The collateral damage, it has a few levels: zero, one, and two. [Level] zero means up to X amount of people. It increases at [level] one, and increases further at [level] two. But in every case there are intervals, it’s in steps. You’re talking about [the number of] uninvolved civilians expected to be hurt in a planned strike? Right. OK. So what decides if we are on level one, two or three? Planning crews. For each ‘valuable target,’ you have a grade. I think that at this point in the fighting (The testifier is referring to the later stages of the operation) [the IDF] started attacking multi-story buildings, too. So that’s already a period in which approval for certain cases was given for collateral damage at the most severe level. What decides how the level of collateral damage of a given target is classed is its location in terms of the surrounding structures, and of course the munitions, too – what munitions do you need to use to complete the mission, and what damage will it cause? And then what is its radius? Whether it’s in an open area. Whether it’s in a crowded urban area. If it’s in a crowded urban area, then is it a two-story building or a seven-story building? If it’s a seven-story building, can you destroy one flat in a ‘surgical’ fashion – that’s IDF jargon. Are there people in there? Did people evacuate their residences? Do you have a way of evacuating them from their houses without alerting the target? There are cases where the target is a munitions cache, and then it’s, like, easier – and there are cases where the target is a person and then it’s… How do you decide whether you can strike a target that’s classed in a certain level? For every level of [collateral] damage there’s an authority that needs to approve it. Do you remember what the authorities are? It depends on the stage of the fighting. I think that at the beginning, the instructions were that we don’t attack [targets at level] two at all. There was an instruction like that, and when we saw that things were progressing towards completion and the point was to hurry up and act, and get whatever you can done, then the authority [level] was decreased, and they said we can submit such [targets] for approval. Who said that? A pretty senior commander, explicitly, as part of a morning briefing. Can you describe what he said in the briefing when he explained that? It’s always “Targets, targets, targets.” And at a certain point they say “You can start submitting targets to the planning crews, you can start submitting targets for approval that are at the highest collateral damage levels, at collateral damage level two.” This was during a later stage of the fighting, and these are targets that in general, if you don’t count exceptions, hadn’t been struck until that point. So they just say that there was an instruction issued by the general staff (The IDF’s supreme command) that from now on we can plan strikes on targets that are level two collateral damage. They need to get confirmation from pretty high-up levels, but you can submit them for planning to the strike crews. Did he explain what had changed, and why that was suddenly possible? Because the target bank was being depleted. Like, “Hamas is pushing for a display of victory,” that’s always the expression used, ‘pushing for a display of victory’ is this sweeping expression that’s used at the end of every round [of fighting]. [There is talk that] the delegations are in Cairo, or on their way to Cairo, or will soon be arriving in Cairo. But the fighting kept going, and even if you think it’s about to end – you have to keep acting like nothing’s about to end. So that’s why you go up a level, to turn the threat around and also as a show of might. And so it’s possible that the target will be approved if it’s justified, if there’s a good reason, if it’s a valuable target, or if there’s a good chance to hit it in a way that’ll look good to the Israeli audience, and look bad for the Palestinian audience. That’ll hurt the military rocket-firing capabilities of Hamas or Islamic Jihad, or of other organizations. During briefings, is the collateral damage of attacks [that were carried out] mentioned? No. Unless it was an attack in the style of KafrKanna, where there’s a strategic impact on the ability to proceed with the fighting – there won’t be any mention of unsuccessful strikes during briefings. They’ll mention targets that were hit, and accomplishments, and what we didn’t manage to get done – but they won’t mention collateral damage. The humanitarian situation plays a role in the intelligence estimations, but the collateral damage inflicted during specific strikes doesn’t play a role in the briefings, or on morale.  Collateral damage means only bodily harm, or also damage to property? Bodily harm. Property isn’t counted at all? Not as far as the levels – the levels are practically binary. These are the levels of collateral damage, and the grading is based solely on human lives.