During the early stages of the war,
the army gave sweeping approval for officers to adopt Lavender’s kill
lists, with no requirement to thoroughly check why the machine made
those choices or to examine the raw intelligence data on which they were
based. One source stated that human personnel often served only as a
“rubber stamp” for the machine’s decisions, adding that, normally, they
would personally devote only about “20 seconds” to each target before
authorizing a bombing — just to make sure the Lavender-marked target is
male. This was despite knowing that the system makes what are regarded
as “errors” in approximately 10 percent of cases, and is known to
occasionally mark individuals who have merely a loose connection to
militant groups, or no connection at all.
Moreover, the Israeli army
systematically attacked the targeted individuals while they were in
their homes — usually at night while their whole families were present —
rather than during the course of military activity. According to the
sources, this was because, from what they regarded as an intelligence
standpoint, it was easier to locate the individuals in their private
houses. Additional automated systems, including one called “Where’s
Daddy?” also revealed here for the first time, were used specifically to
track the targeted individuals and carry out bombings when they had
entered their family’s residences.
Palestinians transport the wounded and try
to put out a fire after an Israeli airstrike on a house in the Shaboura
refugee camp in the city of Rafah, southern Gaza Strip, November 17,
2023. (Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90)
The result, as the sources testified,
is that thousands of Palestinians — most of them women and children or
people who were not involved in the fighting — were wiped out by Israeli
airstrikes, especially during the first weeks of the war, because of
the AI program’s decisions.
“We were not interested in killing
[Hamas] operatives only when they were in a military building or engaged
in a military activity,” A., an intelligence officer, told +972 and
Local Call. “On the contrary, the IDF bombed them in homes without
hesitation, as a first option. It’s much easier to bomb a family’s home.
The system is built to look for them in these situations.”
The Lavender machine joins another AI system, “The Gospel,” about which information was revealed in a previous investigation by +972 and Local Call in November 2023, as well as in the Israeli military’s own publications.
A fundamental difference between the two systems is in the definition
of the target: whereas The Gospel marks buildings and structures that
the army claims militants operate from, Lavender marks people — and puts
them on a kill list.
In addition, according to the
sources, when it came to targeting alleged junior militants marked by
Lavender, the army preferred to only use unguided missiles, commonly
known as “dumb” bombs (in contrast to “smart” precision bombs), which
can destroy entire buildings on top of their occupants and cause
significant casualties. “You don’t want to waste expensive bombs on
unimportant people — it’s very expensive for the country and there’s a
shortage [of those bombs],” said C., one of the intelligence officers.
Another source said that they had personally authorized the bombing of
“hundreds” of private homes of alleged junior operatives marked by
Lavender, with many of these attacks killing civilians and entire
families as “collateral damage.”
In an unprecedented move, according
to two of the sources, the army also decided during the first weeks of
the war that, for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it
was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians; in the past, the
military did not authorize any “collateral damage” during assassinations
of low-ranking militants. The sources added that, in the event that the
target was a senior Hamas official with the rank of battalion or
brigade commander, the army on several occasions authorized the killing
of more than 100 civilians in the assassination of a single commander.
Palestinians wait to receive the bodies of
their relatives who were killed in an Israeli airstrike, at Al-Najjar
Hospital in Rafah, southern Gaza Strip, October 24, 2023. (Abed Rahim
Khatib/Flash90)
The following investigation is
organized according to the six chronological stages of the Israeli
army’s highly automated target production in the early weeks of the Gaza
war. First, we explain the Lavender machine itself, which marked tens
of thousands of Palestinians using AI. Second, we reveal the “Where’s
Daddy?” system, which tracked these targets and signaled to the army
when they entered their family homes. Third, we describe how “dumb”
bombs were chosen to strike these homes.
Fourth, we explain how the army
loosened the permitted number of civilians who could be killed during
the bombing of a target. Fifth, we note how automated software
inaccurately calculated the amount of non-combatants in each household.
And sixth, we show how on several occasions, when a home was struck,
usually at night, the individual target was sometimes not inside at all,
because military officers did not verify the information in real time.
STEP 1: GENERATING TARGETS
‘Once you go automatic, target generation goes crazy’
In the Israeli army, the term “human
target” referred in the past to a senior military operative who,
according to the rules of the military’s International Law Department,
can be killed in their private home even if there are civilians around.
Intelligence sources told +972 and Local Call that during Israel’s
previous wars, since this was an “especially brutal” way to kill someone
— often by killing an entire family alongside the target — such human
targets were marked very carefully and only senior military commanders
were bombed in their homes, to maintain the principle of proportionality
under international law.
But after October 7 — when Hamas-led
militants launched a deadly assault on southern Israeli communities,
killing around 1,200 people and abducting 240 — the army, the sources
said, took a dramatically different approach. Under “Operation Iron
Swords,” the army decided to designate all operatives of Hamas’ military
wing as human targets, regardless of their rank or military importance.
And that changed everything.
The new policy also posed a technical
problem for Israeli intelligence. In previous wars, in order to
authorize the assassination of a single human target, an officer had to
go through a complex and lengthy “incrimination” process: cross-check
evidence that the person was indeed a senior member of Hamas’ military
wing, find out where he lived, his contact information, and finally know
when he was home in real time. When the list of targets numbered only a
few dozen senior operatives, intelligence personnel could individually
handle the work involved in incriminating and locating them.
Palestinians try to rescue survivors and
pull bodies from the rubble after Israeli airstrikes hit buildings near
Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in Deir al-Balah, central Gaza, October 22,
2023. (Mohammed Zaanoun/Activestills)
However, once the list was expanded
to include tens of thousands of lower-ranking operatives, the Israeli
army figured it had to rely on automated software and artificial
intelligence. The result, the sources testify, was that the role of
human personnel in incriminating Palestinians as military operatives was
pushed aside, and AI did most of the work instead. According to four of
the sources who spoke to +972 and Local Call, Lavender — which was
developed to create human targets in the current war — has marked some
37,000 Palestinians as suspected “Hamas militants,” most of them junior,
for assassination (the IDF Spokesperson denied the existence of such a
kill list in a statement to +972 and Local Call).
“We didn’t know who the junior
operatives were, because Israel didn’t track them routinely [before the
war],” explained senior officer B. to +972 and Local Call, illuminating
the reason behind the development of this particular target machine for
the current war. “They wanted to allow us to attack [the junior
operatives] automatically. That’s the Holy Grail. Once you go automatic,
target generation goes crazy.”
The sources said that the approval to
automatically adopt Lavender’s kill lists, which had previously been
used only as an auxiliary tool, was granted about two weeks into the
war, after intelligence personnel “manually” checked the accuracy of a
random sample of several hundred targets selected by the AI system. When
that sample found that Lavender’s results had reached 90 percent
accuracy in identifying an individual’s affiliation with Hamas, the army
authorized the sweeping use of the system. From that moment, sources
said that if Lavender decided an individual was a militant in Hamas,
they were essentially asked to treat that as an order, with no
requirement to independently check why the machine made that choice or
to examine the raw intelligence data on which it is based.
“At 5 a.m., [the air force]
would come and bomb all the houses that we had marked,” B. said. “We
took out thousands of people. We didn’t go through them one by one — we
put everything into automated systems, and as soon as one of [the marked
individuals] was at home, he immediately became a target. We bombed him
and his house.”
“It was very surprising for me that
we were asked to bomb a house to kill a ground soldier, whose importance
in the fighting was so low,” said one source about the use of AI to
mark alleged low-ranking militants. “I nicknamed those targets ‘garbage
targets.’ Still, I found them more ethical than the targets that we bombed just for ‘deterrence’ — highrises that are evacuated and toppled just to cause destruction.”
The deadly results of this loosening
of restrictions in the early stage of the war were staggering. According
to data from the Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza, on which the
Israeli army has relied almost exclusively since the beginning of the war, Israel killed some 15,000 Palestinians — almost half of the death toll so far — in the first six weeks of the war, up until a week-long ceasefire was agreed on Nov. 24.
Massive destruction is seen in Al-Rimal
popular district of Gaza City after it was targeted by airstrikes
carried out by Israeli colonial, October 10, 2023. (Mohammed Zaanoun)
‘The more information and variety, the better’
The Lavender software analyzes
information collected on most of the 2.3 million residents of the Gaza
Strip through a system of mass surveillance, then assesses and ranks the
likelihood that each particular person is active in the military wing
of Hamas or PIJ. According to sources, the machine gives almost every
single person in Gaza a rating from 1 to 100, expressing how likely it
is that they are a militant.
Lavender learns to identify
characteristics of known Hamas and PIJ operatives, whose information was
fed to the machine as training data, and then to locate these same
characteristics — also called “features” — among the general population,
the sources explained. An individual found to have several different
incriminating features will reach a high rating, and thus automatically
becomes a potential target for assassination.
In “The Human-Machine Team,” the book
referenced at the beginning of this article, the current commander of
Unit 8200 advocates for such a system without referencing Lavender by
name. (The commander himself also isn’t named, but five sources in 8200
confirmed that the commander is the author, as reported
also by Haaretz.) Describing human personnel as a “bottleneck” that
limits the army’s capacity during a military operation, The commander
laments: “We [humans] cannot process so much information. It doesn’t
matter how many people you have tasked to produce targets during the war
— you still cannot produce enough targets per day.”
The solution to this problem, he
says, is artificial intelligence. The book offers a short guide to
building a “target machine,” similar in description to Lavender, based
on AI and machine-learning algorithms. Included in this guide are
several examples of the “hundreds and thousands” of features that can
increase an individual’s rating, such as being in a Whatsapp group with a
known militant, changing cell phone every few months, and changing
addresses frequently.
“The more information, and the more
variety, the better,” the commander writes. “Visual information,
cellular information, social media connections, battlefield information,
phone contacts, photos.” While humans select these features at first,
the commander continues, over time the machine will come to identify
features on its own. This, he says, can enable militaries to create
“tens of thousands of targets,” while the actual decision as to whether
or not to attack them will remain a human one.
The book isn’t the only time a senior
Israeli commander hinted at the existence of human target machines like
Lavender. +972 and Local Call have obtained footage of a private
lecture given by the commander of Unit 8200’s secretive Data Science and
AI center, “Col. Yoav,” at Tel Aviv University’s AI week in 2023, which
was reported on at the time in the Israeli media.
In the lecture, the commander speaks
about a new, sophisticated target machine used by the Israeli army that
detects “dangerous people” based on their likeness to existing lists of
known militants on which it was trained. “Using the system, we managed
to identify Hamas missile squad commanders,” Col. Yoav said in the
lecture, referring to Israel’s May 2021 military operation in Gaza, when
the machine was used for the first time.
Slides from a lecture presentation by the
commander of IDF Unit 8200’s Data Science and AI center at Tel Aviv
University in 2023, obtained by +972 and Local Call.
Slides from a lecture presentation by the
commander of IDF Unit 8200’s Data Science and AI center at Tel Aviv
University in 2023, obtained by +972 and Local Call.
The lecture presentation slides, also
obtained by +972 and Local Call, contain illustrations of how the
machine works: it is fed data about existing Hamas operatives, it learns
to notice their features, and then it rates other Palestinians based on
how similar they are to the militants.
“We rank the results and determine
the threshold [at which to attack a target],” Col. Yoav said in the
lecture, emphasizing that “eventually, people of flesh and blood take
the decisions. In the defense realm, ethically speaking, we put a lot of
emphasis on this. These tools are meant to help [intelligence officers]
break their barriers.”
In practice, however, sources who
have used Lavender in recent months say human agency and precision were
substituted for mass target creation and lethality.
‘There was no “zero-error” policy’
B., a senior officer who used
Lavender, echoed to +972 and Local Call that in the current war,
officers were not required to independently review the AI system’s
assessments, in order to save time and enable the mass production of
human targets without hindrances.
“Everything was statistical,
everything was neat — it was very dry,” B. said. He noted that this lack
of supervision was permitted despite internal checks showing that
Lavender’s calculations were considered accurate only 90 percent of the
time; in other words, it was known in advance that 10 percent of the
human targets slated for assassination were not members of the Hamas
military wing at all.
For example, sources explained that
the Lavender machine sometimes mistakenly flagged individuals who had
communication patterns similar to known Hamas or PIJ operatives —
including police and civil defense workers, militants’ relatives,
residents who happened to have a name and nickname identical to that of
an operative, and Gazans who used a device that once belonged to a Hamas
operative.
“How close does a person have to be
to Hamas to be [considered by an AI machine to be] affiliated with the
organization?” said one source critical of Lavender’s inaccuracy. “It’s a
vague boundary. Is a person who doesn’t receive a salary from Hamas,
but helps them with all sorts of things, a Hamas operative? Is someone
who was in Hamas in the past, but is no longer there today, a Hamas
operative? Each of these features — characteristics that a machine would
flag as suspicious — is inaccurate.”
Palestinians at the site of an Israeli
airstrike in Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip, February 24, 2024. (Abed
Rahim Khatib/Flash90)
Similar problems exist with the
ability of target machines to assess the phone used by an individual
marked for assassination. “In war, Palestinians change phones all the
time,” said the source. “People lose contact with their families, give
their phone to a friend or a wife, maybe lose it. There is no way to
rely 100 percent on the automatic mechanism that determines which
[phone] number belongs to whom.”
According to the sources, the army
knew that the minimal human supervision in place would not discover
these faults. “There was no ‘zero-error’ policy. Mistakes were treated
statistically,” said a source who used Lavender. “Because of the scope
and magnitude, the protocol was that even if you don’t know for sure
that the machine is right, you know that statistically it’s fine. So you
go for it.”
“It has proven itself,” said B., the
senior source. “There’s something about the statistical approach that
sets you to a certain norm and standard. There has been an illogical
amount of [bombings] in this operation. This is unparalleled, in my
memory. And I have much more trust in a statistical mechanism than a
soldier who lost a friend two days ago. Everyone there, including me,
lost people on October 7. The machine did it coldly. And that made it
easier.”
Another intelligence source, who
defended the reliance on the Lavender-generated kill lists of
Palestinian suspects, argued that it was worth investing an intelligence
officer’s time only to verify the information if the target was a
senior commander in Hamas. “But when it comes to a junior militant, you
don’t want to invest manpower and time in it,” he said. “In war, there
is no time to incriminate every target. So you’re willing to take the
margin of error of using artificial intelligence, risking collateral
damage and civilians dying, and risking attacking by mistake, and to
live with it.”
B. said that the reason for this automation was a constant push to
generate more targets for assassination. “In a day without targets
[whose feature rating was sufficient to authorize a strike], we attacked
at a lower threshold. We were constantly being pressured: ‘Bring us
more targets.’ They really shouted at us. We finished [killing] our
targets very quickly.”
He explained that when lowering the
rating threshold of Lavender, it would mark more people as targets for
strikes. “At its peak, the system managed to generate 37,000 people as
potential human targets,” said B. “But the numbers changed all the time,
because it depends on where you set the bar of what a Hamas operative
is. There were times when a Hamas operative was defined more broadly,
and then the machine started bringing us all kinds of civil defense
personnel, police officers, on whom it would be a shame to waste bombs.
They help the Hamas government, but they don’t really endanger
soldiers.”
Palestinians at the site of a building
destroyed by an Israeli airstrike in Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip,
March 18, 2024. (Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90)
One source who worked with the
military data science team that trained Lavender said that data
collected from employees of the Hamas-run Internal Security Ministry,
whom he does not consider to be militants, was also fed into the
machine. “I was bothered by the fact that when Lavender was trained,
they used the term ‘Hamas operative’ loosely, and included people who
were civil defense workers in the training dataset,” he said.
The source added that even if one
believes these people deserve to be killed, training the system based on
their communication profiles made Lavender more likely to select
civilians by mistake when its algorithms were applied to the general
population. “Since it’s an automatic system that isn’t operated manually
by humans, the meaning of this decision is dramatic: it means you’re
including many people with a civilian communication profile as potential
targets.”
‘We only checked that the target was a man’
The Israeli military flatly rejects
these claims. In a statement to +972 and Local Call, the IDF
Spokesperson denied using artificial intelligence to incriminate
targets, saying these are merely “auxiliary tools that assist officers
in the process of incrimination.” The statement went on: “In any case,
an independent examination by an [intelligence] analyst is required,
which verifies that the identified targets are legitimate targets for
attack, in accordance with the conditions set forth in IDF directives
and international law.
However, sources said that the only
human supervision protocol in place before bombing the houses of
suspected “junior” militants marked by Lavender was to conduct a single
check: ensuring that the AI-selected target is male rather than female.
The assumption in the army was that if it were a woman, the machine had
likely made a mistake, because there are no women among the ranks of the
military wings of Hamas and PIJ.
“A human being had to [verify the
target] for just a few seconds,” B. said, explaining that this became
the protocol after realizing the Lavender system was “getting it right”
most of the time. “At first, we did checks to ensure that the machine
didn’t get confused. But at some point we relied on the automatic
system, and we only checked that [the target] was a man — that was
enough. It doesn’t take a long time to tell if someone has a male or a
female voice.”
To conduct the male/female check, B.
claimed that in the current war, “I would invest 20 seconds for each
target at this stage, and do dozens of them every day. I had zero added
value as a human, apart from being a stamp of approval. It saved a lot
of time. If [the operative] came up in the automated mechanism, and I
checked that he was a man, there would be permission to bomb him,
subject to an examination of collateral damage.”
Palestinians emerge from the rubble of
houses destroyed in Israeli airstrikes in the city of Rafah, southern
Gaza Strip, November 20, 2023. (Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90)
In practice, sources said this meant
that for civilian men marked in error by Lavender, there was no
supervising mechanism in place to detect the mistake. According to B., a
common error occurred “if the [Hamas] target gave [his phone] to his
son, his older brother, or just a random man. That person will be bombed
in his house with his family. This happened often. These were most of
the mistakes caused by Lavender,” B. said.
STEP 2: LINKING TARGETS TO FAMILY HOMES
‘Most of the people you killed were women and children’
The next stage in the Israeli army’s assassination procedure is identifying where to attack the targets that Lavender generates.
In a statement to +972 and Local
Call, the IDF Spokesperson claimed in response to this article that
“Hamas places its operatives and military assets in the heart of the
civilian population, systematically uses the civilian population as
human shields, and conducts fighting from within civilian structures,
including sensitive sites such as hospitals, mosques, schools and UN
facilities. The IDF is bound by and acts according to international law,
directing its attacks only at military targets and military
operatives.”
The six sources we spoke to echoed this to some degree, saying that Hamas’ extensive tunnel system
deliberately passes under hospitals and schools; that Hamas militants
use ambulances to get around; and that countless military assets have
been situated near civilian buildings. The sources argued that many
Israeli strikes kill civilians as a result of these tactics by Hamas — a
characterization that human rights groups warn evades Israel’s onus for inflicting the casualties.
However, in contrast to the Israeli
army’s official statements, the sources explained that a major reason
for the unprecedented death toll from Israel’s current bombardment is
the fact that the army has systematically attacked targets in their
private homes, alongside their families — in part because it was easier
from an intelligence standpoint to mark family houses using automated
systems.
Indeed, several sources emphasized
that, as opposed to numerous cases of Hamas operatives engaging in
military activity from civilian areas, in the case of systematic
assassination strikes, the army routinely made the active choice to bomb
suspected militants when inside civilian households from which no
military activity took place. This choice, they said, was a reflection
of the way Israel’s system of mass surveillance in Gaza is designed.
Palestinians rush to bring the wounded,
including many children, to Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City as Israeli
forces continue pounding the Gaza Strip, October 11, 2023. (Mohammed
Zaanoun/Activestills)
The sources told +972 and Local Call
that since everyone in Gaza had a private house with which they could be
associated, the army’s surveillance systems could easily and
automatically “link” individuals to family houses. In order to identify
the moment operatives enter their houses in real time, various
additional automatic softwares have been developed. These programs track
thousands of individuals simultaneously, identify when they are at
home, and send an automatic alert to the targeting officer, who then
marks the house for bombing. One of several of these tracking softwares,
revealed here for the first time, is called “Where’s Daddy?”
“You put hundreds [of targets] into
the system and wait to see who you can kill,” said one source with
knowledge of the system. “It’s called broad hunting: you copy-paste from
the lists that the target system produces.”
Evidence of this policy is also clear
from the data: during the first month of the war, more than half of the
fatalities — 6,120 people — belonged to 1,340 families, many of which
were completely wiped out while inside their homes, according to UN figures. The proportion of entire families bombed in their houses in the current war is much higher than in the 2014 Israeli operation in Gaza, further suggesting the prominence of this policy.
Another source said that each time
the pace of assassinations waned, more targets were added to systems
like Where’s Daddy? to locate individuals that entered their homes and
could therefore be bombed. He said that the decision of who to put into
the tracking systems could be made by relatively low-ranking officers in
the military hierarchy.
“One day, totally of my own accord, I
added something like 1,200 new targets to the [tracking] system,
because the number of attacks [we were conducting] decreased,” the
source said. “That made sense to me. In retrospect, it seems like a
serious decision I made. And such decisions were not made at high
levels.”
The sources said that in the first
two weeks of the war, “several thousand” targets were initially inputted
into locating programs like Where’s Daddy?. These included all the
members of Hamas’ elite special forces unit the Nukhba, all of Hamas’
anti-tank operatives, and anyone who entered Israel on October 7. But
before long, the kill list was drastically expanded.
“In the end it was everyone [marked
by Lavender],” one source explained. “Tens of thousands. This happened a
few weeks later, when the [Israeli] brigades entered Gaza, and there
were already fewer uninvolved people [i.e. civilians] in the northern
areas.” According to this source, even some minors were marked by
Lavender as targets for bombing. “Normally, operatives are over the age
of 17, but that was not a condition.”
Wounded Palestinians are treated on the
floor due to overcrowding at Al-Shifa Hospital, Gaza City, central Gaza
Strip, October 18, 2023. (Mohammed Zaanoun/Activestills)
Lavender and systems like Where’s
Daddy? were thus combined with deadly effect, killing entire families,
sources said. By adding a name from the Lavender-generated lists to the
Where’s Daddy? home tracking system, A. explained, the marked person
would be placed under ongoing surveillance, and could be attacked as
soon as they set foot in their home, collapsing the house on everyone
inside.
“Let’s say you calculate [that there
is one] Hamas [operative] plus 10 [civilians in the house],” A. said.
“Usually, these 10 will be women and children. So absurdly, it turns out
that most of the people you killed were women and children.”
STEP 3: CHOOSING A WEAPON
‘We usually carried out the attacks with “dumb bombs”’
Once Lavender has marked a target for
assassination, army personnel have verified that they are male, and
tracking software has located the target in their home, the next stage
is picking the munition with which to bomb them.
In December 2023, CNN reported that
according to U.S. intelligence estimates, about 45 percent of the
munitions used by the Israeli air force in Gaza were “dumb” bombs, which
are known to cause more collateral damage than guided bombs. In
response to the CNN report, an army spokesperson quoted in the article
said: “As a military committed to
international law and a moral code of conduct, we are devoting vast
resources to minimizing harm to the civilians that Hamas has forced into
the role of human shields. Our war is against Hamas, not against the
people of Gaza.”
Three intelligence sources, however,
told +972 and Local Call that junior operatives marked by Lavender were
assassinated only with dumb bombs, in the interest of saving more
expensive armaments. The implication, one source explained, was that the
army would not strike a junior target if they lived in a high-rise
building, because the army did not want to spend a more precise and
expensive “floor bomb” (with more limited collateral effect) to kill
him. But if a junior target lived in a building with only a few floors,
the army was authorized to kill him and everyone in the building with a
dumb bomb.
Palestinians at the site of a building
destroyed by an Israeli airstrike in Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip,
March 18, 2024. (Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90)
“It was like that with all the junior
targets,” testified C., who used various automated programs in the
current war. “The only question was, is it possible to attack the
building in terms of collateral damage? Because we usually carried out
the attacks with dumb bombs, and that meant literally destroying the
whole house on top of its occupants. But even if an attack is averted,
you don’t care — you immediately move on to the next target. Because of
the system, the targets never end. You have another 36,000 waiting.”
STEP 4: AUTHORIZING CIVILIAN CASUALTIES
‘We attacked almost without considering collateral damage’
One source said that when attacking
junior operatives, including those marked by AI systems like Lavender,
the number of civilians they were allowed to kill alongside each target
was fixed during the initial weeks of the war at up to 20. Another
source claimed the fixed number was up to 15. These “collateral damage
degrees,” as the military calls them, were applied broadly to all
suspected junior militants, the sources said, regardless of their rank,
military importance, and age, and with no specific case-by-case
examination to weigh the military advantage of assassinating them
against the expected harm to civilians.
According to A., who was an officer
in a target operation room in the current war, the army’s international
law department has never before given such “sweeping approval” for such a
high collateral damage degree. “It’s not just that you can kill any
person who is a Hamas soldier, which is clearly permitted and legitimate
in terms of international law,” A. said. “But they directly tell you:
‘You are allowed to kill them along with many civilians.’
“Every person who wore a Hamas
uniform in the past year or two could be bombed with 20 [civilians
killed as] collateral damage, even without special permission,” A.
continued. “In practice, the principle of proportionality did not
exist.”
According to A., this was the policy
for most of the time that he served. Only later did the military lower
the collateral damage degree. “In this calculation, it could also be 20
children for a junior operative … It really wasn’t like that in the
past,” A. explained. Asked about the security rationale behind this
policy, A. replied: “Lethality.”
Palestinians wait to receive the bodies of
their relatives who were killed in Israeli airstrikes, at Al-Najjar
Hospital in Rafah, southern Gaza Strip, November 7, 2023. (Abed Rahim
Khatib/Flash90)
The predetermined and fixed
collateral damage degree helped accelerate the mass creation of targets
using the Lavender machine, sources said, because it saved time. B.
claimed that the number of civilians they were permitted to kill per
suspected junior militant marked by AI in the first week of the war, was
fifteen, but that this number “went up and down” over time.
“At first we attacked almost without
considering collateral damage,” B. said of the first week after October
7. “In practice, you didn’t really count people [in each house that is
bombed], because you couldn’t really tell if they’re at home or not.
After a week, restrictions on collateral damage began. The number
dropped [from 15] to five, which made it really difficult for us to
attack, because if the whole family was home, we couldn’t bomb it. Then
they raised the number again.”
‘We knew we would kill over 100 civilians’
Sources told +972 and Local Call that
now, partly due to American pressure, the Israeli army is no longer
mass-generating junior human targets for bombing in civilian homes. The
fact that most homes in the Gaza Strip were already destroyed or
damaged, and almost the entire population has been displaced, also
impaired the army’s ability to rely on intelligence databases and
automated house-locating programs.
E. claimed that the massive
bombardment of junior militants took place only in the first week or two
of the war, and then was stopped mainly so as not to waste bombs.
“There is a munitions economy,” E. said. “They were always afraid that
there would be [a war] in the northern arena [with Hezbollah in
Lebanon]. They don’t attack these kinds of [junior] people at all
anymore.”
However, airstrikes against senior
ranking Hamas commanders are still ongoing, and sources said that for
these attacks, the military is authorizing the killing of “hundreds” of
civilians per target — an official policy for which there is no
historical precedent in Israel, or even in recent U.S. military
operations.
“In the bombing of the commander of
the Shuja’iya Battalion, we knew that we would kill over 100 civilians,”
B. recalled of a Dec. 2 bombing that the IDF Spokesperson said
was aimed at assassinating Wisam Farhat. “For me, psychologically, it
was unusual. Over 100 civilians — it crosses some red line.”
A ball of fire and smoke rises during Israeli airstrikes in the Gaza Strip, October 9, 2023. (Atia Mohammed/Flash90)
Amjad Al-Sheikh, a young Palestinian
from Gaza, said many of his family members were killed in that bombing. A
resident of Shuja’iya, east of Gaza City, he was at a local supermarket
that day when he heard five blasts that shattered the glass windows.
“I ran to my family’s house, but
there were no buildings there anymore,” Al-Sheikh told +972 and Local
Call. “The street was filled with screams and smoke. Entire residential
blocks turned to mountains of rubble and deep pits. People began to
search in the cement, using their hands, and so did I, looking for signs
of my family’s house.
Al-Sheikh’s wife and baby daughter
survived — protected from the rubble by a closet that fell on top of
them — but he found 11 other members of his family, among them his
sisters, brothers, and their young children, dead under the rubble. According to
the human rights group B’Tselem, the bombing that day destroyed dozens
of buildings, killed dozens of people, and buried hundreds under the
ruins of their homes.
‘Entire families were killed’
Intelligence sources told +972 and
Local Call they took part in even deadlier strikes. In order to
assassinate Ayman Nofal, the commander of Hamas’ Central Gaza Brigade, a
source said the army authorized the killing of approximately 300
civilians, destroying several buildings in airstrikes on Al-Bureij refugee camp on Oct. 17 based on an imprecise pinpointing of Nofal. Satellite footage and videos from the scene show the destruction of several large multi-storey apartment buildings.
“Between 16 to 18 houses were wiped
out in the attack,” Amro Al-Khatib, a resident of the camp, told +972
and Local Call. “We couldn’t tell one apartment from the other — they
all got mixed up in the rubble, and we found human body parts
everywhere.”
In the aftermath, Al-Khatib recalled
around 50 dead bodies being pulled out of the rubble, and around 200
people wounded, many of them gravely. But that was just the first day.
The camp’s residents spent five days pulling the dead and injured out,
he said.
Palestinians digging with bear hands find a
dead body in the rubble after an Israeli airstrike which killed dozens
Palestinians in the middle of Al-Maghazi refugee camp, central Gaza
Strip, November 5, 2023. (Mohammed Zaanoun/Activestills)
Nael Al-Bahisi, a paramedic, was one
of the first on the scene. He counted between 50-70 casualties on that
first day. “At a certain moment, we understood the target of the strike
was Hamas commander Ayman Nofal,” he told +972 and Local Call. “They
killed him, and also many people who didn’t know he was there. Entire
families with children were killed.”
Another intelligence source told +972 and Local Call that the army destroyed a high-rise building in Rafah in mid-December, killing “dozens of civilians,” in order to try to kill
Mohammed Shabaneh, the commander of Hamas’ Rafah Brigade (it is not
clear whether or not he was killed in the attack). Often, the source
said, the senior commanders hide in tunnels that pass under civilian
buildings, and therefore the choice to assassinate them with an
airstrike necessarily kills civilians.
“Most of those injured were
children,” said Wael Al-Sir, 55, who witnessed the large-scale strike
believed by some Gazans to have been the assassination attempt. He told
+972 and Local Call that the bombing on Dec. 20 destroyed an “entire
residential block” and killed at least 10 children.
“There was a completely permissive
policy regarding the casualties of [bombing] operations — so permissive
that in my opinion it had an element of revenge,” D., an intelligence
source, claimed. “The core of this was the assassinations of senior
[Hamas and PIJ commanders] for whom they were willing to kill hundreds
of civilians. We had a calculation: how many for a brigade commander,
how many for a battalion commander, and so on.”
“There were regulations, but they
were just very lenient,” said E., another intelligence source. “We’ve
killed people with collateral damage in the high double digits, if not
low triple digits. These are things that haven’t happened before.”
Palestinians inspect their homes and try to
rescue their relatives from under the rubble after an Israeli airstrike
in the city of Rafah, southern Gaza Strip, October 22, 2023. (Abed
Rahim Khatib/Flash90)
Such a high rate of “collateral
damage” is exceptional not only compared to what the Israeli army
previously deemed acceptable, but also compared to the wars waged by the
United States in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.
General Peter Gersten, Deputy Commander for Operations and Intelligence in the operation to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria, told
a U.S. defense magazine in 2021 that an attack with collateral damage
of 15 civilians deviated from procedure; to carry it out, he had to
obtain special permission from the head of the U.S. Central Command,
General Lloyd Austin, who is now Secretary of Defense.
“With Osama Bin Laden, you’d have an
NCV [Non-combatant Casualty Value] of 30, but if you had a low-level
commander, his NCV was typically zero,” Gersten said. “We ran zero for
the longest time.”
‘We were told: “Whatever you can, bomb”’
All the sources interviewed for this
investigation said that Hamas’ massacres on October 7 and kidnapping of
hostages greatly influenced the army’s fire policy and collateral damage
degrees. “At first, the atmosphere was painful and vindictive,” said
B., who was drafted into the army immediately after October 7, and
served in a target operation room. “The rules were very lenient. They
took down four buildings when they knew the target was in one of them.
It was crazy.
“There was a dissonance: on the one
hand, people here were frustrated that we were not attacking enough,” B.
continued. “On the other hand, you see at the end of the day that
another thousand Gazans have died, most of them civilians.”
“There was hysteria in the
professional ranks,” said D., who was also drafted immediately after
October 7. “They had no idea how to react at all. The only thing they
knew to do was to just start bombing like madmen to try to dismantle
Hamas’ capabilities.”
Defence Minister Yoav Gallant speaks with
Israeli soldiers at a staging area not far from the Gaza fence, October
19, 2023. (Chaim Goldberg/Flash90)
D. stressed that they were not explicitly told that the army’s goal
was “revenge,” but expressed that “as soon as every target connected to
Hamas becomes legitimate, and with almost any collateral damage being
approved, it is clear to you that thousands of people are going to be
killed. Even if officially every target is connected to Hamas, when the
policy is so permissive, it loses all meaning.”
A. also used the word “revenge” to
describe the atmosphere inside the army after October 7. “No one thought
about what to do afterward, when the war is over, or how it will be
possible to live in Gaza and what they will do with it,” A. said. “We
were told: now we have to fuck up Hamas, no matter what the cost.
Whatever you can, you bomb.”
B., the senior intelligence source,
said that in retrospect, he believes this “disproportionate” policy of
killing Palestinians in Gaza also endangers Israelis, and that this was
one of the reasons he decided to be interviewed.
“In the short term, we are safer,
because we hurt Hamas. But I think we’re less secure in the long run. I
see how all the bereaved families in Gaza — which is nearly everyone —
will raise the motivation for [people to join] Hamas 10 years down the
line. And it will be much easier for [Hamas] to recruit them.”
In a statement to +972 and Local
Call, the Israeli army denied much of what the sources told us, claiming
that “each target is examined individually, while an individual
assessment is made of the military advantage and collateral damage
expected from the attack … The IDF does not carry out attacks when the
collateral damage expected from the attack is excessive in relation to
the military advantage.”
STEP 5: CALCULATING COLLATERAL DAMAGE
‘The model was not connected to reality’
According to the intelligence
sources, the Israeli army’s calculation of the number of civilians
expected to be killed in each house alongside a target — a procedure
examined in a previous investigation
by +972 and Local Call — was conducted with the help of automatic and
inaccurate tools. In previous wars, intelligence personnel would spend a
lot of time verifying how many people were in a house that was set to
be bombed, with the number of civilians liable to be killed listed as
part of a “target file.” After October 7, however, this thorough
verification was largely abandoned in favor of automation.
In October, The New York Times reported
on a system operated from a special base in southern Israel, which
collects information from mobile phones in the Gaza Strip and provided
the military with a live estimate of the number of Palestinians who fled
the northern Gaza Strip southward. Brig. General Udi Ben Muha told the
Times that “It’s not a 100 percent perfect system — but it gives you the
information you need to make a decision.” The system operates according
to colors: red marks areas where there are many people, and green and
yellow mark areas that have been relatively cleared of residents.
Palestinians walk on a main road after
fleeing from their homes in Gaza City to the southern part of Gaza,
November 10, 2023. (Atia Mohammed/Flash90)
The sources who spoke to +972 and
Local Call described a similar system for calculating collateral damage,
which was used to decide whether to bomb a building in Gaza. They said
that the software calculated the number of civilians residing in each
home before the war — by assessing the size of the building and
reviewing its list of residents — and then reduced those numbers by the
proportion of residents who supposedly evacuated the neighborhood.
To illustrate, if the army estimated
that half of a neighborhood’s residents had left, the program would
count a house that usually had 10 residents as a house containing five
people. To save time, the sources said, the army did not surveil the
homes to check how many people were actually living there, as it did in
previous operations, to find out if the program’s estimate was indeed
accurate.
“This model was not connected to
reality,” claimed one source. “There was no connection between those who
were in the home now, during the war, and those who were listed as
living there prior to the war. [On one occasion] we bombed a house
without knowing that there were several families inside, hiding
together.”
The source said that although the
army knew that such errors could occur, this imprecise model was adopted
nonetheless, because it was faster. As such, the source said, “the
collateral damage calculation was completely automatic and statistical” —
even producing figures that were not whole numbers.
STEP 6: BOMBING A FAMILY HOME
‘You killed a family for no reason’
The sources who spoke to +972 and
Local Call explained that there was sometimes a substantial gap between
the moment that tracking systems like Where’s Daddy? alerted an officer
that a target had entered their house, and the bombing itself — leading
to the killing of whole families even without hitting the army’s target.
“It happened to me many times that we attacked a house, but the person
wasn’t even home,” one source said. “The result is that you killed a
family for no reason.”
Three intelligence sources told +972
and Local Call that they had witnessed an incident in which the Israeli
army bombed a family’s private home, and it later turned out that the
intended target of the assassination was not even inside the house,
since no further verification was conducted in real time.
Palestinians receive the bodies of
relatives who were killed in Israeli airstrikes, Al-Najjar Hospital,
southern Gaza Strip, November 6, 2023. (Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90)
“Sometimes [the target] was at home
earlier, and then at night he went to sleep somewhere else, say
underground, and you didn’t know about it,” one of the sources said.
“There are times when you double-check the location, and there are times
when you just say, ‘Okay, he was in the house in the last few hours, so
you can just bomb.’”
Another source described a similar
incident that affected him and made him want to be interviewed for this
investigation. “We understood that the target was home at 8 p.m. In the
end, the air force bombed the house at 3 a.m. Then we found out [in that
span of time] he had managed to move himself to another house with his
family. There were two other families with children in the building we
bombed.”
In previous wars in Gaza, after the
assassination of human targets, Israeli intelligence would carry out
bomb damage assessment (BDA) procedures — a routine post-strike check to
see if the senior commander was killed and how many civilians were
killed along with him. As revealed in a previous +972 and Local Call investigation,
this involved listening in to phone calls of relatives who lost their
loved ones. In the current war, however, at least in relation to junior
militants marked using AI, sources say this procedure was abolished in
order to save time. The sources said they did not know how many
civilians were actually killed in each strike, and for the low-ranking
suspected Hamas and PIJ operatives marked by AI, they did not even know
whether the target himself was killed.
“You don’t know exactly how many you killed, and who you killed,” an intelligence source told Local Call
for a previous investigation published in January. “Only when it’s
senior Hamas operatives do you follow the BDA procedure. In the rest of
the cases, you don’t care. You get a report from the air force about
whether the building was blown up, and that’s it. You have no idea how
much collateral damage there was; you immediately move on to the next
target. The emphasis was to create as many targets as possible, as
quickly as possible.”
But while the Israeli military may
move on from each strike without dwelling on the number of casualties,
Amjad Al-Sheikh, the Shuja’iya resident who lost 11 of his family
members in the Dec. 2 bombardment, said that he and his neighbors are
still searching for corpses.
“Until now, there are bodies under
the rubble,” he said. “Fourteen residential buildings were bombed with
their residents inside. Some of my relatives and neighbors are still
buried.”