The ongoing conflict between Israel and Gaza continues to be a focal point of intense global debate. Recent military operations in Gaza have sparked discussions on their legitimacy and morality. While some argue these actions are vital for national security, a deeper analysis reveals significant ethical and legal concerns.
The principles of military necessity and international law must guide our understanding of warfare, especially in densely populated areas. The scale and targeting practices of these operations raise critical questions about their humanitarian impact. Are we prioritising security over human rights?
Military Grounds: Disproportionate and Ineffective
To assess the military justification for Israel’s actions, we must consider the principles of necessity, proportionality, and distinction as outlined in international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions. Israel often claims its military operations are necessary to neutralise threats posed by Hamas, a group responsible for launching rockets into Israeli territory. However, the execution and scale of Israel’s military responses raise significant questions about their legitimacy.
The principle of proportionality mandates that the military advantage gained from an operation must outweigh the harm inflicted on civilians and civilian infrastructure. The extensive airstrikes and ground incursions seen in conflicts such as the 2014 Gaza War and the recent escalations have resulted in a staggering number of civilian casualties and widespread destruction. For instance, entire neighbourhoods have been obliterated to target individual militants or weapons caches. Such actions often fail to demonstrate a clear, proportional military gain. Destroying a residential building to eliminate a single rocket launcher not only risks escalating the conflict but also contributes to a narrative that fuels resentment and strengthens Hamas’s recruitment efforts.
Moreover, the principle of distinction requires combatants to be differentiated from civilians. The densely populated urban environment of Gaza complicates this task; however, Israel’s use of high-explosive munitions in such areas, despite possessing advanced targeting technology, frequently results in civilian casualties that far exceed military targets. This raises concerns about either a failure of intelligence or a willingness to accept excessive collateral damage, neither of which align with the standards of military necessity.
The effectiveness of these military operations is also called into question. Despite decades of military campaigns aimed at dismantling Hamas, rocket attacks continue, tunnels are rebuilt, and cycles of violence perpetuate. If the goal is to ensure Israel’s security, the current strategy of overwhelming force in Gaza has proven counterproductive, thereby failing the pragmatic test of military justification.
Moral Grounds: Humanitarian Catastrophe and Ethical Failings
This examination reveals that Israel’s actions falter significantly under scrutiny, particularly concerning the blockade of Gaza that has been in place since 2007. This blockade, which restricts access to essential goods such as food, medicine, and construction materials, has resulted in a humanitarian crisis that disproportionately punishes the entire population for the actions of a few.
The principle of collective punishment is a violation of ethical norms, which assert that guilt should be individual rather than communal. The people of Gaza, who are largely innocent civilians, have borne the brunt of these punitive measures. Reports from esteemed organisations such as the United Nations have painted a harrowing picture of Gaza, declaring it “uninhabitable.” Over 80% of the population now relies on humanitarian aid, facing dire conditions characterised by malnutrition and disease. Such a catastrophic humanitarian situation cannot be morally reconciled with claims that Israel is targeting only militants.
Furthermore, the loss of civilian life significantly undermines the moral legitimacy of Israel’s military actions. Children, who constitute nearly half of Gaza’s population, are often the most vulnerable victims of airstrikes and shelling. The justification that Hamas employs “human shields” does not absolve Israel of its moral responsibility to prioritise the safety of civilians. International law mandates the protection of non-combatants, and the onus is on military actors to minimise harm to innocent lives. While measures such as dropping leaflets or issuing warnings before strikes are often cited as efforts to safeguard civilians, they do little to mitigate the moral weight of bombings in densely populated areas where escape routes are obstructed by the blockade and safe zones are nonexistent.
The psychological toll on the residents of Gaza cannot be overlooked. The pervasive trauma, grief, and hopelessness that characterise life in the region reflect a profound disregard for human dignity. This suffering transcends tactical considerations and raises serious ethical questions about the values that underpin security policies. A moral framework that permits such widespread suffering as an acceptable byproduct of security contradicts the principles of compassion and restraint espoused by most ethical traditions, including those within Israel’s own cultural heritage.
Israel’s Actions in Gaza and International Law
International law serves as a crucial lens through which to evaluate Israel’s military operations in Gaza. Rooted in treaties such as the Geneva Conventions, customary law, and principles upheld by bodies like the United Nations and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), international law establishes standards for armed conflict, occupation, and human rights. Israel’s actions – including airstrikes, ground offensives, and the ongoing blockade – frequently breach these standards, undermining claims of legal justification.
Violations of the Laws of War
The laws of war, primarily codified in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols, govern the conduct of armed conflict. Three core principles – distinction, proportionality, and necessity – are repeatedly challenged by Israel’s operations in Gaza.
- Distinction: Article 48 of Additional Protocol I requires parties to distinguish between combatants and civilians, directing attacks only at military objectives. The densely packed civilian population in Gaza complicates this obligation, yet Israel’s use of wide-area explosives, such as 2,000-pound bombs, in residential zones has resulted in high civilian death tolls. For instance, during the 2021 conflict, a single strike on the Al-Wehda neighbourhood killed 44 civilians, including 18 children, in an attempt to target a suspected militant. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has noted that such incidents suggest a failure to adequately verify targets, potentially constituting indiscriminate attacks under Article 51(4).
- Proportionality: Article 51(5)(b) prohibits attacks where the expected civilian harm is excessive compared to the anticipated military advantage. Israel’s destruction of entire apartment blocks or schools to eliminate individual fighters or weapons caches often fails this test. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported that in the 2014 conflict, over 2,200 Palestinians were killed, 70% of whom were civilians, alongside widespread destruction of homes and infrastructure. Legal scholars, including those at the UN Human Rights Council’s 2015 inquiry, have argued that such outcomes indicate a disproportionate response, especially given the limited strategic impact on Hamas’s capabilities.
- Necessity: Military actions must be strictly necessary to achieve a legitimate objective, such as neutralising an imminent threat. Israel justifies its operations as self-defense against Hamas rocket attacks, permissible under Article 51 of the UN Charter. However, the scale and frequency of its responses – often extending beyond immediate threats to punitive or preemptive strikes – stretch this principle. The repeated leveling of Gaza’s infrastructure, such as power plants or water facilities, has little direct bearing on stopping rockets, suggesting a broader intent to degrade civilian life, which exceeds military necessity.
These violations have led to accusations of war crimes. The International Criminal Court (ICC) opened an investigation in 2021 into alleged crimes in the Palestinian territories, including Gaza, focusing on both Israeli and Hamas actions. While Israel disputes the ICC’s jurisdiction, claiming it is not a party to the Rome Statute, the legal scrutiny underscores the contention that its conduct falls short of international standards.
Gaza as Occupied Territory
The legal status of Gaza as occupied territory further complicates Israel’s actions. Despite withdrawing settlers and troops in 2005, Israel retains significant control over Gaza’s borders, airspace, and sea access, along with the ability to conduct military incursions. The ICJ’s 2004 advisory opinion on the West Bank separation wall affirmed that effective control, not physical presence, defines occupation under the Fourth Geneva Convention. This status imposes obligations on Israel as an occupying power, including ensuring the welfare of the population (Article 55) and refraining from collective punishment (Article 33).
The blockade, enforced since 2007 with Egypt’s cooperation, restricts goods, movement, and access to resources, rendering Gaza dependent on external aid. The UN and human rights groups, such as Amnesty International, argue that this constitutes collective punishment, as it targets the entire population for Hamas’s actions. The blockade’s impact – 80% poverty rates, 95% undrinkable water, and a collapsed healthcare system – violates Israel’s duty to provide for the basic needs of the occupied population. While Israel contends that Gaza is not occupied and that the blockade is a lawful security measure, this position is widely rejected by legal experts, including the UN General Assembly, which has repeatedly called for its end.
Human Rights Law and the Blockade
Beyond the laws of war, international human rights law applies in Gaza, even during conflict, as affirmed by the ICJ and UN treaty bodies. The blockade and military operations infringe on rights enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), both of which Israel has ratified.
- Right to Life (ICCPR, Article 6): The high civilian toll from airstrikes, coupled with deaths from lack of medical access due to the blockade, implicates Israel in arbitrary deprivations of life. Patients requiring treatment outside Gaza often die while awaiting Israeli permits, a systemic issue documented by Physicians for Human Rights.
- Right to Health and Adequate Living Standards (ICESCR, Articles 11-12): The blockade’s restriction of medical supplies, fuel, and building materials has crippled Gaza’s ability to sustain itself. The World Health Organization reported in 2023 that Gaza’s hospitals operate at only 20% capacity, exacerbated by bombings of medical facilities, which may violate the protected status of civilian objects under Geneva Convention IV.
Israel argues that Hamas’s misuse of civilian infrastructure justifies targeting; however, this does not negate its human rights obligations. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory has labeled the situation an “apartheid-like regime,” suggesting a systemic breach of international law.
Counterarguments and Rebuttal
Defenders of Israel’s actions often assert that Hamas’s aggression leaves no alternative and that any nation would respond similarly to protect its citizens. While self-defence is a legitimate right, it does not grant carte blanche to abandon principles of proportionality or humanity. Alternatives, such as strengthening diplomatic efforts, easing the blockade to undermine Hamas’s grip, or investing in regional stability, are often sidelined in favour of militarised responses that perpetuate the conflict. The claim that “there is no other way” rings hollow when the current approach demonstrably fails to deliver security or peace.
Conclusion
In summary, Israel’s actions in Gaza lack justification on both military and moral grounds. Militarily, they are disproportionate, poorly distinguish between combatants and civilians, and fail to achieve strategic objectives. Morally, they inflict collective punishment, disregard civilian life, and erode human dignity. While Israel faces legitimate threats, the path of unrestrained force in Gaza undermines its own security and ethical standing. A reevaluation of strategy – prioritising precision, restraint, and humanitarian considerations – is not only possible but necessary for fostering a sustainable and just resolution to this enduring conflict.
This critical examination of Israel’s military actions in Gaza underscores the urgent need for a shift in approach that prioritises human rights and adheres to international law, paving the way for a more peaceful future for all involved.
