## Facts

- Human-rights organizations and individuals petitioned Israel’s Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice to challenge the government’s policy of “targeted killings” of suspected members of Palestinian armed groups in the West Bank and Gaza.
- Petitioners sought a prospective declaration that the policy was unlawful under international and Israeli law and an order requiring the State to cease the practice.
- The government defended the policy as a lawful response to ongoing attacks by organized armed groups.
- The Court addressed the legality of the policy in principle, based on materials submitted by the parties, rather than adjudicating any single operation.

## Issues

1. Whether the confrontation between Israel and Palestinian armed organizations in the West Bank and Gaza constitutes an armed conflict, and which body of international humanitarian law (IHL) applies.
2. How to classify members of Palestinian armed organizations for targeting purposes under IHL.
3. Whether targeted killings are categorically prohibited or potentially lawful depending on circumstances.
4. What substantive and procedural constraints (including preference for capture, proportionality, and post-operation investigation) govern any lawful use of targeted killing.

## Decision

- The Court held the situation constituted a continuous armed conflict occurring in occupied territory and applied the law of international armed conflict, including belligerent occupation and customary IHL.
- The Court rejected a categorical ban on targeted killings and declined to declare the policy unlawful per se.
- The Court treated relevant members of armed organizations as civilians who lose protection “for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities,” making them targetable only during that period and only under strict conditions.
- The Court required case-by-case assessments grounded in reliable intelligence, consideration of capture when feasible, and compliance with proportionality to minimize incidental civilian harm.
- The Court required post-operation, independent investigation and recognized that compensation may be appropriate when innocent civilians are harmed.
- The petitions were dismissed because the Court would not order the State to cease the policy categorically.

## Legal Principles

- In an armed conflict in occupied territory, conduct of hostilities is governed by the law of international armed conflict, including customary IHL and occupation law.
- Persons who are not lawful combatants may still be lawfully targeted if, and only for as long as, they directly participate in hostilities; organizational affiliation alone is insufficient without individualized assessment.
- Targeting decisions require well-founded, verifiable information supporting the conclusion that the person is directly participating in hostilities.
- Even when a person is targetable, necessity limits lethal force: if less harmful means (including capture) are feasible without disproportionate risk, lethal force is impermissible.
- Proportionality applies to targeted killings: anticipated incidental civilian harm must not be excessive in relation to the expected concrete and direct military advantage.
- Accountability obligations include independent ex post review of each operation and remedial measures, potentially including compensation for wrongful harm to civilians.

## Conclusion

The Court recognized a continuous armed-conflict framework for Israel’s hostilities with organized Palestinian armed groups and held that targeted killings are not automatically unlawful, but may be lawful only after individualized, intelligence-based determinations of direct participation and only if capture is infeasible, proportionality is satisfied, and independent post-operation investigation and remedies are available.


Pub. Comm. Against Torture in Isr. v. Gov’t of Isr., 46 I.L.M. 375 (Isr. 2007)