With each passing day, questions mount over the conduct of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in Gaza—particularly following the explosive investigation published by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. At the center of the controversy are the actions of Israeli soldiers stationed at humanitarian food distribution centers, where—according to testimonies from the soldiers themselves—live ammunition is used instead of crowd control or non-lethal means. From May 27 to June 24, 19 shooting incidents were recorded, resulting in 549 Palestinian deaths and over 4,000 injuries, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry (controlled by Hamas) and confirmed by the United Nations.
Testimonies Reveal a “Shoot-to-Signal” Strategy
According to Haaretz, Israeli soldiers guarding the four humanitarian distribution centers described horrifying scenes, many of which may amount to war crimes. One soldier, who spoke on condition of anonymity, reported:
“Where I was stationed, between one and five people were killed every day. They are treated like enemy forces: no crowd control measures, no tear gas—just live fire using everything imaginable: heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars. Once the center opens, the shooting stops, and [Palestinians] know they can approach. Our language of communication is gunfire.”
He claimed this strategy was nicknamed “Salted Fish”, the Israeli version of the game “Red Light, Green Light”—except with lethal consequences.
Crowds, often confused by contradictory instructions about how to approach the centers, sometimes begin gathering at night, long before the centers open. An officer lamented:
“Working with civilians when the only means of interaction is opening fire is deeply problematic. It is neither ethical nor morally acceptable for people to reach a humanitarian zone under tank fire, sniper threats, and mortar shells.”
Official Denials Amid Public Shock
The revelations triggered rare shockwaves in Israeli society, where the IDF is often portrayed as the “most moral army in the world.” That same evening, following the Haaretz article’s release, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant vehemently denied the claims, calling them “malicious lies” intended to slander the army.
Still, the Ministry of Defense hinted that the Military Advocate General had initiated preliminary inquiries. It was also announced that a new distribution center would open to replace the one in Tel Al-Sultan—temporarily shut down after a deadly shooting on May 31—“to reduce friction with civilians and ensure the safety of soldiers.”
“Disproportionate Force” as a Doctrine
According to Breaking the Silence, an Israeli NGO founded by army veterans, the use of force against Palestinian civilians is nothing new. But as executive director Nadav Weiman explains:
“The Israeli army follows two main doctrines: the first is Dahiya—named after a Beirut suburb bombed in 2006—which promotes disproportionate force against civilian areas used for attacks. The second is ‘zero Israeli military casualties.’”
Weiman points out that the situation drastically changed after October 7, 2023:
“Before, if the army wanted to eliminate a target, it tried to hit the right person, even if collateral damage occurred. Now, based on testimonies we collect, dozens of people might be killed just to hit one truck driver suspected of Hamas ties. And there’s never any accountability.”
Widespread destruction of homes is another example of tactics deemed “off the rails”:
“You’re fighting in the most densely populated area in the region but treating it like the Sinai Desert. After sending SMS or leaflet warnings, the army proceeds as if Gaza were an open shooting range.”
De Facto Rules with No Legal Boundaries
Political scientist Samy Cohen, author of To Kill or Let Live: Israel and the Morality of War, notes that engagement rules are typically delivered orally to soldiers in the field. He explains:
“Each commander, whose top priority is to protect his troops, ends up creating his own rules. In certain sectors, dubbed ‘sterile’ or ‘kill zones,’ firing without warning on approaching civilians is allowed. That violates international law and the army’s own ethical code.”
He also highlights the shift in operational authority:
“Before October 7, demolishing a building required the chief of staff’s approval. Now, a brigade or division commander can authorize it. That kind of freedom is insane. It’s no longer ‘to kill or let live’—it’s just to kill.”
Justifications and Shrinking Accountability
Despite wide media coverage—including international attention—the actions of the Israeli army remain largely unchallenged. On July 1, Palestinian Civil Defense reported that 22 more people were killed in Israeli army fire near humanitarian aid points in central and southern Gaza.
Miri Eisin, former deputy head of IDF combat intelligence and now a researcher at Reichman University, argues that the war cannot be judged outside of its context. She insists:
“Against the kind of modus operandi adopted by Hamas on October 7, no one has a good answer. No international rule of engagement applies when a state faces a non-state actor. Whether it’s Russia, China, the U.S., France, or Germany—each defines terrorism differently. We are neither better nor worse than others.”
She also underlines the gap between legality and morality:
“The only question that matters is: Is what we do legal? But legal does not mean moral.”
A Question of Identity
For researchers Tammy Caner and Pnina Sharvit Baruch from the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, institutional silence and illegal orders present a grave threat to Israel’s democracy itself:
“While public concern is focused on domestic political developments, the implementation of illegal and unethical actions against Palestinians in Gaza represents an equally serious threat to the democratic and Jewish identity of the Israeli state,” they wrote in a May 29 policy note.
This article was prepared based on materials published by Le Monde. The author does not claim authorship of the original text but presents their interpretation of the content for informational purposes.
The original article can be found at the following link: Le Monde.
All rights to the original text belong to Le Monde.
