Gaza Herald _”First, we shoot and kill. Then we think. Then we try to find a reason for what happened.”
That is how Nadav Weiman, executive director of the Israeli organization Breaking the Silence describes one of the most troubling practices emerging from testimonies given by Israeli soldiers about the war in Gaza.
In an interview with France 24, Weiman said Israeli forces have relied on “retrospective criminalization,” killing Palestinians during military operations and then searching for information or evidence that can later be used to classify those killed as members of Hamas or other Palestinian resistance movements, justifying the attacks to Israeli and international audiences.
Breaking the Silence presents the practice not as an isolated incident, but as part of a broader pattern reflected in testimonies it has collected from Israeli soldiers. According to the organization, those accounts point to expansive rules of engagement that have allowed widespread violations against Palestinians during military operations.
Kill First, Find the Justification Later
According to Weiman’s account, the sequence can begin with the military strike itself, followed by efforts to determine who was killed and whether any connection to Hamas or other Palestinian factions can be found.
He said Israeli intelligence agencies may obtain the names of people killed after an operation and then examine their backgrounds for any possible links to Hamas or other resistance groups.
The justification could take various forms, he explained. A victim might have been near a building believed to be connected to a resistance group. A relative might have had an affiliation with such a group. Or the person might have appeared at some point on a payroll associated with a Palestinian faction.
Once such information is found, Weiman said, a narrative can then be constructed around the victims to portray the attack as having targeted people connected to Hamas or other armed groups.
In his description of the process, evidence is sought after the attack and used to build a case around individuals who were killed, with the presence of Hamas or resistance members then presented as the reason the location was targeted.
Weiman said the accounts are particularly significant because soldiers carrying out some of the attacks may not necessarily possess the information later used to justify them.
He pointed to tank operations as an example, sarcastically asking whether a tank firing shells at a location is somehow carrying detailed information on thousands of people that would allow its crew to identify each individual before opening fire.
His broader point was that, according to the soldiers’ testimonies, the identification and classification of victims may sometimes take place after an attack rather than before it.
That raises fundamental questions about the information available to soldiers when targeting decisions are made, and whether explanations offered afterward correspond to what was actually known on the ground at the moment the attack was carried out.
“Retrospective Criminalization”: Turning Victims Into Targets
Breaking the Silence says as “retrospective criminalization” has appeared in multiple testimonies collected from Israeli soldiers.
According to the organization, some Palestinians killed during military operations were subsequently classified as resistance fighters, while some accounts involved people who were unarmed or even under the age of 18.
The issue therefore extends beyond the justification of any single strike. It raises a broader question about how victims are treated after they have been killed: Is the nature of a target established before an attack and used to make the decision to strike, or is a strike carried out under expansive rules of engagement and followed by a search for information that can justify it?
Weiman also referred to Israeli military operations around Nasser Hospital and to the killing of 15 medics in Rafah, citing them as examples of incidents that have raised questions about the nature of targets and the explanations provided afterward.
The references come amid broader scrutiny of Israeli military operations around medical facilities and attacks affecting humanitarian workers in Gaza.
Breaking the Silence says the testimonies it has collected offer a window into how targeting decisions are made on the ground and whether incidents presented by the military as isolated mistakes may instead reflect broader rules and operational practices.
Rules of Engagement That Expand the Scope of Targets
The organization does not attribute violations solely to individual soldiers. It also links them to permissive rules of engagement.
Weiman said that expanding the scope of potential targets has contributed to widespread violations of Palestinians’ rights during the war.
In his account, such rules affect not only Palestinians living or moving through areas where military operations are underway, but can also broaden the range of people and locations treated as potential threats.
The question, therefore, moves beyond the conduct of an individual soldier to the rules, orders and operational directives governing troops in the field.
Among the most serious reports raised by Breaking the Silence concerns the treatment of cameras and journalists.
The organization says that since October 7, 2023, Israeli forces have treated cameras in Gaza as potential threats to troops operating on the ground, with rules of engagement allowing them to be treated as potential military targets.
Breaking the Silence links this policy to the large number of journalists killed during the war.
The issue carries particular weight because journalists are not only responsible for reporting events. They are also among the few channels through which the outside world can document what is happening inside areas affected by war and hear directly from civilians living through it.
When a journalist or a camera is treated as a potential threat, therefore, serious concerns arise over the ability of the media to document events and convey civilian testimony while military operations continue.
Who Decides Who Becomes a Target?
Ultimately, Weiman’s statement, “First, we shoot and kill. Then we think. Then we try to find a reason”, captures the central concern raised by Breaking the Silence.
It describes a process in which the use of force comes first, followed by an effort to construct an explanation for its consequences.
As the war continues and the Palestinian death toll rises, the most pressing questions are not only who was killed, but also why they were targeted, what soldiers knew at the moment they opened fire, and why a victim’s identity and the rationale for the attack could emerge only afterward.
The soldiers’ testimonies place a fundamental question before the public: Is the target established before the trigger is pulled, or is the justification constructed after the shooting?
