IDF’s top lawyer: Troops must intervene in settler violence against Palestinians

Military Advocate General Maj. Gen. Itai Ofir says Israeli soldiers must intervene in incidents of violence by Israeli settlers in the West Bank against Palestinians.

“The fact that the arrest and investigation of Israeli civilians are the responsibility of the Israel Police does not exempt IDF soldiers from their obligation to act in the field, in real time,” the IDF’s top lawyer says at a conference of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (IJL) in Jerusalem.

Ofir says that the IDF’s orders “are clear: soldiers who encounter violence are not permitted to stand by.”

“They must intervene, stop the violence, detain the suspects and hand them over to the police. We are not shirking our responsibility,” he continues.

“When soldiers are involved in this kind of violence — including reservists serving in regional defense (hagmar) units — the policy is unequivocal: their reserve service is terminated, their weapons are confiscated, and, where appropriate, the matter is referred to the relevant authorities — the Military Police or Israel Police,” Ofir says.

Regarding the film “NAZA,” which is centered on allegations that Israel intentionally killed civilians in the Gaza Strip using artificial intelligence, among a slew of other war crimes, Ofir says that the documentary “is disconnected from reality.”

“The film distorts the meaning of the term it is named after. NAZA means ‘collateral damage.’ Collateral damage assessments are intended to estimate the expected harm to civilians. Their sole purpose is to prevent such harm, or at the very least minimize it as much as possible under the circumstances,” he says.

“This is why collateral damage assessments are a basic tool in law-abiding militaries around the world. They help a commander estimate how many people are in an area, examine the legality of a strike, and determine what precautions are required, including whether the strike plan should be changed or canceled, as happened many times during this war,” Ofir says, adding that “the film takes this protective mechanism and presents it as an expression of indifference.”

“An indifferent army would not count [potential civilian casualties]. It would simply strike,” he says.