Former senior officers argue that claims blaming the Supreme Court for restricting the Israel Defense Forces before the October 7 massacre are unfounded and distort the record. They say the allegation is being used to oppose the creation of a state commission of inquiry and wrongly suggests the Court bears responsibility for civilian and military casualties.

The controversy centers on petitions filed in 2018 against the military's rules of engagement during violent mass protests along the Gaza border. At the time, intelligence indicated that organized groups intended to use large civilian crowds to breach the border and carry out attacks. The military reviewed its rules and concluded they provided sufficient operational flexibility, including allowing sniper fire at key instigators under strict conditions and only after less lethal measures failed.

Human rights groups challenged the legality of these rules, arguing they permitted lethal force against individuals who did not pose an immediate personal threat. After hearings, the Supreme Court rejected the petitions and upheld the state's legal position, determining that it could not conclude the rules were unlawful. The authors stress that the Court did not alter or restrict the rules of engagement and that its ruling helped defend Israel against international criticism.

They conclude that judicial oversight did not limit operational freedom but reinforced the rule of law and the military's ethical framework. Accusations against the Court, they contend, undermine accountability and misrepresent the balance between security needs and legal constraints.