What do Israeli military rules of engagement and internal investigation procedures say about use of snipers and accountability?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Israeli rules of engagement (ROE) grant frontline commanders broad discretion to use lethal force, and military doctrine and leaked/posted documents have specifically allowed snipers to target designated “key instigators” or individuals assessed as posing danger; human-rights groups and UN investigators say those rules are permissive and have been applied in ways that resulted in many civilian casualties [1] [2] [3]. Internal investigation procedures rely largely on IDF operational inquiries and the Military Advocate General (MAG) system, but critics say those procedures are opaque, slow, and rarely produce criminal indictments, creating a perception of impunity [4] [5] [6].
1. What the written rules and directives say about snipers and lethal force
Military documents and court disclosures show the IDF’s ROE set conditions under which snipers may use live fire, including against persons characterized as “key instigators” or rioters even when they are separated from crowds, and ROE are framed to allow shoot-to-stop or shoot-to-kill responses when soldiers perceive threats to life or to mission-critical security interests [1] [2]. International and Israeli human-rights organizations interpret those directives as comparatively permissive—especially in crowd contexts such as Gaza’s Great March of Return—because sniper doctrine contemplates firing at individuals at distances and in circumstances where bystanders and ricochet risks are significant [2] [3].
2. How the IDF says ROE are applied in the field
Official Israeli statements emphasize that the chief of staff and commanders on the ground determine open-fire policies and that situations “are not always black and white,” meaning split-second judgments govern engagement decisions; Israeli officials have resisted external prescriptions about ROE and argue that internal reviews already consider whether directives were followed [4] [7] [8]. The IDF maintains that when investigations find no violation, there is no basis for changing the written ROE, a stance cited by Israeli leaders during diplomatic pushback from allies [8] [9].
3. Internal investigation procedures and the role of the Military Advocate General
When deaths occur, the IDF typically conducts operational and criminal inquiries through internal units and the MAG, which both advises commanders during operations and later decides whether to open investigations—an institutional duality that critics say creates conflicts of interest and delays in robust accountability [6] [4]. The practical result, according to watchdogs like Yesh Din and human-rights groups, has been lengthy probes, a tendency to substitute disciplinary measures for criminal charges, and a low rate of indictments for lethal incidents [6] [5].
4. Patterns, criticisms and independent findings
Human-rights organizations, UN investigators and long-form reporting argue that the combination of permissive wording, changing ROE for different protest contexts, and weak investigatory outcomes produces a culture where snipers and other shooters feel little risk of criminal consequences—illustrated in critiques around the killing of journalists and aid workers and by statistics cited over past decades of many civilian deaths without prosecution [3] [4] [5]. These sources assert that even when Israel investigates incidents such as the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh, findings that attribute “high possibility” to errant IDF fire have not translated into criminal charges, reinforcing calls for external review [4].
5. Diplomatic and domestic pushback, and the IDF’s counter-arguments
The U.S. government urged Israel to review ROE after high-profile killings and to consider changes as part of accountability steps, but faced Israeli political resistance and subsequent softer public language from some U.S. officials who emphasized not being prescriptive; Israeli leaders framed such demands as inappropriate interference and stressed that internal military processes determine engagement policy [7] [9] [8]. Within Israel there is debate—some veterans and legal advocates call for clearer and tighter constraints, while defense officials warn that restrictive rules could endanger troops and hamper operational flexibility [10] [11].
6. Conclusion: what the rules and procedures practically mean for accountability
Taken together, the ROE provide legal cover for snipers under a broad “perceived threat” rubric and the internal investigation architecture gives the military primary control over post-incident review; independent monitors and UN bodies conclude that this combination has often failed to produce transparent, timely criminal accountability, leaving unresolved tensions between operational imperatives and obligations to limit civilian harm [1] [6] [2]. Public pressure—diplomatic, judicial and from rights groups—continues to push for reform, but Israeli leadership and the IDF insist on maintaining command prerogative over ROE and internal probes, making substantial external change unlikely without political will or international legal action [8] [4].