The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) recently announced plans to initiate criminal investigations into five incidents involving harm to civilians during the conflict in Gaza, incidents previously examined by the General Staff Fact-Finding and Assessment Mechanism. The announcement has drawn criticism from analysts who argue the process is largely symbolic and fails to address broader concerns about Israeli military conduct.
Critics maintain that the IDF follows a recurring pattern in response to allegations of civilian harm: initial sweeping denials, selective scrutiny of highly publicized cases under media pressure, and delayed, minimal acknowledgments well after public interest has waned. This pattern, they say, has prevailed over the past several years, including during high-profile incidents such as the killing of Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in 2022.
Observers note that the five cases selected for investigation represent a fraction of the civilian harm linked to the conflict. Independent tracking organizations report thousands of such incidents since October 7, 2023. One international nonprofit documented more than 15,000 cases of civilian casualties or injuries during that period, asserting their data is based on open sources with a transparent methodology. This figure, they argue, represents only a portion of the actual toll, as many incidents lack documentation accessible outside Gaza.
According to statements recorded from Israeli military leadership, all fatalities in Gaza since the conflict began have been internally classified as terrorists, a view that includes more than 20,000 children. This stance has drawn scrutiny amid ongoing debates over how civilian casualties are categorized and addressed.
The IDF’s policy of self-investigation faces criticism for relying heavily on internal legal reviews and procedures that critics describe as lacking transparency and efficacy. Independent groups have highlighted that legal assessments authorizing military actions are sometimes cursory, with some approvals reportedly issued within seconds. Furthermore, legal mechanisms intended to investigate alleged misconduct often result in few criminal probes and even fewer indictments. For example, data from several prior operations show that over 80 percent of cases referred to the General Staff Fact-Finding Assessment Mechanism were closed without formal investigations, and over recent years, the number of criminal inquiries has declined.
Human rights organizations and legal advocates argue that the military’s internal processes serve as a shield rather than a genuine effort to uncover wrongdoing. They point to difficulties faced by Palestinians and advocacy groups in initiating investigations and accessing information. Cases that have made it through the system rarely culminate in criminal accountability, with only one indictment reportedly filed out of more than 600 reviewed incidents from earlier conflicts.
The recent investigations announced by the IDF come in the context of increased international scrutiny, including unprecedented actions by the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has issued arrest warrants against Israeli officials, including the prime minister and former defense minister, over alleged violations related to the Gaza conflict. These moves reflect broader concerns about accountability and adherence to international humanitarian law.
As the IDF advances its current investigations, critics warn that procedural transparency and independent oversight remain insufficient and call for a more thorough and impartial examination of civilian harm. They contend that without such efforts, both Israeli authorities and the international community risk further eroding trust in mechanisms meant to uphold human rights and the rule of law.