recognised borders with Lebanon and Syria, only temporary border demarcations determined through armistice or ceasefire.
Nakba protesters breached three such demarcations: the Blue Line and Lines "Alpha" and "Bravo".
Lebanon and Israel share the Blue Line, a demarcation defined by the UN on June 7, 2000, to identify the point of Israeli forces' withdrawal from Lebanon that year.
The UN has said the Blue Line should not be considered a legally demarcated international boundary, but it continues to serve as the de facto border between the two countries.
Syria and Israel share a UN-controlled, demilitarised buffer zone which is demarcated by two ceasefire lines from 1974: Line "Alpha" on the west and Line "Bravo" on the east.
Protesters from Syria who breached Lines "Alpha" and "Bravo" then penetrated the Golan Heights, the plateau nestled west of the buffer zone, and entered the Israeli-controlled village of Majdal Shams, which was closest to their point of entry.
The Golan was captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War and informally annexed in 1981 with the Israeli Knesset's ratification of the Golan Heights Law.
The law, which extends application of Israeli domestic "laws, jurisdiction, and administration" to the Heights, was condemned by UN Security Council Resolution 497.
But as a non-binding resolution, it does not carry jurisdiction, and Israel has continued to serve as the occupying force.
Allen S Weiner, a professor at Stanford University's School of Law, says international recognition of Israel's occupation is irrelevant since it exerts de facto authority.
"[The IDF] believe under domestic law that they do have a right to be there ... even though they don't have de jure authority," Weiner said.
"They have claimed that they have annexed [the Golan] somehow, and even if you don't believe their annexation is permissible, they are seen as a de facto occupying power," he said.
"If you're an occupying power and somebody comes to the territory and challenges you, it would be permissible for you to assert control over the territory," he added.
"[International] Law of [military] occupation imposes restrictions on what a state can do but it sort of recognises you're in charge."
Application of international law
Asserting control in the face of a territorial challenge may be lawful, but what about the use of force in doing so?
Gary Solis, another international law expert, also says Israeli domestic law will apply in justifying the use of force, instead of international humanitarian law (IHL), more widely known as the "law of war".
In order for IHL to apply, there needs to be "armed conflict" between two states, or between a state and an armed opposition group, said Solis, a professor of international law at Georgetown University's School of Law.
While cautioning that he had not been on the scene himself, Solis said from what he saw in photos, the protesters were not armed, and that there has been no evidence of their affiliation with either armed organisations or state armies.
"What you have in play is domestic law, and of course that implies [international] human rights law as well," Solis said.
"In dealing with situations like this, one always has to ask: was it necessary, and was it proportional if it was necessary? That's the question that you always have when you have Israelis in conflict with their neighbours."
"So whether or not that is the international border, certainly the Israelis gave notice that they considered it the international border and that they had to defend it. And of course, those on the other side of the fence had to be aware of that," he added.
"The question becomes: was it reasonable for armed force to be employed against the individuals who were shot or who were fired upon?"
"That is a question that cannot be answered in the abstract. Every situation must be viewed on its own merits," he said.
Factual play-by-play
Dramatic videos of Palestinian refugees and other protesters climbing over a tall wired fence have been posted online. The footage was taken by Nakba protesters who had gathered on the Israeli side of Line "Alpha".
The videos show a handful of protesters climbing over the border fence into the Golan Heights, and a series of young men starting to follow. Loud shots are heard, and some of those suspended from the top of the fence start to fall.
The shaky and poorly edited footage which conveys the scene's mayhem does not show where the shots were coming from, or who was firing them.
An extensive video uploaded onto the website Baladee also did not show Israeli soldiers directly firing at protesters - only loud shots being fired and protesters falling as they appeared to be hit.
Neither protest organisers nor witnesses of the clashes on the Israeli-Syrian border could be reached, as the Syrian government's ongoing crackdown on anti-government activity has cut off secure ways to communicate with those in Syria.
A similar ambiguity occurred just kilometres away, where protesters were attempting to breach the fence with Lebanon. But there were witnesseses at that border who have commented on what they saw.
Matthew Cassel, an American freelance journalist, was on the Lebanese side of the Blue Line.
"The Lebanese army was firing shots into the air right before I arrived. They were blocking protesters down by the fence and then withdrew to the side," Cassel said.
Because the Lebanese soldiers located near the fence had withdrawn to the side when gunfire was first directed at protesters, Cassel said "the shots were definitely coming from the Israeli side".
"On the other side of the border fence are trees, from which you could see some Israeli soldiers running in and out, off to the right of where the throng of protesters were."
"There was a mound of dirt where you could see six to eight soldiers positioned," he said.
"I assume they were scoping the demonstrations from a distance, but you couldn't see if their guns were pointed at the protesters or in the air."
"It wasn't more than probably a few hundred feet, but it was far enough to not be able to clearly see," he added.
Although he did not see the exact origin of the gunfire, the gunshot wounds he saw on bodies being carried up the mountain for refuge showed lethal weapons were likely being used by those firing.
"I saw bullet wounds in the middle of someone's chest, and it was something that does not happen from a rubber-coated steel bullet," said Cassel, who has not confirmed details of dead protesters' bullet wounds with hospital officials.
Cassel said protesters were throwing whatever they could find toward the Israeli side of the border fence in the hopes of hitting soldiers, attempts that posed little risk to the soldiers.
He also discounted the possibility that the Lebanese army fired against those threatening to throw rocks at its soldiers, saying none raised their weapons towards protesters.
Official statements
The Israeli army spokesperson's office said, in a statement released Monday, that Israeli soldiers "selectively" opened fire against protesters in order to stop them from "targeting security infrastructure".
Some were injured as a result, the statement said, without detailing the exact number of the injured - or whether any people were killed in the process.
"The IDF sees the governments of Syria and Lebanon as responsible for any violence or provocation towards Israel that emanates from their respective territories," the statement added.
The Lebanese army gave a different account, saying while its soldiers fired in the air to disperse the mass protest and to keep demonstrators from storming the borders, the Israeli army's gunfire killed 10 Palestinian protesters.
The Syrian government called Israeli gunfire "criminal", resulting "in a number of martyrs and injured people". Syrian military was not present at the scene near the Israeli-controlled village Majdal Shams in the Golan Heights.
Evaluating the 'right' to shoot
The Israeli army's statement emphasised that "attempts to damage property or cause harm to security forces will be responded to", a disclaimer that can be interpreted as the Israeli military defining their right to self-defence - and the right to defend Israeli property.
Weiner, the law professor, says in light of Sunday's clashes, the Israelis' concept of self-defence is "very familiar to domestic law enforcement".
"If there was a standoff between cops and robbers and the robbers shot first, possibly killing the police officers, then the cops have the right to fire back in self-defence," he said.
"Normally we require that the perception of the threat be reasonable, and that you try to see other means to end the threat," he added.
"But I don't know what the facts are and this is going to be something that is governed largely by domestic law."
"From what I can gather, this was a crowd control situation. And under these situations, one would expect there would be requirements that the forces use steps to at least take less lethal measures, first in order to try to disperse the crowd - which they were justified in doing," Weiner said.
IDF rules of engagement
The Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, said in an interview with Israel's Channel 2 on Monday that the Israeli army exercised "restraint" in their use of force against storming protesters, a judgement call that ultimately saved more lives than would otherwise have been lost.
"We used protest dispersal methods, but the number of people involved made this difficult. There comes a moment when there's no choice but to fire at their legs, and it is very good that forces acted with restraint and judgement and we did not have here a ruinous bloodbath," Barak said.
An editorial in the Israeli daily newspaper Ha'aretz published on Monday said "the IDF rules of engagement called for trespassers at the border fence in the Galilee and the Golan to be shot in the legs".
"Yet the gunfire here and in Lebanon left people dead," it said.
When asked about the Israeli army's rules of engagement against masses of civilian protesters, as well as for further details on how Israeli soldiers responded to protesters storming fences, the Israeli military spokesperson's office did not comment.
0 comments