In the context of the recent confrontation in Gaza, several reports have revealed that Israel adopted AI warfare technology based on what is described as an “artificial intelligence factory” developed over years to accelerate and expand the scope of military targets. Although this project was known within the ranks of the Israeli military, its precise details began to emerge in an unprecedented manner, sparking internal debate over whether military decisions are still subject to sufficient human review.
The roots of the story date back to before the outbreak of recent clashes. Numerous sources indicated that Israeli intelligence units invested an entire decade in building a gigantic database on Gaza, containing detailed information about buildings, tunnels, and infrastructure belonging to armed factions. At the beginning of the war, when the possibility of targeting new locations declined, Israeli forces relied on an artificial intelligence tool called “The Gospel” or “Habsora” (according to the Hebrew naming), capable of producing hundreds of additional targets at lightning speed.
It is worth noting that the “Habsora” (The Gospel) program is not the only tool; intelligence units have developed a set of other systems, including a tool called “Lavender” that uses algorithms to filter the names of individuals likely linked to armed groups. The idea behind these tools is to collect and analyze a massive stream of data, including monitored calls, recordings, and satellite imagery. The results are then presented to specialized officers who are supposed to verify them before final approval of any military strike.
However, the accuracy and quality of the information have sparked intense debate within Israeli military circles, according to informed sources. Some officers complained about the unclear origin of recommendations: whether they came from a human analyst or an artificial intelligence algorithm. Criticism also emerged regarding the capability of these algorithms to understand colloquial Arabic dialects and detect linguistic camouflage that militants might use.
According to artificial intelligence proponents in the Israeli military, these AI warfare technologies save time and grant a decisive military advantage, especially given the nature of modern warfare and its rapid transformation. Yet opponents believe that the expanded use of algorithms may reduce the capacity for rigorous human review, thereby raising the likelihood of targeting civilians.
According to human rights reports, there are indications of a rise in the “collateral damage rate” among civilians compared to previous wars, which some critics link to the expanding role assigned to algorithms in target identification. While international laws stipulate the necessity of balancing potential military utility against harm inflicted on civilians, these laws remain ambiguous regarding the use of artificial intelligence in wartime operations.
Amidst this, an internal dispute erupted within the highest intelligence circles over the “new culture” that promotes the role of systems and software in AI warfare while marginalizing the human element—which was previously capable of sounding the alarm if it doubted data accuracy. This debate recurred particularly after the Israeli army was surprised by certain attacks described as showing shortcomings in coordination between human analysis units and AI-driven ones.
According to multiple sources, the intelligence leadership has reconsidered its internal structures, with discussions ongoing about the necessity of rehiring Arabic-language analysts and strengthening human review mechanisms for algorithmic decisions, particularly regarding the classification of targets and individuals suspected of belonging to armed factions.
It does not seem that Israel, or any other nation, will abandon artificial intelligence on battlefields, but it remains a subject of ethical and legal controversy. Some view “AI wars” as merely a prelude to a new era where highly precise decisions are shaped by tools that may be flawed or unable to comprehend complex human and social contexts. Conversely, others argue that technological advancement enabled Israel to avoid greater damages, emphasizing that data vetting processes prior to any bombardment remain subject to the signature of a responsible officer or legal authority.
The reality remains, however, that human casualties in this round of the war exceeded what many expected, which may prompt international legal lawsuits to hold accountable the use of these technologies and whether they contributed to taking civilian lives. Ultimately, this debate reflects an intertwined world where digital technologies have become a fundamental weapon intersecting with political decisions and military plans, sketching a future whose contours are not devoid of risks.
