Purity of arms

The code of purity of arms (טוהר הנשק, Tohar HaNeshek) is one of the values stated in the Israel Defense Forces' official doctrine of ethics, The Spirit of the IDF.

According to Norman Solomon, the concepts of Havlaga and purity of arms arise out of the ethical and moral values stemming from the tradition of Israel, extrapolation from the Jewish Halakha, and the desire for moral approval and hence political support from the world community. Despite doubts when confronted by indiscriminate terrorism, purity of arms remains the guiding rule for the Israeli forces. These foundations have elicited a fair degree of consensus among Jews, both religious and secular.

Text of "Purity of Arms"
"Purity of Arms" (Morality in Warfare) - The soldier shall make use of his weaponry and power only for the fulfillment of the mission and solely to the extent required; he will maintain his humanity even in combat. The soldier shall not employ his weaponry and power in order to harm non-combatants or prisoners of war, and shall do all he can to avoid harming their lives, body, honor and property.

Jewish and Universal Moral Sources of the Doctrine
The IDF Doctrine Statement is not a religious document, but the underlying religious basis was articulated by Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren (1917–94), who had served in the IDF as both paratrooper and chief chaplain.

The "Spirit of the IDF," a text within the IDF's main doctrine, requires "honoring the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish...state," while two of its four sources are "the tradition of the Jewish People throughout their history" and "universal moral values based on the value and dignity of human life." It can be understood from this that Jewish religious law does not determine IDF policy per se.

Tactical and ethical dilemmas

 * In combat and other confrontation situations several of the values within the Spirit of the IDF code are concomitantly evoked, such as:

Dealing with such dilemmas requires a coherent response on the part of officer and soldier alike.
 * Human Life : "The IDF servicemen and women will act in a judicious and safe manner in all they do, out of recognition of the supreme value of human life. During combat they will endanger themselves and their comrades only to the extent required to carry out their mission."
 * Comradeship : "The IDF servicemen and women will act out of fraternity and devotion to their comrades, and will always go to their assistance when they need their help or depend on them, despite any danger or difficulty, even to the point of risking their lives."

Selective targeting (or targeted killing) of terrorist leaders is considered by the IDF as a legitimate mode of operation and part of a state's counterterrorism, anticipatory, self-defense activities that are designed to prevent the continuation of terrorism. Selective targeting of terrorist activists is used as a measure designed to hurt the real enemy while minimizing civilian casualties. The practice was challenged before the Israeli Supreme Court which held that while terrorists were civilians under the law of armed conflict, they were not protected by the prohibition in Article 51(3) of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions which provides that civilians enjoy immunity from deliberate attack "unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities." The Court found that the meaning of both 'for such time' and 'direct part in hostilities' covered those providing services to unlawful combatants in any period before a potential attack; therefore terrorists did not qualify for this immunity, a ruling that has been accepted into international law.

The decision received a mixed reception from the international community, with one scholar expressing concern that it threatened 'to undermine international law's protection of civilians in armed conflict by shifting the balance toward military advantage and increasing the likelihood of collateral damage.'

Rabbinic opinion
Some rabbis oppose the stipulation of avoiding harm to non-combatants, arguing that Jewish law specifically rejects this requirement during wartime. Some instances:
 * Rabbis associated with the Israeli settlement movement in the West Bank and Gaza demanded in 2004 that terrorism must be fought without regard for the safety of the enemy civilian population.
 * In the 2006 Lebanon War, the main organization of Modern Orthodox rabbis in the United States called on the Israeli military to be less concerned with avoiding civilian casualties on the opposing side. They argue that because the Hezbollah hides among the civilian population, it would be immoral not to attack Hezbollah—as Hezbollah poses an extreme threat to the Israeli civilian population. Thus, it would be unreasonable to not attack Hezbollah, which will result in allowing Hezbollah to kill Israelis, all based on the premise of avoiding Lebanese casualties.