What is the Israeli military's policy on using live ammunition in crowd control?

1. What the IDF officially says — “lethal force only when necessary” and classified ROE

The IDF’s formal response and public legal rulings establish a clear legal rule: potentially lethal force can be used against mass disturbances only when necessary, proportionate, and as a last resort to repel an actual, immediate threat to soldiers or civilians. The IDF emphasizes internal rules and training intended to minimize harm, and it has defended its engagement doctrine before Israeli courts and in responses to NGOs, noting that detailed rules are classified for operational security ^{[2] [1]}. The Supreme Court reviewed the legal framework in 2018 and concluded that lethal force is permissible in principle under Israeli and international law when necessity and proportionality are satisfied; however, the court’s review was circumscribed by the classified nature of the rules and the limits of judicial review ^[1]. This official account frames the policy as rights-limiting but legally constrained and operationally secretive.

2. Human-rights reports and investigators — “routine misuse and harm”

Multiple independent reports contradict the IDF’s depiction of rare, strictly regulated lethal interventions. Rights organizations documented repeated use of live bullets, including .22-caliber rounds, at West Bank demonstrations and Gaza protests, producing evidence of injuries and deaths among minors and non-combatants and alleging that soldiers fired from protected positions with little immediate mortal threat present ^{[3] [6]}. The UN Independent Commission’s 2019 inquiry in Gaza concluded that scores were killed and thousands injured by live fire, asserting that many victims posed no imminent threat and that such actions may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity ^[4]. These findings portray a pattern of practice at odds with the IDF’s written constraints and highlight calls for independent investigations and accountability.

3. Investigative reporting and contractor testimony — “live fire and crowd control at aid sites”

Recent investigative reporting and contractor testimonies describe live rounds being fired near aid distribution points in Gaza and troops shooting toward crowds attempting to reach supplies, with contractors alleging bullets were fired “in all directions” and that warning shots were not the whole picture ^[5]. The reporting notes the presence of monitoring systems, including real-time screening and facial recognition, influencing engagement decisions at distribution sites. These accounts suggest operational practices in the field that sometimes deviate from the IDF’s public statements on the use of warnings and graduated, non-lethal measures, raising questions about how policy translates into practice under high-pressure, securitized settings ^[5].

4. Legal challenges and the courts — contested limits and judicial deference

Legal challenges in Israeli courts have tested the boundaries of the rules of engagement. A 2018 High Court petition sought to revoke rules permitting live fire against demonstrators classified as “key agitators” even absent an immediate mortal threat; the court dismissed the petition, effectively upholding the state’s legal framing while stressing necessity and proportionality constraints ^[7]. The judiciary’s decisions reflect a deference to state security assessments and operational secrecy, while also acknowledging the fundamental legal principle that lethal force against non-combatants must be strictly necessary. Critics argue the courts’ limited oversight, especially where rules remain classified, leaves gaps in transparency and accountability ^{[7] [1]}.

5. Reconciling the gap — accountability, transparency, and competing narratives

The core factual divide is between a formal policy that confines live fire to narrow life‑threat circumstances and evidence from rights groups, UN inquiries, and field reporting documenting frequent live-fire incidents with civilian harm. This gap points to three salient needs proven in the sources: transparent publication or independent review of rules of engagement, thorough impartial investigations into incidents of live fire, and clear, enforceable mechanisms to ensure proportionality on the ground. The IDF emphasizes legal compliance and operational secrecy ^[2], while NGOs and commissions emphasize documented outcomes inconsistent with those claims ^{[3] [4]}. Resolving this divergence requires both institutional transparency and credible independent accountability to determine whether the policy as written matches the policy as implemented ^{[1] [4]}.