In a revealing account of the ongoing military operations in Gaza, several Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers have shared their insights and experiences regarding the treatment of civilians amid the conflict. At the tactical level, the soldiers are under tremendous stress from enemy fire and mission complexity. They’ve raised concerns that tap into larger questions of the ethics behind military actions in densely populated cities.
Daniel, a commander of an IDF tank unit, articulated how the rhetoric within military ranks has evolved to dismiss the idea of civilian innocence in Gaza. He stated, “You hear that all the time, so you start to believe it.” This sentiment is indicative of a larger narrative that has taken root among the ranks in the army, affecting grassroots operational decisions on the ground.
The IDF has already投入了数十万谢克尔，努力拆除他们所称的加沙地带的恐怖基础设施。Rabbi Avraham Zarbiv, who has actively participated in military operations, asserted that “everything there is one big terrorist infrastructure.” His perspectives support the anti-democratic position adopted by elements of the military. He’s personally championed and led the effort to destroy Palestinian communities.
Zarbiv himself does the hands-on work, driving military bulldozers. He further takes credit for innovative tactics that the IDF now uses extensively. Taken together, his comments suggest a shift of priority from operational rollout to implementation strategy. This novel approach goes to extremes in vilifying urban warfare and more generally, all non-combatants as worthy of being treated like combatants.
The IDF flatly denies that civilians are ever used as human shields. They’re quick to point out their deep commitment to compliance with international law. According to soldiers’ testimonies, that wasn’t the case at all. Major Neta Caspin indicated that there should be no discrimination in targeting, which she believes is essential to operational success. Capt. Yotam Vilk echoed this sentiment, stating that in practice, “there’s no such thing as ‘means, intent and ability’ in Gaza,” suggesting a lack of adherence to established military protocols.
Case studies reported by soldiers illustrate the challenges and moral grey areas encountered on the ground during combat operations. Sam recounted a distressing incident where two young men were shot while rushing for aid, exemplifying the dangers of misinterpretation during chaotic situations. Eli told us the story of a scary experience he had. One officer ordered that a civilian-marked building be destroyed with a tank, demonstrating a disturbing apathy towards loss of civilian life.
In another account, Daniel detailed an incident where an IDF tank destroyed a vehicle containing civilians, stating it was a “normal car … just four normal people sat inside it.” Such narratives highlight the tragic outcomes of military engagements and raise questions about accountability and decision-making processes within the IDF.
Today, as the conflict rages on, the cost in Palestinian lives has been catastrophic. Over 69,000 Palestinians killed since the war began. This harrowing tally underscores the brutal price that military operations exact on noncombatants. In light of this ongoing tragedy, Isaac Herzog, President of Israel, remarked shortly after the October 7 attack: “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible. And that’s the part that is really upsetting; it’s not true, this rhetoric about civilians not knowing, not participating, it’s absolutely not true.”
The rhetoric surrounding the conflict has, without a doubt, influenced the views and behavior of individuals acting in the IDF. Daniel’s assertion that “if you want to shoot without restraint, you can” reflects a concerning reality where operational flexibility may come at the expense of ethical considerations.
Eli’s observations further illustrate this troubling dynamic. He noted that soldiers perceive behavior such as walking too fast or too slow as suspicious, leading to irrational conclusions about civilian intentions. His statement regarding a man hanging laundry being viewed as a potential threat underscores the pervasive paranoia that can accompany prolonged engagement in conflict zones.