Is 'Purity of Arms' holding the IDF back? Inside Israel’s battle over military ethics

You are a soldier, tasked with searching a house for a suspected terrorist and hidden weapons. The house is full of women, children, and an elderly, sick, bedridden man.

How do you proceed? Do you force the man out of bed immediately to complete a thorough search, or do you slow the search to treat him with kid gloves, possibly endangering your soldiers?

Judgment calls like these are everyday occurrences for 19-year-old soldiers – young men whose moral dilemmas only a year earlier involved not getting involved with their best friend’s girlfriend or resisting the urge to glance at the test paper of the nerd sitting in front of them.

But we send soldiers – not a cadre of lawyers – to the battlefield. How are these soldiers taught to make complex calls that could put them on the wrong end of an IED, or just as easily land them in military prison for taking an operation too far, according to the moral sensibilities of the most moral army in the world?

On August 9, according to Ynet, “The IDF raised the level of authorization required for certain strikes as high as the chief of staff, effectively requiring political approval in some cases. Commanders were also recently given explicit instructions to halt immediate-response fire, except in cases involving the removal of a direct threat.”

Per Hillel Biton Rosen, military and security correspondent for Channel 14, just days later Hamas operatives were identified crossing the Yellow Line ceasefire demarcation in Gaza, where they stole engineering equipment. Soldiers requested authorization to engage, but senior command denied the request.

The incursion was just one of more than 65 crossings, three times the number recorded the week before the rules of engagement changed.

A senior security official said: “Hamas is testing us, exactly as it did before Oct. 7. What happened last night could have ended with a soldier being abducted.”

Permission-to-open-fire orders clearly act as a deterrent and are necessary to maintain law and order.

Yet, the rules of engagement are fluid and always have been. They change with government policies and with diplomatic pressure from allies and enemies alike. Even while operating under the rules, there are days when the army is instructed by political echelons to hold its fire, even though the day before, it would have opened fire.

IDF soldiers are faced with numerous situations that require sensitivity and mindful awareness of civilian populations, but when an army is dealing with terror operatives, tunnels, and a malicious entity that disguises itself as civilian and totally controls its civilian population, it is hard for any soldier to know who in the scheme of things is who.

Israel's life-saving measures go beyond what international law requires

JOHN SPENCER – chairman of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point, and one of the most prominent Western experts on urban warfare – has been a leading voice on Israel’s conduct of operations in Gaza. His views are based on comparative historical analysis of urban battles.

In a March 2024 Newsweek op-ed, Spencer claimed: “Israel has done more and implemented more measures to prevent civilian harm than any military in the history of urban warfare.”

He said these measures go beyond what international law requires and beyond what the US and its partners did in comparable fights in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Mosul against ISIS.

Specific practices Spencer lauded:

• Mass evacuation warnings (days or weeks in advance in some cases)

• Phone calls, text messages, and recorded voice messages to specific buildings or neighborhoods

• “Roof-knocking” (firing a small, non-lethal munition onto a roof as a final warning)

• Distribution of maps showing safe routes and daily updates on humanitarian corridors

• Frequent tactical pauses and localized pauses during operations

• Extensive use of precision-guided munitions and formal targeting processes

He noted that no other military has systematically combined these actions at this scale while fighting an enemy deeply embedded in dense urban terrain with a vast tunnel network.

Which raises the question: Does that make the IDF highly moral or overly cautious?

A history of the ethos

Military ethics long predates the State of Israel.

Carl von Clausewitz, who joined the Prussian army at age 12 and served in the Imperial Russian Army during the 1812 campaign against France, is widely regarded as the father of modern strategic studies and a philosopher of war. His book On War remains one of the key texts used to teach soldiers and shape modern military and political strategy.

He stated that “war is the continuation of politics by other means,” balancing the people, the army, and the government. Thus, politics determines when a soldier is given permission to shoot.

Here in Israel, we have seen firsthand how diplomacy can get in the way of winning a war. In Israel, where “Never Again” is our battle cry, upon enlisting, each soldier is given a document called “Ruah Zahal,” “The Spirit of the IDF,” which includes a section on “Purity of Arms.”

The purity of arms (tohar haneshek) was an unwritten military tradition developed in the pre-state Jewish defense organizations, especially the Hagana and its strike force, the Palmah, and passed on to the present-day IDF.

“Tohar haneshek” means keeping one’s weapon “clean” from innocent blood. It means weapons and force should be used only for self-defense and the mission, and only to the extent necessary.

Fighters are expected to avoid harming noncombatants, including civilians, prisoners, and the defenseless, as much as possible, and to maintain their humanity even in the midst of combat, refusing to sink into unnecessary cruelty, looting, revenge, or abuse.

By the early 1990s, the IDF had spent several years dealing with the First Intifada, which began in 1987. New missions involved frequent operations in densely populated civilian areas against non-state actors, stone-throwers, and terrorists who did not wear uniforms or separate themselves from the civilian population.

Traditional army-versus-army doctrines were no longer sufficient on their own. Commanders needed clearer guidance for soldiers operating in complex, morally ambiguous environments.

In 1994, then-IDF chief of staff Ehud Barak called in Asa Kasher, who was already deeply familiar with the IDF through years of teaching its officers, a respected professional ethicist capable of turning military tradition into a coherent modern code, and someone who could lend the project both intellectual seriousness and legitimacy.

He is a professor emeritus of professional ethics and philosophy of practice at Tel Aviv University, a senior researcher (emeritus) at the Institute for National Security Studies, and the recipient of the 2000 Israel Prize for philosophy.

Together, they created “Ruah Zahal,” the IDF Code of Ethics, preserving the morals of the “purity of arms” in precise written language. The formal version retained the core ideas of tohar haneshek – the use of force only for the mission, only to the necessary extent, and the obligation to avoid harming noncombatants – while placing them within a broader ethical framework that also included human dignity, the sanctity of life, and the values of a democratic state.

The ethical code treats the drive to accomplish the mission and achieve victory as essential, but not absolute. Force must still be used only to the extent necessary, humanity must be maintained, and unnecessary harm to noncombatants must be avoided. Victory is a professional and moral obligation of the soldier and the army, yet it does not license the use of unrestricted means.

Victory: Is the IDF 'allowed' to win a war?

Kasher’s views on victory appear to be the most controversial aspect of his body of writing on IDF military ethics, especially “Ruah Zahal.” He treated “victory” differently, depending on the type of conflict.

He espoused the view that in classical interstate wars between regular armies, traditional concepts of military victory (defeating or destroying the enemy’s capacity to continue fighting) remain relevant.

In the fight against terrorism and non-state actors who embed among civilians, however, Kasher argued in his fall 2014 essay “The Ethics of Protective Edge” in the Jewish Review of Books – the classical notion of total victory is often obsolete or strategically unattainable.

He has further written that in recent decades “victory has been replaced by the ideal of successfully accomplishing given missions.”

One of the core members of the committee appointed in 2000 to drastically revise the original IDF Code of Ethics was Prof. Avi Sagi, a philosopher and leading public voice on modern Jewish identity, existentialism, and military ethics. He served as a professor of philosophy at Bar-Ilan University and a senior research fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute.

In interviews with former Maariv journalist Tuvi (Toby) Pollack as late as 2024, Sagi argued that “victory is not a moral value” and warned that elevating it could justify the unrestrained use of force.

In a 2026 paper, “The IDF Needs to Return to Its Core Values,” published by Col. (res.) Prof. Gabi Siboni and Brig.-Gen. (ret.) Erez Winner, of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, described Sagi’s contribution to the “Purity of Arms” as “one of the most contentious changes” ever made to “Ruah Zahal.”

They continued, “The new language created a sense of ‘moral hygiene’ where the objective seemed not to be defeating the enemy but emerging from battle with a legal ‘clean sheet.’”

In his published paper “Correcting the IDF’s Ethical Code,” Dr. Ronen Shoval, an Israeli political philosopher and head of the Argaman Institute for Advanced Studies, quoted Sagi as saying (on the podcast On the Way: Conversations with Tuvi Pollack, episode 418, titled “Avi Sagi on the Ethics of Combat and Warfare, Dealing with Feelings of Revenge, and the Difficulty of Maintaining Human Dignity”): “Victory does not justify the use of force. If ‘victory’ meets the standard of self-defense, fine; if not, we should reserve the concept of victory for basketball or chess....”

Siboni and Winner argued that “in the end, victory was included only through a kind of compromise typical of Israel’s political culture, in the phrasing ‘commitment to the mission and striving for victory.’ Even so, the formulation of the value itself remained almost apologetic.

“For many in the fighting ranks, pushing victory to the margins of the value system conveyed a sense that the army had lost its bearings. If a military does not educate its soldiers to see victory as a central value, it risks losing its fundamental moral purpose: protecting the lives of the state’s citizens.”

'Israel is Just the Beginning'

IN A RECENT INTERVIEW with the Magazine, Moshe Feiglin – former MK and deputy speaker of the Knesset, and founder of the Zehut party, which recently announced it will be running in a technical election bloc with Bezalel Smotrich’s Religious Zionism party – he explained, “The Purity of Arms reiterates again and again that the word ‘victory’ is immoral because you’re only allowed to fight to protect yourself. You’re not allowed to fight for justice, for example, or for your country, or for your land, or to achieve any kind of victory over evil forces, because there is no good and bad in the world.”

Feiglin’s new book, Israel is Just the Beginning, posits that Israel’s refusal to embrace its own Jewish identity is keeping it from winning existential wars it must win to survive.

“As long as Israel and its army are led by community-minded leaders and not national ones, the war will not end, because in truth the national war has yet to begin,” wrote Feiglin, who lost a grandchild in Operation Swords of Iron.

“Despite the terrible sacrifice of the soldiers and officers who gave their lives to save our country, this war will not end until Israel’s leadership is likewise drawn from their ranks – from those who have not lost their national consciousness. The war will not end because a community, even one whose sons are heroes, does not win wars. A community can only lick its wounds and redeem its captives.”

In our interview, Feiglin was clear: “When you are in war, there should be only one goal, and it is to win.”

He extended this credo to acts of terrorism. “If an Arab comes out of his town and throws a rock at an Israeli car or at Israeli people who are walking and touring the land, the reaction [of the Israeli civilian or soldier] should be to shoot in order to kill, because he is fighting against you in a national war. It is not a private altercation between people. We are at war.

“When the Egyptian soldiers crossed the Suez Canal in 1973, they didn’t look to see who was shooting at that moment and who was not. They understood that we are at war. Every Arab throwing a rock on you is a soldier in the Arab national war. And when you are at war, there should be only one goal, and it is to win.

“In Gaza we tried not to use methods that would have ended the war fast,” Feiglin said. “We sent soldiers into booby traps and tunnels – including my own grandson.”

He paused for a painful moment. “We think by acting this way, we will gain points with the international moral conscience, but we are actually showing the world that we don’t accept our own code of justice. We want to show the world how westerly civilized we are – but they look at us and say ‘polite colonialists are still colonialists.’”

Do the “don’t shoot” directives, the roof-thumping and flyer dropping advanced warnings go above and beyond the call of duty to warn enemy civilians and combatants that the IDF is about to attack?

“The idea that we can train our soldiers to understand this moral precipice in the classroom fails to take into account the very dynamic nature of war and the ‘fog of war’ that has been described so well by Clausewitz,” Dr. David Leitner shared with the Magazine. He is a strategy and leadership expert, the founder of Rhydl Consulting, and a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University.

“Soldiers face unique situations every single time they go out into the field, and they must make decisions based on what they are experiencing in the moment,” he added.

“To judge those decisions from a legal standpoint that does not understand or accept that war takes place within civilian populations who have, at the very bare minimum, supported the enemy and often are actively participating in enemy activities – it is, in and of itself, a recipe for hesitation that can cost soldiers’ lives.

“International politics are heavily impacting the ability of frontline soldiers to act for their own safety, or to act in ways they perceive as vital for the safety of the home front and the achievement of victory.

“This lack of a clear, shared understanding of what victory looks like – both in the military and the political realms – has led to significant friction between the political and upper echelons of the military and the soldiers out in the field who are experiencing the war through their feet.”

The IDF weighs in

In a conversation with a senior military official, the Magazine asked: "Is the IDF fighting to win?"

The official explained that the overall picture shows the IDF striving to create conditions in which Hamas is weakened and exhausted, no longer capable of operating as it once did, and ultimately defeated. The goal is to eliminate any threat to the residents of the State of Israel. Achieving this objective requires a continuous effort to balance the application of force, strategy, and tactics.

Regarding whether soldiers might refrain from firing to avoid legal consequences, the official expressed certainty that this is not the case. Of the thousands of decisions made during the war, only a very small percentage ultimately reach investigation. Many of these reviews, the official added, are not formal investigations but, rather, inquiries designed to ensure that protocols were properly followed.

Returning to the earlier example of soldiers entering a house that might contain terrorists, the official was asked how the army teaches its forces to respect other cultures while maintaining determination and authority.

The official explained that the IDF does not dictate one precise, specific method for entering a house. Instead, soldiers are given the values and ethics that underlie the mission. They are reminded that a clear, specific mission is the sole reason they entered the house; following the mission’s logic is essential. Respect is emphasized not only as an ethical requirement but also as a practical one – a lack of respect creates chaos, hysteria, and unnecessary noise that harm the mission itself.

Preparation for these complex situations relies on repeated drills and simulations. The simulations are filmed so that soldiers can review the footage and learn from their mistakes.

When asked whether the code of “Purity of Arms” needs to be updated, the official acknowledged that work remains to be done but argued that the original statement does not require rephrasing or rewriting. The code is strong enough as written, the official said. The priority is ensuring the right tools are used to implement it.

Rewriting the rules: Is 'Purity of Arms' due for an upgrade?

While “Purity of Arms” assumes a meaningful distinction between combatants and noncombatants and the possibility of limiting force to what is necessary, Israel’s adversaries – Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, etc. – systematically reject that distinction.

They embed fighters, command centers, weapons, and tunnels inside and under civilian infrastructure, use human shields, and celebrate their own civilian deaths as strategic assets.

When the enemy deliberately creates mixed environments, the practical ability to apply force “only to the necessary extent” while still accomplishing the mission shrinks dramatically.

The Torah gives distinct guidelines for different kinds of wars, milhemet mitzvah and milhemet reshut, the former being the kind of war that must be fought under any circumstances. Then there is the Amalek war, where after being attacked by the merciless Amalekites, the fledgling nation of Israel was commanded to execute every man, woman, and child, and even livestock. The Talmud weighs in, saying, “If someone comes to kill you, you are obligated to kill him first.”

With that in mind, many individuals and political action groups hope that this year brings changes to the army’s document. These efforts reflect a broader post-Oct. 7 debate on the Right over whether the IDF’s formal ethical language adequately serves a Jewish army confronting existential threats.

In May 2026, MK Zvi Sukkot organized a letter, signed by about 30 coalition MKs, to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanding a full reexamination and rewrite of “Ruah Zahal.”

The signatories said lessons from the recent war and the changing security reality required reformulating the foundational principles so they strengthen fighters’ trust and align with the mission of defeating the enemy.

Sukkot criticized the existing version as having been written by “extreme leftists,” claimed Kasher had tried to damage the IDF, and insisted the code must state unequivocally that the lives of Israeli soldiers take precedence over those of the enemy.

Alongside Sukkot’s parliamentary push, a more ideological campaign has emerged from religious-Zionist circles seeking a fundamental rewrite of the IDF’s ethical protocols.

The Torat HaMedina institute, based in Jerusalem’s Beit Orot neighborhood, launched the book Mashiv HaRuah le-Zahal (Restoring the Spirit to the IDF) in spring 2026 as an explicit Jewish alternative to the existing “Ruah Zahal.”

Authored by rabbis Yair Kartman and Yaakov Yakir, the work argues that the current code is overly universalist and restraining, treating war as a necessary evil that risks moral corruption, rather than as a mitzvah and divine mission.

Drawing on Torah sources, it reframes combat as a continuation of the path of King David and the Maccabees, fought in the name of God and the people of Israel, and proposes five core values: defense of the Jewish people, sovereignty in the Land of Israel, decisive victory, Jewish morality rooted in tradition and prophecy, and the prioritization of Israeli soldiers’ lives in a collective national campaign.

The project has attracted visible support from senior religious and political figures, including Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu, National Missions Minister Orit Strock, and MK Simcha Rothman, who attended related events.

A more measured corrective proposal, advanced by former IDF deputy chief of staff Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Uzi Dayan and Rabbi Oury Cherki similarly elevate victory as the supreme value and clarify the primacy of Israeli lives, while remaining closer to the existing framework.

Rabbi Cherki explained that war is a catastrophe according to the Torah. But, he said, the Torah recognizes that we are going to get into wars, and we must defend ourselves against barbarians. The Ramban, he said, points out that when it is necessary, we are obligated to prevent attacks.

That is part of the morality of war, Cherki told the Magazine. We first seek peace, but if that can’t be achieved, we fight to win.

“We must fight against terrorists who fight among civilian populations,” he explained. “The initial document [“Ruah Zahal”] reflects an immoral value. A fighter needs to have a sense of justice and legitimacy. We should never have to choose between the lives of our soldiers and the lives of civilians on the other side.”

Another notable voice in the critique of “Ruah Zahal” is Shoval’s. In his paper “Correcting the IDF’s Ethical Code,” he explained that “ethical codes for armies thus seek to fulfill three central functions:

“1. Morality and limitations: They establish a framework that defines the boundaries of combat.

“2. Maintaining public legitimacy: A code of ethics ensures that the actions of the military receive the support of the civilian population.

“3. Identity and heritage: The code of ethics strengthens the sense of purpose in military service by framing it not only as a means of defense but also as a mission grounded in values.

“The main problem is that, as it stands, this ‘moral guide’ [‘Ruah Zahal’] is simply not moral,” he explained. “There is a hidden assumption that to fight a war is unjust. But sometimes not killing the enemy is worse than killing them. There is an assumption that using force implies you are doing something wrong. It goes against the Christian ethos of turning the other cheek.”

He continued, “If the role of the soldier is to protect the civilian, the life of the soldier is worth more than the life of the terrorist.”

He pointed out in an interview that the questions come into play if there is an Israeli civilian victim and a Nukhba terrorist, both wounded on the ground. Who should the medics treat first? The current ethics in Israel, he said, is to triage the one who is more wounded, but he said the wounded civilian should morally come first.

In February 2016, Gadi Eisenkot (who was then IDF chief of staff and is currently party leader of Yashar), speaking to high school seniors about to enter the army, at Heichal Hatarbut in Bat Yam, said:

“When there’s a 13-year-old girl holding scissors or a knife, and there is distance between her and the soldiers, I don’t want to see a soldier open fire and empty his magazine at a girl like that, even if she is committing a very serious act. Rather, he should use the force necessary to fulfill the objective.”

He added that soldiers receive weapons to take a human life when required, but the rules of engagement are derived from the mission, and the IDF does not operate according to “slogans” such as “whoever comes to kill you, kill him first.” A soldier may remove the safety and shoot if there is real danger to himself or his comrades but must apply only the necessary force.

'Purity of Arms' is unlikely to change anytime soon

THE REAL QUESTION is how an ordinary soldier is to determine the severity of the threat in real time and under maximum pressure.

Shoval said that unless there is a concerted effort, the “Purity of Arms” is unlikely to change anytime soon. “The conception has not changed in the army, and it’s not likely to change. It can only change when we have a new generation of soldiers with fresh ideas, coming from the post-Oct. 7 crop of soldiers.”

Cherki admitted the IDF appears to be hesitating because it is not ready to make deep changes, but he does believe enough people want to see changes happen soon.

“Changing the ‘Purity of Arms’ document should be an election goal of the Right,” he said.

Hopefully, the candidates will clearly state their points of view. Some have already weighed in.

Voters will be left to determine whether the rules of engagement ultimately protect our soldiers and the Israeli nation they defend, and whether this new year will be safer for everyone in Israel.■

What would you do? Responses to a hypothetical army exercise in civilian areas

The mission: You have already given clear warnings to civilians to evacuate an area used by terrorists, to give the inhabitants time to flee. These include leaflets, phone calls, and “roof-knocking.” Some civilians remain. How does this affect your decision to engage a legitimate military target in that area?

Military figures weigh in:

Combat commander: I will never accept a greater risk to my own force to further reduce possible civilian harm. Obviously, we always try to avoid civilian harm. But not at the expense of our own troops’ safety. A properly coordinated and executed mission reduces the risk to my soldiers to zero. No one is more precious to me than my soldiers.

Remaining civilians do not affect my decision to engage the military target. Unless someone gives an order to call off the mission because the civilians refuse to evacuate, the mission proceeds as planned.

High-ranking elite combat soldier: If clear warnings were given (and in my view, even those warnings go above and beyond), anyone who chooses to remain in an active war zone understands the risks. As a combat soldier, I cannot compromise operational decision-making or soldier safety to account for those who remained after being warned to evacuate.

In a combat zone, I will almost always prioritize the safety and lives of my soldiers above other considerations.

Former US naval officer: If fair warning has been given, I’d authorize the bombing to commence immediately, regardless of how many civilians remain in the targeted area. If the civilians aren’t smart enough to clear the area, then whatever happens is on them. Of course, they might be loitering around either to buy time for the terrorists to get away or to prevent us from carrying out our bombing.

– J.S.

Moshe Feiglin’s book on identity and the fight against radical Islam

Moshe Feiglin’s new book, Israel is Just the Beginning: How Israel’s Fight Against Radical Islam and Progressivism Protects the Identity and Liberty of the Civilized World, is illuminating and sometimes deeply disturbing. He analyzes the unholy alliance between Islam and progressivism, attributing the connection to a quest to abolish identity – not just Jewish identity, but any identities all over the world.

Chapter by chapter, Feiglin – who was a Likud MK and deputy Knesset speaker from February 2013-March 2015, and now heads the Zehut (Identity) party, which recently joined in a technical bloc with Smotrich’s Religious Zionism party – lays out the facts. Issues span from Israel’s existential war, which he calls “The Temple War,” to the fight to abolish sexual identity, the ideological battle over climate change, how feminists conveniently ignored Islam’s Oct. 7 rapes, Israel’s rules of engagement, COVID coverups, and more.

Feiglin calls out the hypocrisy of Israelis’ blind eye to the government’s state-controlled “dominion over our lives,” submission to Oslo, while also exploring its overall tendency to suppress Jewish identity within the State of Israel. And he exposes Islam’s sometimes concealed, more often unhidden, agenda to destroy the Jewish state.

Embracing Judaism’s God-fearing identity, Feiglin says, is the answer – not only for Israel, but the world. He acknowledges the Jews’ rejection of faith provided “energy powerful enough to propel the Jewish people back to renewed nationhood.” But he says that civic nationalism “could no longer imbue Israeli life with meaning, nor sustain a national sense of justice, validity, and legitimacy.”

Feiglin’s book is a compelling read, even if you don’t agree with all his ideas or conclusions. Regardless of political point of view or religious orientation, he provides enough facts, observations, and simple truths for pro-Israel readers trying to make sense of today’s extremely confusing world situation. – J.S.