Related Rule
Israel
Practice Relating to Rule 65. Perfidy
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states:
The distinction between stratagem (which is allowed) and perfidious or treacherous means is that the latter are defined as acts designed to cause the enemy to think that it is entitled to the protection extended by the law of war, or to create a situation in which the enemy is obliged to trust the adversary with the intent of betraying that trust. 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 56.
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states:
The distinction between trickery (which is permitted) and betrayals of trust or treachery is that the latter are defined as acts designed to cause the enemy to think that it is entitled to the protection of the rules of war or to create a situation in which it is obliged to put its trust in the opposing side through the intention to betray such trust. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 35.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
In its judgment in the Public Committee against Torture in Israel case in 2006, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
In general, combatants and military objectives are legitimate targets for military attack. Their lives and bodies are endangered by the combat. They can be killed and wounded. However, not every act of combat against them is permissible, and not every military means is permissible. Thus, for example, they can be shot and killed. However, “treacherous killing” and “perfidy” are forbidden (see DINSTEIN, at p. 198). 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Public Committee against Torture in Israel case, Judgment, 14 December 2006, § 23.
Referring to Israel’s Law of War Booklet (1986), the Report on the Practice of Israel states: “As a basic policy, the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] prohibits the resort to perfidy to kill, injure or capture an adversary.” 
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 2.4, referring to Conduct in the Battlefield in Accordance with the Law of War, Israel Defense Forces, 1986, p. 8.
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) gives the following example of perfidy:
An attempt on the lives of enemy leaders (civilian or military) is forbidden. As a rule, it is forbidden to single out a specific person on the adversary’s side and request his death (whether by dispatching an assassin or by offering an award for his liquidation). 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 57.
In its judgment in the Public Committee against Torture in Israel case in 2006, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
In general, combatants and military objectives are legitimate targets for military attack. Their lives and bodies are endangered by the combat. They can be killed and wounded. However, not every act of combat against them is permissible, and not every military means is permissible. Thus, for example, they can be shot and killed. However, “treacherous killing” and “perfidy” are forbidden (see DINSTEIN, at p. 198). 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Public Committee against Torture in Israel case, Judgment, 14 December 2006, § 23.
Referring to Israel’s Law of War Booklet (1986), the Report on the Practice of Israel states that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) prohibit “the resort to perfidy to kill, injure or capture an adversary. Therefore, the IDF does not … feign incapacitation.” 
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 2.4, referring to Conduct in the Battlefield in Accordance with the Law of War, Israel Defense Forces, 1986, p. 8.
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) gives the following example of perfidy: “Pretending damage to fighting capacity through injury or illness with a view to gaining military advantage.” 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 57.
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states the following example of “betrayals of trust or treachery”:
Pretending to be injured or ill for the purpose of achieving a military advantage. Here again, the purpose is to prevent a situation in which the soldiers of one side would fear getting medical help for the wounded of the other side. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 35.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Referring to Israel’s Law of War Booklet (1986), the Report on the Practice of Israel states that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) prohibit “the resort to perfidy to kill, injure or capture an adversary. Therefore, the IDF does not feign intent to surrender.” 
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 2.4, referring to Conduct in the Battlefield in Accordance with the Law of War, Israel Defense Forces, 1986, p. 8.
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) gives the following example of perfidy: “It is forbidden to use a white flag for an inappropriate purpose (posing as persons surrendering … with a view to gaining a military advantage).” 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 56.
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states:
[I]n order to ensure that a combatant party will indeed respect those who have surrendered and will not hurt them, a ban has been imposed on pretending to surrender, i.e., to wave a white flag as deception while continuing to fight. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 35.
The manual also states:
It is forbidden to make false use of the white flag (pretending to surrender or to be willing to negotiate while the true intention is to obtain a military advantage) so that soldiers from the other side will not fear allowing fighter[s] to live and grant them the status of prisoner-of-war. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 35.
The manual further states:
In order to protect the “sanctity” of defence under the rules of war, a combatant is forbidden (whether on the losing side or on the side accepting the surrender) to breach the conditions of surrender by resuming combat or by breaching the agreed rules of surrender. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 39.
In addition, the manual states: “Prohibited methods (such as simulated surrender) must not be used.” 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 49.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Referring to Israel’s Law of War Booklet (1986), the Report on the Practice of Israel states that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) prohibit “the resort to perfidy to kill, injure or capture an adversary. Therefore, the IDF does not feign intent to … negotiate under a white flag.” 
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 2.4, referring to Conduct in the Battlefield in Accordance with the Law of War, Israel Defense Forces, 1986, p. 8.
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) gives the following example of perfidy: “It is forbidden to use a white flag for an inappropriate purpose (posing as persons … seeking negotiations with a view to gaining a military advantage).” 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 56.
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states:
It is forbidden to make false use of the white flag (pretending to surrender or to be willing to negotiate while the true intention is to obtain a military advantage) so that soldiers from the other side will not fear allowing fighter[s] to live and grant them the status of prisoner-of-war. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 35.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Referring to Israel’s Law of War Booklet (1986), the Report on the Practice of Israel states that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) prohibit “the resort to perfidy to kill, injure or capture an adversary. Therefore, the IDF does not … make unlawful use of protected emblems.” 
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 2.4, referring to Conduct in the Battlefield in Accordance with the Law of War, Israel Defense Forces, 1986, p. 8.
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) gives the following examples of perfidy:
It is forbidden to pose as … Red Cross personnel or use [this] organization’s uniform, flag and emblem … It is prohibited to misuse the emblems of medical personnel (a cross, crescent or red shield of David). 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, pp. 56 and 57.
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states: “It is forbidden to harm those wearing the Red Cross symbol or to make false use of this insignia.” 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 35.
The manual further states: “The deceitful use of the insignia of a medical team (a red cross, crescent or star of David) is also prohibited.” 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 36.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Referring to Israel’s Law of War Booklet (1986), the Report on the Practice of Israel states that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) prohibit “the resort to perfidy to kill, injure or capture an adversary. Therefore, the IDF does not … make unlawful use of protected emblems or uniforms.” 
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 2.4, referring to Conduct in the Battlefield in Accordance with the Law of War, Israel Defense Forces, 1986, p. 8.
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states, as an example of perfidious conduct: “It is prohibited to pose as U.N. … personnel or use [UN] uniform, flag and emblems.” 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 56.
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states: “It is also forbidden to pretend to be members of the United Nations Organization … as it is forbidden to use [UN] uniforms, flag or symbols”. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 35.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Referring to Israel’s Law of War Booklet (1986), the Report on the Practice of Israel states that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) “prohibits the resort to perfidy to kill, injure or capture an adversary. Therefore, the IDF does not … make unlawful use of protected emblems”. 
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 2.4, referring to Conduct in the Battlefield in Accordance with the Law of War, Israel Defense Forces, 1986, p. 8.
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) provides several examples of perfidious acts. Notably, it states: “It is forbidden to pose as non-combatant civilians. When the arena of warfare does not yield a clear picture as to who is a civilian and who is a disguised combatant, civilians will be ultimately harmed.” 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 57.
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states that it is forbidden to “adopt the disguise of a non-combatant civilian. Where no clear picture emerges from the battle front as to who is a civilian and who is a disguised combatant, civilians are liable to get hurt.” 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 36.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
In the Swarka case before an Israeli Military Court in 1974, the defendants had entered Israel from Egypt and launched rockets on a civilian settlement. When brought to trial, they claimed that they were entitled to prisoner of war status under Article 4 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III, since they were soldiers in the Egyptian regular army and had committed the actions on the orders of their commander. The Prosecutor argued that they could not benefit from POW status since they wore civilian clothes when they carried out their operations. The Court observed that neither the 1907 Hague Regulations nor the 1949 Geneva Conventions required that members of regular forces had to wear uniforms at the time of capture to be entitled to their protection. However, it considered that “it would be quite illogical to regard the duty of wearing uniform (in the sense of a distinctive sign) as imposed only on the quasi-military units referred to in Article 4(A)(2) [of the 1949 Geneva Convention III] and not on soldiers of regular military forces”. It concluded that the defendants were to be prosecuted as saboteurs. 
Israel, Military Court, Swarka case, Judgment, 1974.
At the final plenary meeting of the CDDH, the Israeli delegation declared: “Israel regards [Article 37 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I], and in particular its paragraph 1(c), as an essential and basic provision. It reaffirms the fundamental distinction made in customary law between combatants and non-combatants.” 
Israel, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.39, 25 May 1977, p. 115.