The legal affairs commentator at INEWS24, Avishai Grinzeig, reveals tonight (Monday) the rules of engagement on the Gaza border, as they were before October 7th. These confidential procedures, formulated in 2018 as part of Hamas's "March of Return," have never been presented – not even to the Supreme Court judges who deliberated on the legality of the procedures.
According to the report, "on paper," the rules of engagement were strict, allowing the use of "live fire" only to deal with violent riots, from which and within which there was an immediate and imminent real danger to IDF forces or Israeli civilians.
These guidelines are also the ones presented to the High Court, but the confidential procedures were more lenient.
The regulations stipulated that "lethal force can be used to eliminate a real threat to life or bodily integrity, even if the threat is not immediate." Thus, in practice, the regulations determined that it is permissible to open fire to eliminate a real danger to life or bodily integrity posed by a mob, even if it is not possible to identify a specific person from whom such a real danger is personally posed.
It was also determined that the term "immediate danger" can be interpreted in such a way that live fire can be opened at the moment when the demonstration reaches a state where IDF forces and civilians find themselves in danger, if the demonstration turns into a terrorist event.
It was also reported that these procedures were formulated by the IDF, the then commander of the Gaza Division, Brigadier General Yehuda Fox, and the then Chief of Staff, Gadi Eisenkot. The regulations were brought to the cabinet's attention and approved by the political echelon. But it appears that the military advocate general and the Ministry of Justice did not intervene in the procedures. They were brought to their attention retroactively and only then were approved by them.
The documents also reveal that even after the events on the ground, the IDF did not seek to further ease the rules of engagement. The strict policy in the field mainly stemmed from operational and diplomatic considerations.
