text:
Israel’s conduct in Gaza raises very serious international humanitarian law (IHL) concerns, and many respected legal bodies and UN mechanisms have said that parts of its campaign are likely inconsistent with IHL. Whether particular acts are definitively unlawful is ultimately for competent courts or tribunals to decide case by case, but the pattern of conduct is difficult to reconcile with core IHL obligations.

Here’s a structured summary based on publicly available information up to May 2026.

---

## 1. Applicable law

The main rules are:

- The four Geneva Conventions (especially the Fourth, on protection of civilians)
- Customary IHL, including:
  - Distinction (between civilians/combatants and civilian/ military objects)
  - Proportionality (no attack if expected civilian harm is excessive relative to concrete and direct military advantage)
  - Precautions in attack (constant care to spare civilians, choose means/methods to minimize harm)
  - Prohibition of indiscriminate attacks
  - Protection of humanitarian relief, medical personnel, and infrastructure
- International human rights law (ICCPR, ICESCR, CRC, etc.) continues to apply in armed conflict
- For some allegations (e.g., genocide, crimes against humanity), the Genocide Convention and Rome Statute standards are relevant

These rules apply to Israel as an occupying power/party to the conflict, and also to Palestinian armed groups, including Hamas.

---

## 2. Civilian casualties and destruction

### Scale of harm
- UN and humanitarian agencies report tens of thousands of Palestinians killed, a very large proportion women and children, plus massive injury, displacement of most of the population, and destruction of infrastructure on an enormous scale.
- Whole neighborhoods have been reduced to rubble; key civilian infrastructure (water, sanitation, health, education) has been heavily damaged or destroyed.

### IHL assessment issues
1. **Distinction**
   - Repeated strikes on residential buildings, schools, shelters, hospitals, and marketplaces raise concerns that attacks either:
     - failed to distinguish between military and civilian objectives, or
     - treated dual-use or “area” targets in a way that risks being effectively indiscriminate.

2. **Proportionality**
   - Even assuming Hamas fighters or assets were present, the vast civilian toll in some strikes (e.g., on densely populated residential blocks, refugee camps, or areas where civilians had been directed to move) makes compliance with the proportionality rule highly questionable in many instances.

3. **Precautions in attack**
   - Israel points to advance warnings, leaflets, phone calls, and evacuation orders.
   - However, IHL does not permit an attacker to assume civilians are safe simply because general warnings were issued—especially if:
     - civilians have nowhere genuinely safe to go, or
     - roads/shelters are themselves targeted or unsafe, or
     - “safe zones” are repeatedly struck.

Many UN experts, Special Rapporteurs, and major NGOs (e.g., Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch) have concluded that multiple patterns of strikes likely amount to **indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks**, which are serious IHL violations and can constitute war crimes.

---

## 3. Siege tactics, starvation, and essential services

Israel has:
- Severely restricted entry of food, water, fuel, medical supplies, and other essentials.
- Repeatedly cut or sharply constrained electricity and fuel, affecting hospitals, water systems, refrigeration, and sanitation.
- Limited or obstructed humanitarian convoys and operations at various stages.

IHL implications:

- Parties must allow and facilitate **rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief** for civilians in need, subject to narrow security-based controls.
- It is prohibited to use **starvation of civilians as a method of warfare** (treaty law and customary law).

Several UN agencies (including OCHA, WFP, WHO) and independent commissions have warned that:
- Conditions in parts of Gaza reached or approached **famine** levels.
- Obstruction or delay of adequate humanitarian relief has been systematic rather than incidental.

The **International Court of Justice (ICJ)**, in provisional measures in the South Africa v. Israel case (Genocide Convention), has:
- Ordered Israel to enable basic services and humanitarian assistance and
- Urged prevention of acts that could fall under the Genocide Convention.

While the ICJ did not at that stage make final findings of IHL violations, the fact that such measures were deemed necessary reflects serious concern that current conduct is not compatible with IHL obligations related to relief, starvation, and protection of civilians.

---

## 4. Attacks on medical facilities, staff, and journalists

Hospitals, ambulances, and medical personnel enjoy special protection under IHL, unless and only for such time as they are being used to commit acts harmful to the enemy and appropriate warnings have been given.

- Israel alleges Hamas uses hospitals and other civilian sites (e.g., Al‑Shifa)


prompt_id: pol-israel-palestine

provider: openai

text:
International humanitarian law (IHL) doesn’t give simple yes/no verdicts on an ongoing war; it sets rules (from the Geneva Conventions and customary law) and those rules are applied to specific acts. For Gaza, the core question is: have Israel’s military operations and policies complied with the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution, and with rules on siege, starvation, and treatment of detainees?

Because reliable, full evidence is incomplete, what exists are *assessments* by UN bodies, states, NGOs, and legal experts. These assessments increasingly converge around the view that there are serious, repeated violations of IHL—and potentially war crimes—by multiple parties, including Israel. Below is a structured summary of the main legal issues, not a courtroom judgment.

---

## 1. Applicable law

IHL applies because there is an armed conflict. Relevant sources:

- **Fourth Geneva Convention (1949)** (protection of civilians)
- **Additional Protocol I (1977)** – Israel is not a party, but many rules are customary and binding
- **Customary IHL** (ICRC study)
- **Rome Statute of the ICC**, for war crimes and crimes against humanity
- **International human rights law** also continues to apply alongside IHL

---

## 2. Core IHL principles and how they relate to Gaza

### A. Distinction

Rule: Parties must at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives; attacks may only be directed at military objectives.

Concerns raised:

- Extremely high civilian death toll, including large numbers of women and children.
- Systematic strikes on residential buildings, schools, UN facilities, medical facilities, and places of worship, sometimes with prior Israeli knowledge that civilians were sheltering there.
- Use of large explosive munitions in densely populated urban areas.

Israel’s position:
It argues that:

- Hamas and other groups are unlawfully embedded in civilian areas, using human shields.
- Many targeted structures (apartment buildings, towers, schools, mosques, hospitals) were being used for military purposes.
- Warning systems (phone calls, SMS, leaflets, “roof knocking”) show intent to minimize harm.

Critical assessments:
UN commissions of inquiry, the UN Special Rapporteurs, major NGOs (Amnesty, HRW, others), and many legal scholars argue that patterns of attack suggest:

- Either targets were not properly verified as military,
- Or attacks were launched despite a foreseeably excessive impact on civilians.

Whether distinction is respected is case-by-case, but the *scale and pattern* of civilian harm has led many independent bodies to conclude that repeated indiscriminate or deliberately disproportionate attacks have likely occurred.

---

### B. Proportionality

Rule: An attack is prohibited if it may be expected to cause incidental civilian harm excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Points at issue:

- Massive destruction of civilian infrastructure (housing, water systems, electricity, universities, hospitals).
- High ratios of civilian to combatant deaths in several reported incidents.
- Destruction of entire neighborhoods to neutralize relatively limited military targets (e.g., alleged tunnels, small units of fighters, or weapons stores).

Israeli argument:
Large-scale attacks are necessary to degrade Hamas’s military capacity (tunnels, command centers), and Hamas’s embedding in civilian areas shifts responsibility.

Critical view:
IHL does not allow proportionality to be assessed at the strategic level (“defeating Hamas”); it must be linked to each *concrete* attack. Many experts and UN bodies argue that:

- The level of civilian harm and infrastructure destruction indicates that in many operations the anticipated military gain was not enough to justify the foreseeable civilian cost.
- Repeated patterns of “acceptable” high civilian deaths per target suggest systemic proportionality problems.

---

### C. Precautions in attack

Rule: Parties must take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize civilian harm, and cancel or suspend an attack if it becomes apparent that it would be disproportionate.

Issues:

- Evacuation orders for large parts of Gaza, coupled with:
  - Insufficient safe routes or time,
  - Continued strikes in areas to which civilians had been told to flee,
  - Very limited humanitarian support in the “safe” areas.
- Repeated attacks on structures even after prior damage and known civilian presence.
- Communications blackouts that impeded civilians’ ability to heed warnings.

Israel points to:

- Warnings, “safe zones,” and technological precautions.
- Tactical adaptions (choice of munitions and timing).

Critiques from UN, NGOs, and many militaries’ former legal advisers:

- Warnings do not legalize an otherwise unlawful attack.
- When civilians have nowhere genuinely safe to go and basic needs (water, food, shelter, medical care) cannot be met, “evacuation orders” may not qualify as effective protective measures.
- The reality on the ground (overcrowded shelters, continued bombardment

finish_reason: length


text:
There isn’t a single, settled legal answer yet; there are competing legal assessments, ongoing investigations, and some provisional judicial findings. It’s clearer to separate the question into key legal issues and what different authoritative bodies have said so far.

I’ll summarize the main points and where there is relative consensus vs. major dispute.

---

## 1. Applicable law

Israel’s operations in Gaza are governed by:

- International humanitarian law (IHL) / law of armed conflict
  - Particularly the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their customary rules
- International human rights law (to the extent it co-applies)
- The law of occupation, to the extent Gaza is considered occupied (contested by Israel, affirmed by most UN bodies and many states)

Core IHL principles:

1. **Distinction** – between combatants and civilians / military and civilian objects
2. **Proportionality** – expected civilian harm must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated
3. **Precautions** – in attack and against the effects of attacks
4. **Humane treatment** – including of detainees, and prohibitions on starvation of civilians, collective punishment, and forced displacement (outside narrow exceptions)

---

## 2. What major international bodies and courts have said

### International Court of Justice (ICJ)

- Case: *South Africa v. Israel* (alleged genocide in Gaza)
- January 26, 2024: ICJ ordered **provisional measures**, finding that:
  - Palestinians in Gaza face a “real and imminent risk” of irreparable harm under the Genocide Convention.
  - The rights asserted by South Africa are “plausible.”
- The Court **did not** rule that genocide is occurring, but found the genocide claim sufficiently plausible to warrant emergency measures.
- March 28 and May 24, 2024: additional measures, including ordering Israel to ensure humanitarian aid, basic services, and to halt operations that could bring about the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part in specific areas (e.g., Rafah), if such destruction might occur.

These orders strongly imply serious concern that Israel’s conduct may be violating IHL and possibly the Genocide Convention, but they are not a final merits judgment.

---

### International Criminal Court (ICC)

- May 20, 2024: ICC Prosecutor announced he is seeking **arrest warrants** for:
  - Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant
  - Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniyeh

For the Israeli officials, alleged crimes include (under the Rome Statute):

- Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare
- Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury
- Wilful killing / intentionally directing attacks against civilians
- Extermination and/or murder as crimes against humanity
- Persecution and other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity

The Pre-Trial Chamber still has to decide whether to issue the warrants, but the Prosecutor’s application reflects a professional view that there are **reasonable grounds** to believe serious IHL and international criminal law violations have occurred.

---

### UN bodies and special procedures

- Multiple UN Special Rapporteurs and the UN Human Rights Council **Commission of Inquiry** have stated that there are strong indications of:
  - Indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks
  - Collective punishment
  - Use of starvation as a method of warfare
  - Unlawful destruction of civilian infrastructure
- The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has repeatedly said many attacks likely violate IHL, and some may amount to war crimes.

These are not court judgments, but they are detailed legal assessments based on available evidence.

---

## 3. Key contested issues under IHL

### A. Distinction & proportionality

Concerns:

- Extremely high civilian death toll, including children
- Repeated strikes on residential buildings, schools, UN facilities, medical facilities, and critical infrastructure
- Patterns of “double tap” strikes and attacks in densely populated areas

Israel’s position:

- Hamas embeds military assets in civilian areas (tunnels under homes, schools, hospitals), making them lawful targets.
- It issues warnings, uses evacuation orders, and argues many strikes are against legitimate military objectives.
- It says civilian harm, while tragic, is not legally disproportionate given the military advantage of degrading Hamas.

Critics’ position:

- Even if Hamas uses human shields, this does not erase Israel’s obligations.
- The scale and pattern of harm suggest that either:
  - The proportionality analysis is systematically flawed, or
  - Precautions are insufficient (e.g., attacking in areas and at times when civilian presence is known to be high, or using large munitions in dense neighborhoods).

Legally:
- There is substantial expert opinion (including from many military lawyers and IHL scholars) that **many** specific attacks are likely


text:
International humanitarian law (IHL) doesn’t label complex, ongoing conflicts as a whole “lawful” or “unlawful”; it evaluates specific acts and policies against specific rules. In Gaza, many of Israel’s major practices raise serious IHL concerns, and multiple UN bodies, human rights organizations, and independent legal experts argue that numerous violations are likely occurring. Israel contests many of these allegations. Because facts are still being documented and legal processes are ongoing, no single definitive legal judgment exists yet—but it is fair to say that Israel’s conduct is under intense, well-founded legal scrutiny.

Below is a structured overview.

---

## 1. Applicable law in Gaza

Key bodies of law:

- **International Humanitarian Law (Law of Armed Conflict):**
  - Geneva Conventions of 1949
  - Additional Protocol I (Israel is not party, but many rules are customary and binding)
  - Customary IHL (e.g., as compiled by the ICRC)
- **International Human Rights Law** (e.g., ICCPR) continues to apply alongside IHL.
- **International criminal law** (e.g., Rome Statute of the ICC) for potential war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

The conflict between Israel and Hamas is generally treated legally as a **non-international armed conflict with cross-border elements** or a mixed classification; in any case, core IHL principles (distinction, proportionality, precautions, humane treatment) apply.

---

## 2. Core IHL principles relevant to Gaza

1. **Distinction**
   - Parties must distinguish between combatants and civilians and between military objectives and civilian objects.
   - Direct attacks on civilians or civilian objects are prohibited.

2. **Proportionality**
   - Even when attacking a lawful military target, expected incidental civilian harm must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

3. **Precautions in attack**
   - All feasible precautions must be taken to minimize civilian harm (choice of weapons, timing, warnings, cancellation/suspension if harm becomes excessive, etc.).

4. **Prohibition of indiscriminate attacks**
   - Weapons or methods that cannot be directed at a specific military objective or whose effects cannot be limited are prohibited.

5. **Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population**
   - Such as water, food, medical facilities, and sometimes energy infrastructure.

6. **Prohibition of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare**
   - Deliberately depriving civilians of food/water or blocking relief indispensable to their survival is unlawful.

7. **Treatment of detainees and hostages**
   - Torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, and hostage-taking are prohibited.

8. **Obligation to allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief** for civilians in need, subject to reasonable security controls.

---

## 3. Key areas of concern regarding Israel’s conduct

### A. Civilian casualties and large-scale destruction

- Gaza has experienced **extraordinarily high civilian death and injury**, with a significant proportion reported to be women and children, alongside massive destruction of residential areas, infrastructure, and public facilities.
- Strikes have hit:
  - Residential buildings and high-rises
  - Schools and UN shelters
  - Hospitals and medical facilities
  - Markets, camps, and densely populated neighborhoods

**Legal concerns:**
- Whether specific attacks failed to distinguish adequately between civilians and combatants.
- Whether expected civilian harm was excessive compared to the concrete military advantage (proportionality).
- Whether feasible precautions were taken (choice of munitions, timing, warnings, target verification).

**Israel’s position:**
- It argues that:
  - Hamas embeds military assets in civilian areas and uses “human shields.”
  - It provides advanced warnings (SMS, phone calls, leaflets, “roof-knocking”).
  - Many targets are legitimate military objectives (command centers, rocket launch sites, tunnels).
  - Civilian casualties, while tragic, are lawful collateral damage when proportional.

**Critics’ position (UN experts, NGOs, some states):**
- Civilian deaths and destruction are so extensive and recurrent that they indicate:
  - Possible **indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks**.
  - Potential systemic failures in target selection and assessment.
- Warnings are often insufficient (no safe place to go or impossible evacuation) and do not legalize otherwise unlawful attacks.
- Repeated strikes on known shelters and facilities raise questions about actual target verification and respect for protected sites.

Conclusion:
Many independent legal analyses argue that at least some attacks likely violate the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautions. Israel disputes this and says many casualty figures are inflated or do not distinguish combatants. Definitive conclusions require case-by-case investigations with full access to operational data, which is ongoing or not yet available.

---

### B. Siege measures, blockade, and access to essentials

Israel has heavily


text:
International humanitarian law (IHL) does not give simple yes/no legal verdicts in real time; it sets rules, and specific acts have to be assessed against those rules based on reliable facts. In Gaza, there are serious, unresolved legal disputes rather than consensus.

Here’s a structured summary of where things stand as of mid‑2026:

---

## 1. The legal framework

Key IHL rules that apply:

- **Distinction** – Parties must distinguish at all times between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives.
- **Proportionality** – An attack is prohibited if expected civilian harm would be excessive compared with the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
- **Precautions** – Parties must take feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm (warnings, weapon choice, timing, attack method).
- **Humanitarian access** – Parties must allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief, subject to security controls, and must not use starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.
- **Treatment of detainees** – Prohibitions on torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, and arbitrary deprivation of life.
- **Collective punishment** – Prohibited; responsibility must be individualized.

These rules bind both Israel and Palestinian armed groups (including Hamas).

---

## 2. Main contested aspects of Israel’s conduct

### A. Targeting and civilian casualties

Facts:
- Extremely high civilian death toll, extensive destruction of homes, infrastructure, and civilian objects (schools, medical facilities, water systems).
- Israel argues:
  - Hamas embeds military assets in civilian areas, tunnels, hospitals, and mosques.
  - The IDF uses intelligence-based targeting, precision munitions, warnings (leaflets, calls, texts), “roof-knocking,” and evacuation orders.
- Critics (UN bodies, many states, NGOs) argue:
  - The scale and pattern of destruction, including repeated strikes on densely populated areas and essential infrastructure, indicate systemic disregard for proportionality and distinction.
  - Warnings were often insufficient (too short, unsafe evacuation routes, no real place of safety).

IHL assessment:
- High civilian casualties alone do **not** automatically mean illegality; proportionality is context‑specific.
- However, repeated large-scale strikes causing massive civilian harm, especially on locations with unclear or doubtful military value, can indicate **systemic proportionality or precaution failures**.
- Whether specific strikes are lawful is often disputed and fact-intensive; some incidents have been preliminarily assessed by UN commissions and NGOs as likely violations, while Israel contests these assessments.

### B. Siege, blockade, and humanitarian access

Facts:
- Severe restrictions on fuel, electricity, food, water, medical supplies, and entry/exit from Gaza.
- Israel claims:
  - It is targeting Hamas’s capabilities, not civilians;
  - It has security reasons for screening/limiting goods;
  - It allows in aid subject to inspection;
  - Responsibility is shared with Egypt and with Hamas’s diversion of aid.
- UN agencies, the ICRC, and many states have warned of **famine risk**, large‑scale malnutrition, and collapse of health and sanitation systems, attributing this significantly to Israeli restrictions and operational choices.

IHL assessment:
- Using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare or arbitrarily obstructing indispensable supplies is prohibited.
- A blockade is not per se unlawful, but:
  - It must allow adequate supplies for civilians’ survival.
  - It must be proportionate and not aimed at collective punishment.
- Multiple UN bodies, special rapporteurs, and many states have said that Israel’s restrictions likely violate these rules and may amount to **using starvation as a method of warfare** and **collective punishment**. Israel rejects this characterization.

### C. Displacement and destruction of civilian infrastructure

Facts:
- Mass displacement of a large majority of Gaza’s population, repeated “evacuate to X” orders then renewed fighting in those zones.
- Widespread destruction of housing and civilian infrastructure beyond immediate battle areas.

IHL assessment:
- Forced displacement of civilians is prohibited unless required for their security or imperative military reasons.
- Destruction of civilian property not justified by military necessity is forbidden.
- UN fact-finding bodies and many legal experts argue patterns suggest **unlawful forcible displacement** and **destruction not strictly required by military necessity**; Israel maintains that displacements were temporary protective measures and that destruction was militarily necessary due to Hamas’s embedding and tunnel network.

### D. Hospitals and medical facilities

Facts:
- Strikes and operations in and around hospitals and medical facilities; extended ground operations in hospital complexes.
- Israel: hospitals were used for command centers, weapons storage, and tunnel access; thus they lost protection.
- Critics: even if some misuse occurred, the **scale** of attacks, surrounding sieges, and disruption of medical services exceeded what IHL allows; the evidentiary basis for some “military use” claims


text:
Whether Israel’s conduct in Gaza is consistent with international humanitarian law (IHL) is actively and sharply disputed. It depends on specific incidents, interpretations of legal standards, and facts that are still being investigated. What can be said clearly is:

1. **What IHL requires in Gaza-type conflicts**
   In an international armed conflict or a prolonged occupation, IHL (especially the Geneva Conventions and customary law) requires, among other things:
   - **Distinction**: Attacks must distinguish between combatants and civilians; civilian objects (homes, schools, hospitals, infrastructure) cannot be targeted unless and for such time as they are being used for military purposes.
   - **Proportionality**: Attacks expected to cause incidental civilian harm excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated are prohibited.
   - **Precautions in attack**: Parties must take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm (warnings, choice of weapons, timing, target verification, attack cancellation if new information arises).
   - **Prohibition on indiscriminate attack**: It’s unlawful to use methods or means of warfare that cannot be directed at a specific military objective.
   - **Protection of humanitarian relief and medical services**: Blocking essential aid or targeting medical facilities and personnel is heavily regulated and often unlawful.
   - **Treatment of detainees, prohibition of torture, collective punishment, starvation as a method of warfare**, and so on.

2. **Allegations against Israel**
   A wide range of UN bodies, NGOs, and governments have alleged serious IHL violations, including:
   - **Indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks**: The very high civilian death toll, extensive destruction of residential areas, and repeated strikes near or on shelters, schools, and medical facilities have prompted claims that Israel has violated distinction and proportionality.
   - **Attacks on protected objects**: Israel has struck hospitals, UN facilities, and aid convoys, saying they were used for military purposes or hit unintentionally. UN agencies, humanitarian groups, and some states argue patterns of attacks suggest unlawful conduct.
   - **Starvation/collective punishment**: Early and sustained restrictions on fuel, water, electricity, and aid have led UN experts and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to express concern that the civilian population is being subjected to unlawful collective punishment and potentially starvation as a method of warfare.
   - **Obligations as an occupying power** (a status Israel disputes in legal terms for Gaza, but many international bodies assert): responsibility to ensure the population’s basic needs and maintain public order and safety.

3. **Israel’s legal position**
   Israel argues, among other things:
   - Its operations are **in self‑defence** against Hamas and other armed groups after mass attacks on Israeli civilians.
   - Hamas **uses human shields**, operates from within civilian objects, and embeds military infrastructure in or under homes, schools, mosques, and hospitals, complicating distinction.
   - It makes **extensive efforts at precautions**: advance warnings (leaflets, SMS, phone calls), evacuation orders, use of certain munitions and “roof‑knocking” techniques, and target‑review processes to comply with IHL.
   - Civilian casualties and destruction, while tragic, are not in themselves proof of illegality if Israel’s attacks were directed at legitimate military objectives and expected civilian harm was not excessive relative to the military advantage.

4. **International legal processes and findings to date**
   - The **International Court of Justice (ICJ)**, in a case brought by South Africa under the Genocide Convention, has not made a final merits ruling but has:
     - Found that at least some rights asserted by Palestinians are “plausible,”
     - Ordered **provisional measures** requiring Israel to prevent acts that could fall under genocide, ensure humanitarian assistance, and preserve evidence.
     - The ICJ has not yet determined definitively that Israel is committing genocide or that specific acts are IHL violations, but it has concluded that there is a serious risk requiring urgent measures.
   - The **International Criminal Court (ICC)** Prosecutor has sought arrest warrants for Israeli officials and Hamas leaders, alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity. These are requests, not convictions; the judges still need to decide whether to issue them.
   - **UN Commissions of Inquiry, the UN Human Rights Council, and major NGOs** (e.g., Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International) have reported patterns they consider likely to amount to war crimes by Israel (as well as by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups). Israel contests these reports as biased, factually flawed, or based on incomplete information.

5. **Why there’s no single, definitive legal answer yet**
   - IHL legality turns on **specific facts** (precise target, intelligence, expected military advantage, expected civilian harm, feasibility of alternatives) that are not fully public and, in some cases, are contested.
   - Different actors interpret standards like “ex


text:
Whether Israel’s conduct in Gaza is consistent with international humanitarian law (IHL) is deeply contested. There is no single authoritative legal answer at this stage; instead, there are competing legal assessments, ongoing investigations, and incomplete facts from a war zone. What can be done is to:

1. outline the main IHL rules that apply,
2. summarize the main alleged violations,
3. indicate what various authoritative bodies have said so far, and
4. clarify what remains uncertain or unresolved.

I’ll focus on law, not political judgment.

---

## 1. Applicable law

The conflict in Gaza is generally treated as an international armed conflict (or at least as an occupation-related conflict) governed by:

- The four Geneva Conventions of 1949, especially:
  - Fourth Geneva Convention (protection of civilians),
- Customary IHL (as codified in ICRC studies),
- International human rights law (e.g., ICCPR) to the extent it applies extraterritorially,
- The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (for determining war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide).

Key IHL principles relevant to Israel’s operations:

1. **Distinction** – parties must distinguish at all times between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives; attacks may only be directed at military targets.

2. **Proportionality** – even where a target is legitimate, expected civilian harm must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

3. **Precautions in attack** – parties must take all feasible precautions to:
   - verify targets are military,
   - choose means and methods of warfare that minimize civilian harm,
   - give effective advance warning when possible.

4. **Prohibition of starvation of civilians** – parties may not starve the civilian population as a method of warfare and may not impede relief supplies indispensable to survival.

5. **Protection of medical facilities, humanitarian workers, and infrastructure** – they are protected unless used to commit acts harmful to the enemy and, even then, subject to strict conditions.

6. **Treatment of detainees and prohibition of torture, cruel or inhuman treatment.**

These rules apply to all parties: Israel, Hamas, and other armed groups.

---

## 2. Main concerns raised about Israel’s conduct

### (a) Civilian casualties and destruction

Facts (figures are approximate and from UN/health authorities, heavily contested by Israel in some details but not in overall magnitude):

- Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been reported killed, including many women and children.
- Extensive destruction of housing, civilian infrastructure, universities, and cultural sites.
- Massive displacement of much of Gaza’s population.

Legal issues:

- Whether individual attacks complied with **distinction** and **proportionality**.
- Whether patterns of attacks indicate systematic disregard for civilian life.

Pro‑Israel position (in brief):
- Hamas embeds military assets in civilian areas (command centers, tunnels, weapons near or under homes, schools, hospitals).
- Israel issues warnings to evacuate, uses precision munitions, and conducts legal reviews.
- High civilian toll is attributed to Hamas’s tactics and dense urban environment, not to unlawful targeting policies.

Critical/legal‑expert/UN position (in brief):
- The scale and pattern of destruction and civilian deaths suggest many attacks may have been indiscriminate or disproportionate.
- Evacuation orders are often not realistic or safe, with nowhere genuinely secure to go.
- Certain strikes (e.g., on schools, refugee camps, residential towers) raise serious doubts about target verification and proportionality.

From an IHL perspective:
- High civilian casualties alone do not *prove* illegality, but they trigger serious questions about whether the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautions were followed in specific operations and as a matter of policy.

### (b) Siege measures, blockade, and humanitarian access

Israel has:

- Severely restricted fuel, electricity, water, and the entry of goods,
- Controlled crossings and, along with Egypt, heavily constrained humanitarian aid flows,
- Stated an aim to pressure Hamas while denying intent to target civilians as such.

IHL issues:

- **Starvation as a method of warfare** is prohibited (Additional Protocol I art. 54; customary law).
- Parties must allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief, subject to security checks.

UN agencies, major NGOs (ICRC, Amnesty, HRW), multiple states, and UN Special Rapporteurs argue that:

- The restrictions and obstruction of humanitarian aid have created conditions of famine or near‑famine.
- This may amount to unlawful starvation of civilians and collective punishment, both prohibited under IHL and possibly constituting war crimes.

Israel responds that:

- It is not using starvation as a method of warfare,
- It allows substantial aid and that delays/shortfalls are due to security checks, Hamas theft, logistical bottlenecks, or failures by other actors.

From a legal perspective:
- Intent


text:
There isn’t a simple yes/no legal answer yet, because:

- facts are incomplete and contested
- legal assessments depend heavily on specific intent and internal decision‑making that aren’t fully public
- competent courts/tribunals haven’t issued final findings

But you can map the issues against core international humanitarian law (IHL) rules to see where the main concerns lie.

### 1. What law applies?

Primarily:

- **Geneva Conventions of 1949** and **Additional Protocol I (customary in many parts)**
- **Customary IHL**, especially:
  - distinction (civilians vs fighters)
  - proportionality (no excessive civilian harm vs concrete military advantage)
  - precautions in attack
  - humane treatment of detainees
- **Genocide Convention** and **Rome Statute of the ICC** (war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide)

These bind both Israel and armed groups in Gaza (like Hamas), though your question is about Israel.

---

### 2. Main alleged IHL violations

#### a. Distinction & indiscriminate / area‑wide attacks

Rules:
- Parties must **direct attacks only at military objectives**.
- Indiscriminate attacks (not directed at specific military targets, or using means incapable of distinguishing) are prohibited.

Facts raising concern:
- Extremely high civilian death toll (tens of thousands according to UN/health authorities; Israel disputes some figures but accepts many thousands of civilian deaths).
- Extensive destruction of civilian objects: homes, schools, UN facilities, hospitals, water/electricity infrastructure.
- Use of very heavy munitions (e.g., 2,000‑lb bombs) in densely populated areas.
- “Kill zones” and permissive rules of engagement reported in some media investigations and testimonies by Israeli soldiers.

Israel’s position:
- Hamas embeds fighters and weapons in civilian areas, tunnels under neighborhoods, uses human shields; this makes civilian harm unavoidable.
- Targets are vetted as military objectives (command centers, launch sites, tunnel shafts, fighters).
- Some attacks are based on urgent operational necessity.

Legal assessment:
- Civilian casualties and destruction alone do **not** automatically prove illegality.
- But if attacks are not directed at specific military objectives, use weapons with wide area effects in crowded settings without strict targeting, or adopt policies knowingly tolerating high civilian death where military gain is limited, they can be **indiscriminate** and unlawful.
- Multiple UN bodies, human rights organizations (including Israeli ones), and independent experts argue that patterns of strikes suggest systematic disregard for distinction; Israel rejects this.

This is a core area where future investigations (including by the ICC and possibly international commissions of inquiry) are likely to focus.

---

#### b. Proportionality

Rule:
- An attack is prohibited if it may be expected to cause **incidental civilian harm that is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated**.

Issues:
- Strikes destroying entire apartment blocks to kill a small number of suspected fighters.
- Repeated attacks on areas known to shelter displaced people.
- High casualty incidents involving families during “knock on the roof” or after warnings.
- Pattern of “power targets” (broad infrastructure believed to affect adversary’s resilience).

Israel’s position:
- Large military advantage in eliminating senior commanders, tunnel networks, rocket infrastructure.
- Some civilian casualty estimates by external actors are inflated or conflate fighters with civilians.
- Proportionality is judged **ex ante** (what was reasonably expected at the time), not by outcome.

Legal assessment:
- Whether civilian harm is “excessive” is context‑specific and hard to assess from outside: it requires access to targeting intelligence and command deliberations.
- However, certain recurring patterns (e.g., very high civilian‑to‑target ratios, knowingly attacking where many children are sheltering for modest military gain) can indicate systemic proportionality violations.
- The **ICC Prosecutor has requested arrest warrants** for senior Israeli officials for alleged war crimes including intentionally directing attacks against civilians and disproportionate attacks; Israel disputes the jurisdiction and factual basis.

So: there is substantial legal concern, but final determinations require case‑by‑case analysis and evidence not fully public.

---

#### c. Precautions in attack and in defense

Rules:
- Attacker must take **all feasible precautions** to minimize civilian harm (choice of means, timing, warnings, route selection, weapon choice, etc.).
- Defender must also take precautions: avoid locating military objectives in or near densely populated areas where feasible; not use human shields.

Issues regarding Israel:
- Short or ineffective warnings; orders to evacuate to areas that are then attacked.
- Safe zones or humanitarian areas later struck.
- Bombing routes used by civilians fleeing.
- Use of heavy explosive munitions in dense environments even when lower‑yield options might be available.

Issues regarding Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups:
- Operating from civilian areas, tunnels under homes/hospitals.
-


text:
Israel’s conduct in Gaza raises serious, unresolved legal questions under international humanitarian law (IHL). No court or independent investigation with full access has yet issued a final, comprehensive legal judgment on *all* aspects of Israel’s operations, but multiple UN bodies, human rights organizations, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have identified substantial indications of serious violations. I’ll break this down by the main legal frameworks and contested issues.

---

## 1. Applicable law

The relevant legal regimes are:

- **International humanitarian law (IHL)** – especially:
  - Geneva Conventions (notably the Fourth Geneva Convention on civilians)
  - Customary IHL on conduct of hostilities
- **International human rights law** – still applicable in armed conflict
- **International criminal law** – war crimes, crimes against humanity
- **Genocide Convention** – in relation to intent to destroy a protected group

The conflict is generally characterized as an **international armed conflict and/or belligerent occupation**, which triggers robust IHL protections for civilians.

---

## 2. Core IHL principles and how they relate to Gaza

### a. Distinction

**Rule:** Parties must distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians and target only military objectives.

**Concerns raised:**
- Extensive strikes on residential buildings, refugee camps, schools, UN facilities, hospitals, and evacuation routes.
- Very high civilian casualty rates, including large numbers of women and children, as documented by UN agencies and NGOs.
- Pattern of “dual-use” designation for civilian infrastructure (e.g., residential towers, universities, roads) where military necessity is asserted but often not substantiated publicly.

**Legal debate:**
- Israel argues Hamas embeds military assets in civilian areas, making them military objectives.
- Critics argue the scale and pattern of attacks suggest either:
  - an overly broad, legally incorrect understanding of “military objective”, or
  - failures in target verification and precautions.

---

### b. Proportionality

**Rule:** Even when attacking military objectives, expected civilian harm must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

**Concerns raised:**
- Mass casualty incidents from airstrikes in densely populated areas, including repeated strikes causing dozens or hundreds of civilian deaths for alleged single militants or low-level military targets.
- “Power target” strategies: large-scale destruction of civilian infrastructure to pressure authorities.
- ICJ (Jan and March 2024 orders in *South Africa v. Israel*) noted a “plausible risk” of genocide and ordered Israel to prevent genocidal acts and allow humanitarian aid—indicating the Court sees at least a serious risk that the scale and nature of harm to civilians is unlawful.

**Legal debate:**
- Israel claims it uses legal proportionality assessments and advanced technology to minimize harm.
- Many legal experts argue that, given casualty figures and infrastructure destruction, a significant number of attacks appear likely disproportionate as a matter of IHL.

---

### c. Precautions in attack

**Rule:** Parties must take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize incidental harm to civilians (e.g., weapon selection, timing, warnings, target verification).

**Concerns raised:**
- Use of large explosives in very densely populated neighborhoods.
- Repeated strikes in or near protected sites (hospitals, UN shelters, schools).
- “Knock-on-the-roof” and warnings sometimes given, but:
  - Warnings are often inadequate when there is nowhere genuinely safe to go, limited fuel/transport, and continuous strikes across Gaza.
  - Evacuation orders covering massive areas, without guaranteeing safe routes, shelter, food, water, or medical care.

Under IHL, a warning does **not** make an otherwise unlawful attack lawful; precautions must be *effective and feasible* in context.

---

### d. Starvation and blockade

**Rule:** Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited. Parties must allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for civilians in need.

**Facts and concerns:**
- Declarations by Israeli officials of a “complete siege” (cutting off water, food, fuel, electricity).
- Documented severe shortages of food, water, medicine, fuel, and shelter; UN agencies report acute malnutrition and famine-like conditions in parts of Gaza.
- Repeated obstructions, delays, and restrictions on humanitarian aid and on functioning of basic civilian infrastructure.

**Legal assessments:**
- Numerous UN experts and human rights organizations consider the siege tactics and obstruction of aid likely violations of:
  - Prohibitions on starvation of civilians
  - Obligation to facilitate humanitarian relief
- The ICJ’s provisional measures explicitly ordered Israel to enable humanitarian assistance and basic services, implying serious concern that existing measures were inconsistent with IHL and the Genocide Convention.

---

### e. Destruction of civilian infrastructure

**Rule:** Destruction of civilian objects is prohibited unless imperatively demanded by military necessity. Collective punishment is forbidden.

**


text:
International humanitarian law (IHL) doesn’t usually allow a simple yes/no verdict on an ongoing conflict. Instead, specific actions are assessed against specific legal rules. In Gaza, there is substantial evidence suggesting that multiple patterns of Israeli conduct raise serious concerns of non‑compliance with IHL; at the same time, some questions remain unresolved pending fuller access to information and independent investigations.

Below is a structured summary of how relevant rules apply and what major legal bodies and experts are saying.

---

## 1. Applicable Law

IHL governing the Gaza conflict includes:

- **Geneva Conventions of 1949**, especially:
  - Common Article 3 (minimum protections in non‑international conflicts, widely accepted as customary even in other contexts)
  - Fourth Geneva Convention (protection of civilians)
- **Additional Protocol I (AP I)**: Israel is not a party, but many of AP I’s core rules (distinction, proportionality, precautions, humane treatment) are customary and bind all parties.
- **Customary IHL**, as reflected in the ICRC study.
- **International human rights law** (e.g., ICCPR) also applies alongside IHL.
- **Rome Statute of the ICC** (for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide) – Palestine is a State Party, and the ICC has opened a situation covering Gaza and the West Bank.

Key IHL principles:
1. **Distinction** – between civilians/civilian objects and combatants/military objectives.
2. **Proportionality** – attacks causing expected civilian harm excessive relative to anticipated concrete and direct military advantage are prohibited.
3. **Precautions in attack** – constant care to spare civilians; feasible precautions must be taken.
4. **Humanity** – prohibition of torture, cruel treatment, collective punishment, starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.
5. **Necessity** – force limited to what is necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective under IHL.

---

## 2. Civilian Harm and Targeting Practices

### Scale of harm

- UN agencies, NGOs and local health authorities report **extremely high civilian casualties**, including large numbers of women and children, and massive destruction of homes and infrastructure.
- The sheer scale doesn’t automatically prove illegality, but it raises serious concerns about proportionality and precautions.

### Distinction and proportionality

Concerns documented by UN bodies, the ICRC, and many legal experts include:

- **Use of heavy explosive weapons in densely populated areas**
  Large air‑dropped munitions and artillery in urban settings greatly increase predictable civilian harm. Numerous strikes have hit:
  - Residential buildings and whole neighborhoods
  - Markets, schools, universities, and UN facilities where civilians were sheltering
- **Patterns of attacks on “dual‑use” objects**
  Israel has sometimes defined broad categories of civilian infrastructure (e.g., certain residential buildings, civilian ministries, or communications infrastructure) as legitimate military targets. Whether these qualify as “military objectives” under IHL is often contested.

Legal assessment:
- If commanders either:
  - did not verify targets adequately; or
  - treated clearly civilian objects as military objectives without sufficient basis; or
  - launched strikes where the expected incidental civilian loss was clearly excessive versus concrete and direct military gain,
  then such attacks would violate the principles of distinction and/or proportionality and can constitute war crimes.

Multiple UN Special Rapporteurs and the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the oPt have already stated that many strikes they analyzed appear inconsistent with IHL and may amount to war crimes.

Israel argues:
- It targets Hamas and other armed groups embedded in civilian areas;
- It issues warnings (phone calls, SMS, leaflets, “roof‑knocking” techniques);
- It claims to make proportionality assessments and cancel some strikes.

However, the **repeated patterns** of large‑scale civilian harm, attacks on known shelters, and flattened neighborhoods have led many independent legal experts to conclude that at least some, and likely many, actions are not compatible with IHL.

---

## 3. Siege, Blockade, and Starvation

### Restrictions on essentials

There have been:
- Severe restrictions on **food, water, fuel, electricity, medicine, and humanitarian aid**, alongside extensive movement and access limitations.
- Repeated public statements by Israeli officials indicating intent to withhold basic supplies (e.g., references to “no electricity, no food, no fuel”).

Under IHL:
- **Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited** (customary IHL; AP I art. 54; Rome Statute art. 8(2)(b)(xxv)).
- A party must **allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief** for civilians in need, subject to limited conditions (e.g., security controls).
- Collective punishment is prohibited (Fourth Geneva Convention art. 33).

Multiple UN officials, the ICRC, and


text:
It depends on which specific actions, which parts of international humanitarian law (IHL) you focus on, and whose legal interpretation you accept. There is no consensus among states, courts, and legal experts. But we can map the main issues and where serious legal concerns arise.

Below is a neutral, law‑focused summary as of now (mid‑2026), without trying to resolve all contested points.

---

## 1. The legal framework

The conduct of hostilities in Gaza is governed primarily by:

- The four Geneva Conventions (1949), especially:
  - Common Article 3 (minimum protections in non‑international conflicts)
  - Fourth Geneva Convention (protection of civilians)
- Additional Protocol I (1977) – Israel is not a party, but many of its rules are considered customary IHL and thus binding.
- Customary international humanitarian law
- International human rights law (e.g., ICCPR), which still applies during armed conflict alongside IHL.

Core IHL principles:

1. **Distinction** – parties must distinguish between civilians and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives; attacks may only be directed at military objectives.
2. **Proportionality** – even when attacking a legitimate military target, incidental civilian harm must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
3. **Precautions** – constant care must be taken to spare civilians; feasible precautions must be taken in choosing means, methods, and timing of attacks.
4. **Humanity** – prohibits unnecessary suffering and superfluous injury.
5. **Necessity** – force must be limited to what is necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective.
6. **Prohibition of collective punishment** – no punishment of a population for acts they did not individually commit.
7. **Obligation to allow and facilitate humanitarian relief** for civilians in need, subject to security conditions.

These principles apply to **all parties**, including Hamas and other armed groups.

---

## 2. Key aspects of Israel’s conduct that raise IHL questions

### A. Scale of civilian casualties and destruction

- Independent estimates (e.g., UN, NGOs) report very high civilian casualties and widespread destruction of homes, infrastructure, schools, and medical facilities.
- **Concern:** Whether repeated attacks in densely populated areas comply with:
  - Distinction (were targets actually military?),
  - Proportionality (was expected civilian harm excessive?),
  - Precautions (were feasible alternatives used?).

**Israel’s position:**
- It argues:
  - It targets Hamas fighters and infrastructure,
  - Civilian harm is a tragic but unavoidable consequence of fighting an adversary embedded in civilian areas,
  - It gives advance warnings (calls, leaflets, “roof‑knocking”) and uses legal advisers in targeting decisions.

**Critics’ position (UN officials, many NGOs, some states and legal experts):**
- They argue the **pattern and scale** of harm indicate:
  - Systemic proportionality violations,
  - Insufficient precautions,
  - Sometimes effectively indiscriminate or area‑wide attacks in urban zones.

Conclusion: There is extensive evidence suggesting **serious risk of widespread IHL violations**, particularly regarding proportionality and precautions, but each strike is legally assessed case‑by‑case. No authoritative court has yet ruled comprehensively on the entire campaign.

---

### B. Attacks on hospitals, schools, and UN facilities

- Many hospitals, UN shelters, and schools have been damaged or destroyed; some were reportedly struck multiple times.
- IHL:
  - Hospitals and medical units are protected unless used for military purposes; loss of protection requires clear evidence and advance warning (if feasible).
  - UN facilities sheltering civilians are civilian objects unless militarily used.

**Israel’s position:**
- Claims Hamas uses hospitals, schools, and UN facilities for military command, weapons storage, and firing positions.
- Argues that once objects are used effectively for military purposes, they become military objectives.

**Critics’ position:**
- Dispute the sufficiency, reliability, or specificity of Israel’s evidence.
- Argue that:
  - Strikes often appeared indiscriminate,
  - The presence of some fighters does not justify causing extensive civilian harm in protected facilities,
  - The principle of proportionality and precautions was frequently violated.

Conclusion: If facilities were significantly used for military purposes, some attacks may be **prima facie lawful** under IHL; if not, or if civilian harm was excessive, they may be **unlawful**. Many international bodies see a pattern suggesting serious violations, but evidence on specific targets is still being collected and contested.

---

### C. Evacuation orders and displacement

- Israel has issued mass evacuation orders to large areas of Gaza, leading to displacement of a majority of the population.
- IHL allows **evacuation for imperative military reasons** or for civilians’ security, but:
  - It must be temporary,


text:
There isn’t a simple yes/no answer, and international bodies and experts are sharply divided. It helps to separate the issues and explain what international humanitarian law (IHL) requires, then compare that to what is publicly known about Israel’s conduct in Gaza. I’ll focus on law and facts as documented by credible sources, not moral or political judgments.

## 1. The legal framework

Key IHL rules applicable to Israel’s military operations in Gaza include:

- **Distinction** – Attacks must distinguish between:
  - combatants / military objectives, and
  - civilians / civilian objects.
  Deliberate attacks on civilians are prohibited. (Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I, customary IHL)

- **Proportionality** – Even against a legitimate military target, an attack is prohibited if it is expected to cause **incidental civilian harm excessive** in relation to the **concrete and direct** military advantage anticipated.

- **Precautions in attack** – Parties must:
  - take “all feasible precautions” to minimize civilian harm, and
  - cancel or suspend attacks if it becomes apparent they are disproportionate.

- **Human shields & urban fighting** – If the enemy uses civilians or civilian buildings (e.g., hospitals, schools) for military purposes, those places can sometimes become military objectives, but attacking forces are **not relieved** of their duties of distinction, proportionality, and precautions.

- **Starvation, siege, and essential supplies** – It is prohibited to:
  - use starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, or
  - deny relief indispensable to civilians (food, water, medicine, fuel) when you control their access.

- **Protection of medical facilities and personnel** – Hospitals and medical units are protected unless used to commit “acts harmful to the enemy,” and even then there are strict conditions before attack.

- **Hostage-taking, torture, collective punishment** – All prohibited. This applies to all sides.

These rules bind both Israel and Palestinian armed groups as a matter of customary IHL and, in various ways, treaty law.

## 2. Areas where Israel argues compliance

Israel and its allies typically advance arguments along these lines (summarized, not endorsed):

1. **Self‑defense against Hamas**
   - Israel cites Hamas’s 7 October 2023 attacks, hostage‑taking, and continued rocket fire as grounds for large‑scale military operations in Gaza.
   - Under IHL, *why* you fight (self‑defense vs aggression) does not change the rules on how you must fight; but it can affect how states frame their military necessity.

2. **Targeting military objectives and Hamas infrastructure**
   - Israel claims to target Hamas fighters, command nodes, tunnels, weapons depots, and rocket launch sites, including those allegedly embedded under or near civilian sites (hospitals, schools, residential areas).
   - It argues that heavy urban destruction is a consequence of Hamas’s embedding in civilian areas.

3. **Warnings and evacuations**
   - Israel points to mass SMS messages, phone calls, leaflets, and public maps dividing Gaza into small “grid” areas, directing civilians to evacuate ahead of attacks.
   - It argues these are “feasible precautions” to reduce civilian casualties.

4. **Investigations**
   - Israel says its military justice system investigates alleged violations and that this shows an intent and system to comply with IHL.

From this perspective, Israel claims:
- it does not *intend* to target civilians as such;
- high civilian casualties are a tragic but legally permissible side effect of attacking militarily significant targets in extremely dense urban conditions where Hamas unlawfully hides among civilians.

## 3. Major concerns raised by UN bodies and many legal experts

A wide array of UN experts, human‑rights organizations (Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, etc.), and some governments/independent commissions have expressed **serious doubts** that Israel’s conduct complies with IHL overall, citing:

### A. Civilian casualties and destruction on an exceptional scale

- Tens of thousands of reported Palestinian deaths, a very high proportion women and children; widespread destruction of housing, infrastructure, and entire neighborhoods.
- Destruction levels some experts describe as among the worst of any conflict in recent decades.

Legal concern:
- The *pattern* and scale of harm may indicate that **proportionality** and **precautions** requirements are not being observed in practice, especially if high‑yield munitions are routinely used in dense civilian areas for targets of arguable limited military value.

### B. Repeated strikes on protected sites

- Documented strikes on:
  - UN facilities (especially UNRWA schools used as shelters),
  - hospitals and medical facilities,
  - water and sanitation infrastructure,
  - journalists and media offices.

Israel often claims such sites were used by Hamas for military purposes (command posts, weapons storage, tunnel access). However:

-


text:
Whether Israel’s conduct in Gaza is consistent with international humanitarian law (IHL) is actively disputed. Different actors reach sharply different conclusions, and much turns on facts that are still contested or not fully verified. What I can do is:

1. Outline the key IHL rules that apply.
2. Summarize the main alleged violations.
3. Show how major legal bodies and states are currently characterizing Israel’s conduct.

If you tell me later what level of detail or which angle (legal doctrine, specific incidents, particular sources) you want, I can narrow in.

---

## 1. Applicable law in brief

The Gaza conflict is governed by:

- **International humanitarian law (IHL)** – mainly:
  - The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 (especially IV: protection of civilians).
  - Customary IHL (e.g., ICRC rules).
  - Rules on **conduct of hostilities**: distinction, proportionality, precautions, humane treatment.
- **International human rights law** – still applies alongside IHL.
- **International criminal law** – especially:
  - Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) (war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide).

Key IHL principles on targeting:

- **Distinction**: Only military objectives may be attacked; civilians and civilian objects must be spared as much as possible.
- **Proportionality**: Incidental civilian harm must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
- **Precautions in attack**: Parties must take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm (choice of weapons, timing, warnings, routes for evacuation, etc.).
- **Prohibition of starvation and collective punishment**: You cannot use starvation as a method of warfare, nor punish a population for acts of a few.
- **Special protection for medical, humanitarian, and UN facilities** unless they are being used for military purposes and after due process.

These rules are **binding regardless of Hamas’s conduct**. One side’s violations do not legally justify reciprocal violations.

---

## 2. Main allegations regarding Israel’s conduct

### A. Scale and pattern of civilian harm

- Independent sources (UN, NGOs, media, satellite imagery) report:
  - Very high civilian death toll, large proportion women and children.
  - Massive destruction of residential areas and civilian infrastructure (homes, schools, hospitals, markets, water/sanitation, power).
- Critics argue:
  - The **pattern and scale** of harm, plus types of targets hit, suggest systematic or reckless disregard for distinction and proportionality.
- Israel argues:
  - Hamas embeds forces and assets in densely populated areas (tunnels, command centers in/under civilian sites).
  - It issues warnings (leaflets, SMS, phone calls, mapped “evacuation zones”) and adapts attacks when feasible.
  - High civilian harm is tragic but not *per se* unlawful in urban warfare; legality turns on each attack’s specifics, often not fully public.

From an IHL perspective, **numbers alone do not prove illegality**, but they are legally relevant context when assessing whether a belligerent is taking feasible precautions and respecting proportionality.

### B. Attacks on civilian objects and protected sites

Allegations (from UN agencies, human rights groups, journalists):

- Repeated strikes on:
  - Residential buildings and whole neighborhoods.
  - Schools and UNRWA facilities where displaced civilians shelter.
  - Hospitals and medical facilities; attacks near or on ambulances.
  - Water, sewage, electricity, bakeries, and other basic infrastructure.
- Israel’s replies:
  - Claims many such facilities were used for military purposes (weapons, fighters, command centers, tunnels).
  - Says some strikes were errors or due to operational necessity and that it often issued evacuation or warning orders.

Legally, if a civilian object is used for military purposes it can lose protection, **but**:
- The attacker still must assess proportionality and take precautions.
- They should have reasonably reliable intelligence.
- Warnings must be effective “feasible precautions,” not formalities.

Several UN organs, independent rapporteurs, and NGOs argue that the **frequency and pattern** of hits on protected sites suggests systemic failures or deliberate targeting beyond lawful bounds.

### C. Blockade, siege, and humanitarian access

After October 7, Israel announced “complete siege” measures: no electricity, fuel, food, or water; severe restrictions on aid entry; tight control of crossings and inspection.

IHL issues:

- **Starvation**: Using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.
- **Humanitarian relief**: Parties must allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of impartial humanitarian relief, subject to security checks.
- **Collective punishment**: Prohibited.

UN officials, the ICRC, and many states have stated that:

- The level and method of restricting aid and basic necessities, coupled with displacement and destruction, are inconsistent with IHL and


text:
It isn’t possible to give a simple yes/no, because:

- the facts on the ground are incomplete, contested, and evolving, and
- international humanitarian law (IHL) is a framework of standards, not a checklist that clearly labels every act in real time.

What I can do is explain the relevant IHL rules, summarize main alleged violations, and show how different actors are assessing Israel’s conduct.

---

## 1. What law applies?

Two main bodies of law apply to Israel’s operations in Gaza:

1. **International humanitarian law (IHL)** – especially:
   - The four Geneva Conventions (1949)
   - Customary IHL, including:
     - Distinction (civilians vs combatants)
     - Proportionality
     - Precautions in attack
     - Treatment of detainees
     - Protection of medical facilities, humanitarian workers, and objects indispensable to civilian survival

2. **International human rights law** – continues to apply during conflict, though IHL is the lex specialis for conduct of hostilities.

Israel is not a party to Additional Protocol I, but many of its provisions are considered customary and thus binding.

---

## 2. Core IHL rules relevant to Gaza

Simplified:

1. **Distinction**
   - Must distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians and between military objectives and civilian objects.
   - Attacks may only be directed against military objectives.

2. **Proportionality**
   - Even if a target is lawful, an attack is prohibited if expected civilian harm would be excessive in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage.

3. **Precautions in attack**
   - Take all feasible precautions to:
     - Verify targets are military objectives
     - Choose means/methods to minimize civilian harm
     - Give effective advance warnings when circumstances permit

4. **Protection of medical and humanitarian actors**
   - Hospitals, ambulances, medical personnel and humanitarian relief operations are protected unless and for such time as they are used to commit acts harmful to the enemy, and even then conditions apply.

5. **Sieges / starvation**
   - Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.
   - Parties must allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for civilians in need, subject to security controls, and must not arbitrarily deny it.

6. **Treatment of detainees**
   - Humane treatment; no torture; due process for prosecutions.

7. **Prohibition of indiscriminate and area-wide destruction**
   - Weapons or bombardment that cannot be directed at a specific military objective, or that affects military and civilian objects without distinction, are prohibited.

These rules apply to *all* parties: Israel, Hamas, and other armed groups.

---

## 3. Main areas of concern regarding Israel’s conduct

Multiple UN bodies, humanitarian organizations, and legal experts have raised concerns that certain aspects of Israel’s Gaza campaign are inconsistent with IHL. Israel disputes many of these claims.

### 3.1 Scale of civilian casualties and destruction

Facts (as reported by UN agencies and others; figures vary and remain contested):

- Very high numbers of civilian deaths, including women and children.
- Extensive destruction of housing, civilian infrastructure, and whole neighborhoods.
- Strikes in or near schools, shelters, hospitals, refugee camps, markets, and UN facilities.

**IHL issue:** Proportionality and precautions in attack.

- Critics argue:
  - The frequency of mass-casualty strikes and widespread destruction suggests attacks may be disproportionate or that precautions are inadequate.
  - Certain attacks (e.g., repeated strikes on areas where civilians were known to be sheltering) may not meet the proportionality test.
- Israel’s position:
  - Hamas is deeply embedded in civilian areas (tunnels, command centers near/under civilian sites).
  - High civilian harm is tragic but not per se unlawful if Israel is attacking legitimate military objectives and taking feasible precautions.
  - Israel asserts it uses intelligence-based targeting, warnings (leaflets, calls, texts), and other measures to reduce harm.

IHL assessment here depends heavily on **specific facts** about each operation: target value, information available at the time, expected vs actual civilian presence, alternatives, etc.—many of which are not public.

---

### 3.2 Warnings and evacuations

Israel has issued large-scale evacuation orders, including for entire districts, and “safe routes”/“safe zones” that have at times also been struck.

**IHL issue:** Effectiveness of warnings and feasibility of precautions.

- Concerns raised:
  - Warnings directing over a million people to move in very short timeframes, with little fuel/water/shelter, may be impossible to comply with safely and thus not “effective” in IHL terms.
  - Strikes on areas previously indicated as safe undermine the reliability of warnings and may deter


text:
Whether Israel’s conduct in Gaza is consistent with international humanitarian law (IHL) is actively disputed. There is no single authoritative legal judgment yet, but several key legal bodies and experts have raised serious concerns that some Israeli actions may violate IHL, including potentially amounting to war crimes or crimes against humanity. Below is a structured summary of where things stand as of mid‑2026.

---

## 1. Relevant legal framework

The main IHL rules that apply:

- **Geneva Conventions (especially Fourth Geneva Convention)** – protection of civilians in armed conflict and occupation.
- **Additional Protocol I (many rules are customary even for states that haven’t ratified it)** – distinction, proportionality, precautions in attack.
- **Customary IHL** – widely accepted rules on targeting, siege, starvation, treatment of detainees, etc.
- **Genocide Convention** – prohibition of acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

Key principles:

1. **Distinction** – must distinguish between civilians and combatants; attacks may only be directed at military objectives.
2. **Proportionality** – even against a legitimate military target, expected civilian harm cannot be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
3. **Precautions in attack** – must take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm (warnings, choice of weapons, timing, etc.).
4. **Prohibition of collective punishment** – may not punish a population for acts of a few.
5. **Prohibition on starvation of civilians as a method of warfare** – including blocking essential food, water, and medicine.
6. **Obligation to allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief** for civilians in need.
7. **Treatment of detainees** – humane treatment, no torture or enforced disappearance.

These rules bind both Israel and Palestinian armed groups (including Hamas).

---

## 2. Main alleged violations by Israel

### a. Civilian casualties and destruction

- The Gaza war has caused **very high civilian death and injury**, including large numbers of women and children, and massive destruction of homes and infrastructure.
- Israel argues:
  - Hamas embeds fighters and military assets in civilian areas, uses human shields, and operates from hospitals, schools, and residential buildings.
  - It issues warnings (leaflets, SMS, phone calls) and uses precision weapons where possible.
- Critics (UN officials, NGOs, many legal scholars) argue:
  - The **scale and pattern** of destruction and casualties suggest repeated **disproportionate attacks** and/or **indiscriminate use of explosive weapons in densely populated areas**.
  - “Evacuation orders” to huge areas, followed by heavy bombardment, may not satisfy the duty of feasible precautions when there is nowhere genuinely safe to go.

No final court ruling exists yet on specific strikes, but multiple UN commissions and NGOs have documented incidents they consider likely war crimes.

### b. Siege, blockade, and humanitarian access

- Israel has imposed severe restrictions on **food, water, fuel, electricity, and medical supplies**, and has tightly controlled humanitarian aid entry and distribution.
- Israel’s position:
  - It is targeting Hamas’s capabilities, not civilians; restrictions are security‑driven (e.g., preventing diversion of fuel and materials to military use).
  - It has allowed some aid in and coordinates with international organizations.
- UN agencies, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in provisional measures, and many states have said:
  - The level of restriction has contributed to **famine or near‑famine conditions** in parts of Gaza.
  - This likely violates the **prohibition on starvation of civilians as a method of warfare** and the duty to facilitate humanitarian relief.
  - Some measures may amount to **collective punishment** of the civilian population.

### c. Forced displacement

- Large portions of Gaza’s population have been repeatedly displaced by evacuation orders and fighting.
- Israel says:
  - Evacuations are temporary protective measures to move civilians away from combat zones.
- Critics argue:
  - The **scale, duration, and conditions** of displacement, combined with destruction of homes and infrastructure, may amount to **forcible transfer** of civilians, which is prohibited unless absolutely required for their security or imperative military reasons, and even then must be temporary and with proper conditions.

### d. Treatment of detainees and conduct of ground operations

- There are reports of:
  - **Mass detentions**, harsh conditions, incommunicado detention, and alleged abuse or torture of Palestinian detainees.
- If substantiated, such acts would violate IHL and international human rights law.

---

## 3. Genocide allegations

- South Africa brought a case against Israel at the **ICJ** under the Genocide Convention.
- In its **provisional measures orders**, the ICJ:
  - Did **not** decide that genocide is occurring (that requires a


text:
Whether Israel’s conduct in Gaza is consistent with international humanitarian law (IHL) is actively disputed. There is no single authoritative legal judgment yet, but several key legal bodies and experts have raised serious concerns that some Israeli actions may violate IHL, including potentially amounting to war crimes or crimes against humanity. Below is a structured summary of where things stand as of mid‑2026.

---

## 1. Relevant legal framework

The main IHL rules that apply:

- **Geneva Conventions (especially Fourth Geneva Convention)** – protection of civilians in armed conflict and occupation.
- **Additional Protocol I (many rules are customary even for states that haven’t ratified it)** – distinction, proportionality, precautions in attack.
- **Customary IHL** – widely accepted rules on targeting, siege, starvation, treatment of detainees, etc.
- **Genocide Convention** – prohibition of acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

Key principles:

1. **Distinction** – must distinguish between civilians and combatants; attacks may only be directed at military objectives.
2. **Proportionality** – even against a legitimate military target, expected civilian harm cannot be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
3. **Precautions in attack** – must take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm (warnings, choice of weapons, timing, etc.).
4. **Prohibition of collective punishment** – may not punish a population for the acts of some of its members.
5. **Prohibition on starvation of civilians as a method of warfare** – including blocking essential food, water, and medicine.
6. **Obligation to allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief** for civilians in need.
7. **Treatment of detainees** – humane treatment, no torture or enforced disappearance.

These rules bind both Israel and Palestinian armed groups (including Hamas).

---

## 2. Main alleged violations by Israel

### a. Civilian casualties and destruction

- The Gaza war has caused **very high civilian death tolls** and massive destruction of civilian infrastructure (homes, hospitals, schools, water and sanitation systems).
- UN bodies, major NGOs (e.g., Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International), and many legal experts argue that:
  - Some attacks appear **indiscriminate** or **disproportionate**.
  - The pattern and scale of destruction suggest **systemic failures** to comply with distinction and proportionality.
- Israel responds that:
  - Hamas embeds military assets in civilian areas, uses human shields, and operates from hospitals and schools.
  - It issues warnings, uses precision weapons, and conducts legal reviews of targets.
- Legally, even if Hamas violates IHL, that **does not relieve Israel** of its own obligations.

There is no final court ruling yet, but multiple UN fact‑finding efforts and independent experts have said there are **reasonable grounds to believe** some Israeli strikes may constitute war crimes.

### b. Siege, blockade, and humanitarian access

- Israel has imposed severe restrictions on **food, water, fuel, electricity, and medical supplies** entering Gaza, especially in the early months of the war.
- UN officials, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and many states have warned that:
  - The restrictions and delays in aid delivery, combined with destruction of infrastructure, have created **acute risk of famine** and public health catastrophe.
  - This may amount to **using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare**, which is prohibited.
- Israel argues:
  - It allows significant aid in, subject to security checks to prevent weapons smuggling.
  - Egypt and other actors also control crossings and share responsibility.
- Several UN Special Rapporteurs and NGOs have characterized aspects of the siege as **collective punishment**, which is explicitly banned under IHL.

### c. Attacks on medical facilities, journalists, and UN sites

- Numerous **hospitals, clinics, ambulances, UN schools and shelters, and media workers** have been hit.
- Israel often claims:
  - These sites were used for military purposes (e.g., command centers, weapons storage).
- IHL allows attacking a medical or UN facility only if it is being used for military purposes and, even then, requires strict proportionality and precautions.
- UN agencies, the WHO, and press freedom organizations say:
  - The **frequency and pattern** of such incidents suggest systemic problems with target verification and proportionality.
  - In many cases, they dispute Israel’s claims of military use or say the evidence has not been made public.

### d. Displacement and conditions of life

- A very large proportion of Gaza’s population has been **forcibly displaced**, often multiple times.
- IHL prohibits **forcible transfer** of civilians except for their own security or imperative military reasons, and even then with strict conditions.
- The **conditions in displacement areas** (


text:
International humanitarian law (IHL) doesn’t give simple yes/no verdicts on an entire war; it evaluates specific acts and policies against specific rules. In Gaza, there are serious, well‑documented concerns that many Israeli practices are inconsistent with IHL, but a definitive legal conclusion on “overall legality” would ultimately come from competent courts or tribunals, not from commentary.

Here’s a structured summary of the main IHL issues and how they relate to Israel’s conduct, based on publicly available information up to May 2026:

---

## 1. Applicable law

Key bodies of law:

- **Geneva Conventions (especially IV) and Additional Protocol I (many rules are customary and bind all states)**
- **Customary IHL**, including:
  - Distinction (civilians vs combatants)
  - Proportionality (no excessive civilian harm vs concrete military advantage)
  - Precautions in attack
  - Prohibition of starvation of civilians
  - Protection of medical facilities, humanitarian workers, and civilian infrastructure
- **International human rights law** (e.g., ICCPR) continues to apply alongside IHL.
- **Rome Statute of the ICC** (war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide) – relevant because the ICC has opened an investigation covering Palestine/Israel.

---

## 2. Distinction and proportionality

### Civilian casualties and destruction

- Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been reported killed, a large proportion women and children; vast areas of Gaza have been destroyed.
- Israel argues:
  - Hamas embeds fighters and assets in civilian areas.
  - It targets military objectives and uses precision weapons.
- Critics (UN officials, major NGOs, independent experts) argue:
  - The scale and pattern of destruction and casualties suggest **indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks**.
  - Repeated strikes on residential buildings, schools, UN facilities, and shelters raise doubts about target selection and proportionality assessments.

**IHL assessment:**
- High civilian casualties alone do not automatically prove illegality.
- However, repeated attacks with very high civilian tolls, especially where the military advantage is unclear or marginal, can violate:
  - **Proportionality** (Art. 51(5)(b) AP I, customary IHL)
  - **Obligation to take feasible precautions** (Art. 57 AP I)

Many UN bodies and NGOs (e.g., UN Commission of Inquiry, Amnesty, HRW) have concluded there are strong indications of **repeated disproportionate and possibly indiscriminate attacks**, which would be war crimes if proven.

---

## 3. Warnings, evacuation orders, and “safe zones”

Israel has issued:
- Mass evacuation orders (e.g., northern Gaza, then parts of the south)
- “Roof‑knocking” and other warning methods
- Designation of certain areas as “safe”

Concerns raised:
- Gaza is densely populated and effectively sealed; civilians often have **nowhere genuinely safe to go**.
- Evacuation routes and “safe zones” have themselves been hit.
- Repeated displacement of over a million people, often without adequate shelter, food, water, or medical care.

**IHL assessment:**
- Warnings are required “unless circumstances do not permit,” but:
  - Warnings do **not** legalize an otherwise unlawful attack.
  - Forcible displacement is prohibited unless required for civilians’ security or imperative military reasons (Art. 49 GC IV).
- Large‑scale, repeated displacement into areas that are not actually safe, without ensuring basic conditions, is difficult to reconcile with the protective purpose of IHL and may amount to **unlawful forcible transfer**.

---

## 4. Siege, starvation, and humanitarian access

Israel has:
- Severely restricted or cut off electricity, fuel, water, and many goods.
- Limited humanitarian aid flows, with UN agencies repeatedly saying access is **grossly insufficient**.
- Conducted operations and imposed conditions that have contributed to widespread hunger and, according to some UN officials, **famine‑like conditions** in parts of Gaza.

IHL rules:
- **Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited** (Art. 54 AP I; customary IHL).
- Parties must allow and facilitate **rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief** for civilians in need, subject to security controls.

UN experts, the UN Secretary‑General, and major NGOs have warned that:
- The pattern of restrictions, combined with destruction of food systems and infrastructure, may amount to **using starvation as a method of warfare**, a war crime.
- Even if not intended as “starvation,” the level of obstruction to aid and essential services is widely viewed as **inconsistent with IHL obligations**.

---

## 5. Attacks on medical facilities, UN sites, and journalists

There have been:
- Numerous strikes on hospitals, clinics, ambulances, and medical staff.


text:
Whether Israel’s conduct in Gaza is consistent with international humanitarian law (IHL) is actively disputed. There is no single authoritative legal judgment yet, but several key legal bodies and experts have raised serious concerns that some Israeli actions may violate IHL, including potentially amounting to war crimes or crimes against humanity. Below is a structured summary of where things stand as of mid‑2026.

---

## 1. Relevant legal framework

The main IHL rules that apply:

- **Geneva Conventions (especially Fourth Geneva Convention)** – protection of civilians in armed conflict and occupation.
- **Additional Protocol I (many rules are customary even for states that haven’t ratified it)** – distinction, proportionality, precautions in attack.
- **Customary IHL** – widely accepted rules on targeting, siege, starvation, treatment of detainees, etc.
- **Genocide Convention** – prohibition of acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

Key principles:

1. **Distinction** – must distinguish between civilians and combatants; attacks may only be directed at military objectives.
2. **Proportionality** – even against a legitimate military target, expected civilian harm cannot be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
3. **Precautions in attack** – must take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm (warnings, choice of weapons, timing, etc.).
4. **Prohibition of collective punishment** – may not punish a population for acts of a few.
5. **Prohibition on starvation of civilians as a method of warfare** – including blocking essential supplies.
6. **Obligation to allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief** for civilians in need.
7. **Treatment of detainees** – humane treatment, no torture or enforced disappearance.

These rules bind both Israel and Palestinian armed groups (including Hamas).

---

## 2. Main alleged violations by Israel

### a. Civilian casualties and destruction

- The Gaza war since October 2023 has caused **tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths**, a very high proportion reported as women and children, and massive destruction of civilian infrastructure (homes, hospitals, schools, water and sanitation systems).
- UN bodies, major NGOs (e.g., Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières), and many legal experts argue that:
  - Some attacks appear **indiscriminate** or **disproportionate**.
  - The pattern and scale of destruction suggest **systemic failures** to comply with distinction and proportionality.
- Israel responds that:
  - Hamas embeds military assets in civilian areas, uses human shields, and operates from hospitals and schools.
  - It issues warnings, uses precision weapons, and conducts legal reviews of targets.
  - Civilian harm, while tragic, is not per se unlawful if attacks are aimed at legitimate military objectives and proportionality is respected.

There is no consensus: many independent observers see strong evidence of IHL violations; Israel maintains its operations are lawful and necessary.

### b. Siege, blockade, and humanitarian access

- Israel has imposed severe restrictions on **food, water, fuel, electricity, and medical supplies**, and has tightly controlled humanitarian aid.
- UN agencies, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and most humanitarian organizations state that:
  - The restrictions have contributed to **famine or near‑famine conditions** in parts of Gaza.
  - This likely violates the prohibition on **starvation of civilians as a method of warfare** and the duty to allow humanitarian relief.
- Israel argues:
  - It allows significant aid in, subject to security checks.
  - Hamas diverts aid and uses resources for military purposes.
  - Some restrictions are necessary to prevent weapons smuggling and to pressure Hamas, not to starve civilians.

Many legal experts consider the scale and duration of deprivation, combined with public statements by some Israeli officials, as strong evidence of unlawful collective punishment and possibly starvation as a method of warfare.

### c. Forced displacement and “safe zones”

- Large parts of Gaza’s population have been repeatedly ordered to evacuate, often to areas later attacked or lacking basic services.
- Critics argue:
  - The **scale and conditions** of displacement may amount to **forcible transfer** of civilians, which is prohibited.
  - “Safe zones” have not consistently been safe or adequately supplied.
- Israel contends:
  - Evacuation orders are **precautionary measures** to reduce civilian casualties.
  - Hamas prevents civilians from leaving and uses them as shields.

Whether these evacuations are lawful depends on necessity, conditions, and whether civilians have genuine options for safety and return.

### d. Attacks on medical facilities, journalists, and infrastructure

- Numerous hospitals, clinics, ambulances, journalists, and media offices have been hit.
- IHL protects medical units and journalists unless they are used for military purposes, and even then, attacks must be


text:
Whether Israel’s conduct in Gaza is consistent with international humanitarian law (IHL) is actively disputed. There is no single authoritative legal judgment yet, but there are several key legal processes and findings that frame the debate.

I’ll summarize the main points:

---

## 1. Applicable law

The main IHL rules that apply are:

- **Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I (many rules are customary and bind all parties):**
  - Distinction: attacks must distinguish between combatants and civilians.
  - Proportionality: expected civilian harm must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
  - Precautions: all feasible precautions must be taken to minimize civilian harm.
  - Prohibition of indiscriminate attacks.
  - Protection of hospitals, medical staff, humanitarian workers, and objects indispensable to civilian survival (water, food, electricity, etc.).
- **Prohibition of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.**
- **Prohibition of collective punishment.**
- **Obligations of an occupying power** (Israel disputes it is an occupier in Gaza; many UN bodies and states consider it still has significant responsibilities due to effective control over borders, airspace, etc.).

These rules bind both Israel and Palestinian armed groups (including Hamas).

---

## 2. What major legal bodies and experts have said

### International Court of Justice (ICJ) – Genocide case (South Africa v. Israel)

- **January 26, 2024 (provisional measures):**
  - The ICJ did *not* decide whether genocide is occurring.
  - It found that at least some of South Africa’s genocide allegations are “plausible” enough to warrant emergency measures.
  - It ordered Israel to:
    - Prevent acts that could fall under the Genocide Convention (killing, serious harm, conditions of life calculated to bring about destruction, etc.).
    - Ensure its forces do not commit genocidal acts.
    - Prevent and punish direct and public incitement to genocide.
    - Enable provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance.
  - This implies the Court sees a serious risk that IHL and genocide obligations may be violated, but it is not a final finding.

- **March 28 and May 24, 2024 (additional measures):**
  - The ICJ ordered Israel to take further steps to allow humanitarian aid and to halt operations that could destroy conditions of life in Gaza, especially around Rafah.
  - Again, these are not final determinations of illegality, but they reflect grave concern that current conduct may breach IHL and genocide obligations.

### International Criminal Court (ICC)

- **May 20, 2024:** The ICC Prosecutor requested arrest warrants for:
  - **Israeli officials** (including Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Gallant) for alleged:
    - Extermination and/or murder as crimes against humanity.
    - Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.
    - Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury.
    - Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population.
    - Other inhumane acts.
  - **Hamas leaders** for alleged:
    - Extermination, murder, taking of hostages, torture, rape and other crimes.

These are *allegations*, not convictions, but they indicate the Prosecutor’s view that there are reasonable grounds to believe serious IHL and international criminal law violations have occurred.

---

## 3. Positions of UN bodies and human rights organizations

- **UN bodies (e.g., UN Human Rights Council commissions, UN Special Rapporteurs, OCHA, WHO, WFP)** have repeatedly:
  - Alleged that Israel’s bombardment, siege, and restrictions on aid are inconsistent with IHL (indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks, starvation, collective punishment).
  - Also condemned Hamas and other armed groups for war crimes (October 7 attacks, hostage-taking, indiscriminate rocket fire, use of human shields).

- **Major NGOs (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Médecins Sans Frontières, etc.)**:
  - Argue that patterns of attacks on civilian infrastructure, extremely high civilian casualties, and obstruction of aid show systematic violations of IHL by Israel.
  - Also document war crimes by Palestinian armed groups.

Israel rejects many of these assessments as biased or factually incorrect.

---

## 4. Israel’s legal position

Israel argues that:

- It is acting in **self-defense** after the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks.
- It targets **military objectives** (Hamas fighters, tunnels, command centers) and that:
  - Civilian casualties are a tragic but lawful consequence of Hamas embedding in civilian areas.
  - It issues warnings, evacuation orders, and uses various precautions.
- It disputes that it is using starvation as a method of warfare, claiming:
  - It allows significant aid in, and that delays or limits are due to security checks, Hamas diversion