Analysis The IDF's rules of engagement seem looser than ever - if followed at all

The killing of seven foreign aid workers by the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza has once again raised serious questions about the IDF's opaque and highly permissive rules of engagement, whether those rules are enforced, and what is its willingness to investigate breaches.

- Peter Beaumont

Put simply, rules of engagement define how and in what circumstances it is permissible to use violent force, including lethal violence, during operations and at what potential risk to civilians.

Even as Israel has promised a full and professional investigation into the killing, on 1 April, of aid workers from World Central Kitchen, the reality is that human rights organisations both inside

Israel and beyond have long raised questions about the IDF's rules for using lethal forces amid allegations that the rules that do exist are being ignored by soldiers and commanders on the ground.

While the issue is complicated by the fact the IDF's rules of engagement are classified, reporting both by the Israeli media and human rights organisations suggests an exceptionally high tolerance level for civilian casualties in the current conflict.

While soldiers on the ground are theoretically advised when they can use lethal force against nearby individuals on the basis of loosely defined risk posed by proximity of individuals, more serious in terms of civilian casualties has been the application of so called "operational modes" by different targeting cells calling in airstrikes.

In previous conflicts the IDF is believed to have broadly applied three levels of operational mode, from most restrictive to most permissive; these specify both damage to structures and a permissible ratio of civilian casualties in relation to the value of the target.