What are the rules of engagement for Israeli soldiers during protests in the West Bank?
Executive summary
Israeli rules of engagement (ROE) in the West Bank officially restrict use of lethal force to situations that “negate an actual and immediate threat to life,” but reporting and human‑rights investigations document repeated expansions, loosenings, and contested interpretations of those rules in practice [1] [2]. Critics say the ROE have been made permissive over time and applied in ways that result in shootings of protesters and bystanders, while Israeli officials emphasize split‑second life‑threat exceptions and the need to protect soldiers and settlers [1] [3].
1. What the formal rules say: lethal force only for immediate threats
Public and judicial summaries of IDF policy indicate that, officially, soldiers may resort to live fire in the West Bank to “negate an actual and immediate threat to life” and as a last resort in apprehending suspects or facing violent riots, reflecting an attempt to align operational practice with the Law of Armed Conflict principles of distinction and proportionality [1] [4]. Israeli authorities routinely point to the clause allowing troops to open fire when they perceive their lives are in danger and frame rapid decisions during raids and clashes as lawful under those standards [3] [4].
2. How the rules have been loosened: policy changes and political pressure
Multiple outlets report that over the last decade the IDF and Israeli governments have loosened ROE in response to rising incidents like stone‑throwing and attacks, including formal measures in 2015 to permit some live .22 rounds against protesters and later revisions to treat Jewish settlers and Palestinian offenders similarly, moves justified as security necessities but criticized as expanding lethal options [2] [5] [6]. Reuters and The New York Times documented further loosening during intense conflict periods, including after October 2023, when operational directives were reportedly relaxed to allow commanders greater latitude even when civilian casualty risks were higher [7].
3. How ROE play out on the ground: contested application and documented harms
Human‑rights groups and investigative reporting document numerous incidents where soldiers fired on protesters who were fleeing or not presenting an immediate lethal threat, and argue that field practice often deviates from the written standard; B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch and NGOs have similarly criticized permissive application and inadequate investigations into killings [1] [8] [9]. Investigations into high‑profile deaths, such as journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, exposed discrepancies between initial official accounts and later acknowledgments of “high possibility” of IDF fire, highlighting tensions between doctrine and outcomes [1].
4. Legal and moral fault lines: accountability, domestic politics and international law
Critics argue that permissive ROE and weak investigative mechanisms reflect policy choices that accept civilian deaths as a cost of control in the occupied territory, while Israeli officials and some politicians assert that ROE must allow forceful responses to protect lives and deter violence—an argument that has driven parliamentary and executive pressure to adjust ROE at times [8] [6] [3]. International law frameworks require distinction, proportionality and precautions to minimize civilian harm, which human‑rights organizations say are not always upheld in practice; the IDF cites adherence to those principles in its operational manuals but faces ongoing scrutiny [4] [9].
5. Disputes, shifting narratives and strategic incentives
Reporting shows a recurring pattern: security incidents prompt political calls to toughen ROE, military directives shift, incidents occur under the new guidance, and human‑rights groups document harms—each actor has an implicit agenda: governments seek security and political survival, the military seeks operational freedom, and rights groups press for civilian protection and accountability, producing deeply contested narratives about what the ROE actually permit and produce in the West Bank [2] [7] [8].
6. What remains uncertain from available reporting
Public reporting and NGO publications document both written ROE and changes over time, but exact internal operational orders, their current text in certain units, and full outcomes of all investigations are not fully public, limiting definitive public reconstruction of every tactical rule and its immediate practical effect in every incident [1] [7] [8].