Israeli military action is subject to IHL rules requiring distinction, proportionality, and feasible precautions. The legal test for an attack compares expected incidental civilian harm with the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. The law does not establish a special Israeli two-tier test that merges this rule with the separate UN Charter rules on a state’s resort to force.
What the attack rules require
Article 57 of Additional Protocol I describes precautions for those planning or deciding attacks: verify the objective, choose feasible means and methods to reduce incidental harm, and cancel or suspend an attack if it may be expected to cause excessive harm. The ICRC lists proportionality and precautions as customary rules.
Military legal advisers advise commanders on applicable law. Decision makers must comply with the relevant rules using the information and feasible options available at the time.
Israel’s High Court sets legal limits
In Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel (HCJ 769/02), decided 14 December 2006, Israel’s High Court addressed the legality of targeted killings. It rejected a blanket advance ruling that every such strike is lawful or unlawful and held that each operation must be examined under the applicable rules. The judgment discussed distinction, precautions, proportionality, and the facts of each case.
The Court’s 2005 ruling in Adalah v. GOC Central Command (HCJ 3799/02) rejected the IDF’s “early warning” procedure that involved Arab residents in military operations. The ICRC’s account of national practice records the Court’s statement that an army may not use local residents as human shields. This ruling confirms that security procedures remain subject to legal limits.
Separate legal questions stay separate
Proportionality in an individual attack is a jus in bello question. Whether a state may use force in self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter is a separate jus ad bellum question involving necessity and proportionality at the level of resort to force. Neither test authorizes attacks on civilians or excuses failure to follow the other body of rules. For investigation pathways, see how the IDF investigates alleged misconduct.