|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A sharp dispute has emerged within the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) over the legality of the ongoing invasion of Gaza City, particularly regarding the humanitarian measures for over one million Palestinian civilians ordered to evacuate.
The Jerusalem Post has learned that in recent days, two critical meetings were held among senior IDF officials, highlighting tensions over whether the operation complied with legal and humanitarian standards.
According to sources, IDF Military Advocate-General Maj.-Gen. Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi had warned that the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) must present specific, verifiable data on humanitarian needs before the invasion could proceed. Her warning underscored the legal obligation to ensure the welfare of civilians displaced by military operations.
In one of the meetings, Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir, Southern Command Chief Maj.-Gen. Yaron Finkelman, and COGAT Chief Maj.-Gen. Rasan Elian decided to move forward with the invasion without Tomer-Yerushalmi present. Critics later accused Zamir of bypassing legal counsel.
However, the Post has confirmed that Zamir subsequently held a separate meeting with Tomer-Yerushalmi, during which all relevant humanitarian data was reviewed. This sequence left ambiguity in the narrative: while Zamir did consult the IDF’s top legal authority, the timing and exclusion from the earlier meeting remain unexplained.
The IDF Spokesperson’s Unit dismissed the allegations, first reported by Haaretz, as “baldly false.” It insisted that no evacuation orders were issued until all legal requirements set by the MAG were fulfilled.
International law and civilian safety have weighed heavily on Zamir, who previously opposed the Gaza City invasion during cabinet discussions, citing both humanitarian concerns and the safety of Israeli hostages.
Yet, since Zamir and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s deputy, Maj.-Gen. Asur, assumed leadership in March, operational mistakes have spiked, resulting in higher Palestinian civilian casualties than under their predecessors. Critics argue these lapses bolster long-standing accusations of disproportionate force and potential violations of the laws of war.
The internal debate reflects broader tensions within Israel’s security establishment as it attempts to balance military objectives with international legal standards and humanitarian obligations.
For now, the IDF maintains that all necessary precautions were taken. Still, the lingering questions about process, transparency, and accountability may intensify external scrutiny of Israel’s conduct in Gaza City.