prompt_id: pol-israel-palestine

text:
International humanitarian law (IHL) sets rules for how wars are fought, not whether they are justified. Whether Israel’s conduct in Gaza is consistent with IHL is actively contested and cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. It depends on specific operations, evidence, and legal standards. Here’s the core of the legal and factual debate as of mid‑2026:

### 1. What IHL requires

Key IHL rules (mainly from the Geneva Conventions and customary law):

1. **Distinction**
   - Parties must always distinguish between combatants and civilians, and between military objectives and civilian objects.
   - Attacks may only be directed at military objectives.

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

3. **Precautions in attack**
   - Parties must do everything feasible to:
     - Verify that targets are military objectives.
     - Choose means and methods of warfare that minimize civilian harm.
     - Give effective advance warnings when possible.

4. **Protection of civilians and objects indispensable to survival**
   - Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.
   - Attacking or destroying objects indispensable for civilians’ survival (water, food, agriculture) is generally prohibited unless imperatively required by military necessity.

5. **Treatment of detainees and the wounded**
   - Prohibition of torture, inhuman treatment, and enforced disappearances.

6. **War crimes and individual responsibility**
   - Serious violations (e.g., intentionally targeting civilians, disproportionate attacks, starvation, using human shields) can be war crimes.
   - Responsibility is individual (commanders, political leaders, soldiers), not abstractly “Israel” or “Palestine.”

### 2. Main alleged violations regarding Israel’s conduct

Multiple UN bodies, humanitarian organizations, and some states allege that aspects of Israel’s Gaza operations violate IHL. Key concerns include:

1. **Extremely high civilian casualties and destruction**
   - Air and artillery strikes have killed large numbers of civilians, including many women and children, and destroyed vast areas of civilian infrastructure (homes, schools, hospitals, UN shelters).
   - Critics argue that this indicates:
     - **Failure of distinction** (insufficient target verification).
     - **Disproportionate attacks** where civilian harm is excessive compared to the military advantage.
   - Supporters of Israel argue:
     - Hamas embeds in dense urban areas, using civilian buildings and tunnels.
     - Civilian casualties, while tragic, are not in themselves proof of illegality; proportionality is judged case by case, with information commanders had at the time.

2. **Siege, blockade, and restriction of essential supplies**
   - Israel has imposed severe limitations on fuel, electricity, water, food, and medical supplies entering Gaza.
   - Critics (including UN experts and major NGOs) argue that:
     - Such measures, especially when broad and prolonged, amount to **collective punishment** and possibly **starvation as a method of warfare**, both prohibited under IHL.
   - Israel argues:
     - The blockade and restrictions are lawful security measures to prevent weapons and dual‑use items from reaching Hamas.
     - It facilitates humanitarian aid, subject to inspections and security conditions, and thus is not targeting civilians as such.

3. **Attacks on medical facilities, UN facilities, and protected sites**
   - Numerous reports document strikes on hospitals, ambulances, UNRWA schools/shelters, and other protected objects.
   - Alleged violations:
     - Attacking specially protected objects without sufficient evidence they had lost protection (e.g., being used for military purposes).
   - Israel argues:
     - Hamas uses hospitals, schools, and UN facilities for military purposes (command centers, weapons storage, tunnel access).
     - Once used for military purposes, these sites can become lawful targets, although proportionality and precautions still apply.
   - Dispute centers on:
     - Quality of Israel’s intelligence.
     - Whether alternatives and precautions were feasible.
     - Whether civilian harm was excessive.

4. **Evacuation orders and displacement**
   - Israel has issued mass evacuation orders covering large areas, resulting in large‑scale displacement.
   - Critics argue:
     - Evacuation routes and destinations have often been unsafe.
     - Widespread destruction and inability to return may amount to **forcible transfer** or unlawful displacement.
   - Israel argues:
     - Evacuation orders are **precautionary measures** to reduce civilian casualties.
     - It has provided maps, SMS warnings, leaflets, and phone calls to facilitate evacuation.

5. **Detention, treatment of detainees, and conditions**
   - There are reports and allegations of ill‑


provider: openai

text:
Whether Israel’s conduct in Gaza is consistent with international humanitarian law (IHL) is actively and sharply disputed. The answer depends on specific incidents, evidence that is still being gathered, and legal interpretations that are ultimately for competent courts or tribunals to decide. What can be done now is to:

1. outline the main IHL rules that apply,
2. describe documented patterns of conduct,
3. summarize how major legal actors are currently assessing them.

I’ll keep this focused and structured.

---

## 1. The applicable law in brief

In Gaza, the relevant body of law is:

- **International humanitarian law (IHL)** – especially:
  - The Geneva Conventions, particularly Common Article 3.
  - Customary IHL on:
    - distinction (civilians vs. combatants),
    - proportionality,
    - precautions in attack,
    - humane treatment and prohibition of torture,
    - protection of humanitarian relief and medical services.

- **International human rights law** – continues to apply, especially on:
  - right to life,
  - prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment,
  - economic, social and cultural rights (e.g., health, food, water).

- **International criminal law** – particularly the Rome Statute of the ICC, defining:
  - war crimes,
  - crimes against humanity,
  - genocide.

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

---

## 2. Key issues and alleged patterns of conduct

### A. Targeting and bombing practices

Core IHL standards:
- Parties must **distinguish** between civilians/civilian objects and combatants/military objectives.
- **Indiscriminate attacks** are prohibited.
- **Proportionality**: expected civilian harm must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
- **Precautions**: feasible steps must be taken to minimize civilian harm (choice of weapons, timing, warnings, etc.).

Documented facts (from UN agencies, reputable NGOs, and open‑source investigations):

- Extremely high civilian casualty figures, including many women and children.
- Repeated strikes on:
  - residential buildings,
  - schools and UN shelters,
  - medical facilities and ambulances,
  - refugee camps,
  - critical infrastructure (water, electricity, sewage).
- Use of heavy explosive munitions in densely populated urban areas.
- “Knock on the roof” and other warning practices in some cases, but also:
  - strikes without effective prior warning,
  - instances where people were reportedly killed after moving to areas designated as “safe.”

Complicating factors:
- Hamas and other groups have reportedly:
  - embedded military assets and fighters in civilian areas,
  - used tunnels under urban neighborhoods,
  - operated in and around hospitals and schools.
  This is itself a violation of IHL and increases civilian risk, but it **does not remove** Israel’s own obligations on distinction, proportionality, and precautions.

Legal assessment (contested):
- Many UN bodies, independent experts, and major NGOs (e.g., Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch) have alleged:
  - **repeated disproportionate attacks**,
  - **indiscriminate or insufficiently discriminating use of explosive weapons** in populated areas.
- Israel generally maintains:
  - it targets only military objectives,
  - it takes extensive precautions (warnings, evacuation orders, intelligence‑driven targeting),
  - high civilian casualties are largely due to Hamas’ unlawful tactics and the density of the environment.

Whether specific attacks meet or breach the proportionality standard is highly fact‑specific; robust conclusions require detailed operational data that is often unavailable publicly.

---

### B. Siege, blockade, and deprivation of essentials

Key IHL rules:
- 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 legitimate security checks.
- Collective punishment of civilians is prohibited.

Documented patterns:
- Severe restrictions on:
  - fuel, electricity, water,
  - food and medical supplies,
  - entry of humanitarian aid and personnel.
- Statements by some Israeli officials early in the war about cutting off electricity, water, and fuel to Gaza described as pressure on Hamas.
- Widespread reports (UN, ICRC, NGOs) of:
  - acute food insecurity and risk of famine in parts of Gaza,
  - major shortfalls in medical care, shelter, and sanitation.

Legal assessments:
- Multiple UN bodies, including UN experts, have suggested that aspects of the blockade and obstruction of aid may amount to:
  - **collective punishment**, and
  - **use of starvation as a method of warfare**.
- Israel argues:
  - it has security reasons for strict inspection (smuggling of weapons, diversion by Hamas),
  - it is not targeting civilians as such and has at various points allowed aid in, often via third‑party arrangements.

Here again,

finish_reason: length


text:
International humanitarian law (IHL) sets rules for how wars are fought, not whether they are justified. The core questions for Gaza are:

1. Are civilians and civilian objects being directly targeted?
2. Are attacks proportionate (do expected civilian losses clearly outweigh the concrete and direct military advantage)?
3. Are all feasible precautions being taken to protect civilians (warnings, choice of weapons, evacuation corridors, etc.)?
4. Are starvation, collective punishment, or denial of essentials being used as methods of warfare?

Whether Israel’s conduct is *legally* consistent with IHL is actively disputed, and no definitive, final legal judgment yet exists. But there are serious, detailed concerns raised by major UN bodies, international courts, and NGOs; Israel and some of its allies strongly contest those claims. Here’s the landscape as of mid‑2026:

---

### 1. Key IHL principles that apply

Relevant rules (from the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I’s customary rules, and customary IHL):

- **Distinction**: Parties must distinguish between civilians and combatants; attacks may only be directed at military objectives.
- **Proportionality**: Even against a legitimate military target, attacks are prohibited if expected incidental civilian harm would be excessive relative to the concrete and direct military advantage.
- **Precautions in attack**: All feasible precautions must be taken to minimize civilian harm (choice of weapons, timing, advance warnings, canceling or suspending an attack if it becomes unlawfully harmful).
- **Protection of civilian objects**: Homes, infrastructure, hospitals, schools, UN facilities, etc., are protected unless and while they’re used for military purposes.
- **Humanitarian access & starvation**: It’s prohibited to use starvation of civilians as a method of warfare or to impede relief supplies indispensable to survival.
- **Collective punishment**: Punishing a population for the acts of a few is prohibited.
- **Treatment of detainees**: Humane treatment, no torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

These rules bind both Israel and Palestinian armed groups as a matter of customary law, regardless of treaty status.

---

### 2. What international bodies and major NGOs are saying

#### a. United Nations mechanisms

- **UN agencies (OCHA, WHO, UNRWA, UNICEF, etc.)** have repeatedly reported:
  - Extremely high civilian death tolls, including many children.
  - Widespread destruction of housing, hospitals, schools, water and sanitation systems.
  - Severe restrictions on food, fuel, medical supplies, and humanitarian access.
- **UN Human Rights experts** (Special Rapporteurs and commissions of inquiry) have alleged:
  - Possible war crimes and crimes against humanity by Israel and by Palestinian armed groups.
  - Potential use of starvation as a method of warfare.
- **UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council** resolutions:
  - Non‑binding but politically significant; many have condemned Israeli operations as violating IHL.
- **UN Security Council**: Several resolutions have demanded ceasefires, protection of civilians, and unhindered humanitarian access. Non‑compliance with these is often cited as further evidence of disregard for IHL obligations.

Israel rejects much of this UN criticism as biased, arguing that many UN mechanisms and resolutions are politically driven and do not fairly account for Hamas’s tactics (use of human shields, embedded fighters in civilian areas).

#### b. International Court of Justice (ICJ)

- In the **South Africa v. Israel** case under the Genocide Convention:
  - The ICJ has **not** finally ruled on whether genocide is occurring.
  - It did issue **provisional measures**, indicating that:
    - There is at least a *plausible* risk of genocide.
    - Israel must prevent genocidal acts, ensure humanitarian assistance, and preserve evidence.
  - These orders implicitly reflect deep concern about compliance with IHL and human rights law but are not yet a final ruling of illegality.

The ICJ’s genocide case is **not** an IHL case per se, but the underlying facts are similar to those examined in IHL assessments.

#### c. International Criminal Court (ICC)

- The ICC Prosecutor has sought **arrest warrants** for senior Israeli and Hamas leaders for alleged **war crimes and crimes against humanity**, including:
  - For Hamas: deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage‑taking, murder, sexual violence.
  - For Israeli officials: alleged use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, intentional attacks on civilians, and other grave offenses.
- These applications reflect the Prosecutor’s view that there is reasonable basis to believe that serious IHL violations may have occurred.
- They are **not** convictions and will be litigated; Israel disputes the ICC’s jurisdiction and the factual and legal basis.

---

### 3. Main contested issues in Israel’s conduct

#### a. Civilian casualties and destruction

- Gaza has seen:
  - Tens of thousands of reported deaths, with a large proportion


text:
International humanitarian law (IHL) doesn’t give simple yes/no answers to an entire campaign; it evaluates specific actions against specific rules. For Gaza, there are serious, well‑substantiated concerns that *many* Israeli practices are inconsistent with IHL, but whether particular acts amount to war crimes or genocide is ultimately for competent courts to decide.

Below is a structured overview of the main legal issues as of now.

---

## 1. Applicable law

The main bodies of law are:

- **Geneva Conventions of 1949** and **Customary IHL**
- **Additional Protocol I (1977)** – Israel is not a party, but many of its rules are accepted as customary law (binding on all sides)
- **Rome Statute of the ICC** – defines war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide
- **Genocide Convention**

They apply to **both** Israel and Palestinian armed groups (e.g., Hamas), though your question is about Israel’s conduct.

Core IHL principles relevant here:

1. **Distinction** – between civilians/civilian objects and combatants/military objectives
2. **Proportionality** – attacks expected to cause excessive civilian harm relative to anticipated concrete and direct military advantage are prohibited
3. **Precautions** – parties must take feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm
4. **Humanity** – prohibition of unnecessary suffering
5. **Necessity** – force must be directed to achieve a legitimate military objective

---

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

### A. Scale of civilian harm and destruction

Facts (broad, approximate figures; details vary by source):

- Tens of thousands of Palestinians killed, a very large proportion reported as women and children.
- Massive destruction of civilian infrastructure: homes, schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, universities, water and sanitation systems, power, roads.
- Large‑scale displacement of most of Gaza’s population.

IHL analysis concerns:

- **Proportionality**:
  - High civilian death toll and widespread destruction raise serious questions whether many attacks were disproportionate.
  - Israel often argues that Hamas embeds fighters and assets in civilian areas, and that civilian harm results from Hamas’s unlawful tactics.
  - Even if an enemy uses human shields, that *does not* eliminate the attacker’s proportionality and precautions obligations.

- **Indiscriminate or area‑wide attacks**:
  - Use of heavy explosive weapons in densely populated areas is not per se illegal, but is widely criticized as “likely” to be indiscriminate in practice.
  - Repeated strikes on residential blocks, camps, and public facilities raise concerns that attacks were not sufficiently discriminating.

Multiple UN bodies, the ICRC, and major human rights organizations (e.g., HRW, Amnesty, B’Tselem) have said there is credible evidence that some Israeli attacks may be **indiscriminate or disproportionate**, which would violate IHL and potentially constitute war crimes.

Israel disputes this and claims it conducts target verification, uses precision munitions, and issues warnings. The *quality* and *effectiveness* of those processes are central factual questions.

---

### B. Warnings and “safe areas”

Israel frequently cites:

- Evacuation orders (e.g., northern Gaza, then Rafah)
- Phone calls, SMS, leaflet drops, “roof‑knocking” in some cases

Issues under IHL:

- Warnings are required “unless circumstances do not permit,” but:
  - Warnings **do not legalize** an otherwise unlawful attack.
  - Warnings must be **effective**: a plausible route and place of safety, access to water, food, shelter, medical care.
- Many observers, including UN agencies, argue that:
  - There are effectively *no* truly safe zones in Gaza.
  - People obeyed warnings and were then struck in supposed safe areas.
  - Constant movement under fire, with scarce food and medicine, can itself be a form of harm.

If warnings merely displace civilians into other areas that are also attacked or are uninhabitable, this weighs against the claim that Israel is meeting its precaution obligations.

---

### C. Attacks on medical, UN, and other protected facilities

Hospitals, ambulances, UN schools, and shelters have been repeatedly hit.

IHL framework:

- Medical units and transports and UN facilities used as shelters are **presumptively protected**.
- They lose protection only if used to commit “acts harmful to the enemy” and **after a warning** that goes unheeded, except where immediate self‑defense is at stake.
- Even if used for military purposes, attacks must still follow distinction, proportionality, and precautions.

International bodies and NGOs document many such attacks and assert that in numerous cases:

- No visible military target was present, or
- The civilian costs were foreseeably enormous relative to any claimed advantage.

Israel’s


text:
International humanitarian law (IHL) doesn’t give simple yes/no verdicts on an ongoing conflict; it sets rules, and specific acts may comply or violate them. In Gaza, there is substantial, credible concern from UN bodies, NGOs, and many governments that multiple aspects of Israel’s conduct may violate IHL, while Israel argues it is operating within the law. There is no definitive legal ruling yet on the overall campaign, but several concrete legal issues are clear enough to describe.

Below is a structured summary of the main points, without trying to resolve every contested factual claim.

---

## 1. The Legal Framework

Key IHL rules that apply:

- **Distinction**: Parties must distinguish between combatants and civilians and may only target military objectives.
- **Proportionality**: Even against a legitimate military objective, an attack is prohibited if expected civilian harm would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage.
- **Precautions**: Parties must take all feasible precautions to:
  - Verify targets;
  - Minimize civilian harm;
  - Give effective advance warning when possible.
- **Protection of civilians**: Prohibitions on:
  - Direct attacks on civilians;
  - Indiscriminate attacks;
  - Collective punishment.
- **Protection of objects indispensable to survival**: Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited; attacking or rendering useless water, food, medical infrastructure, etc., for that purpose is unlawful.
- **Treatment of detainees**: Prohibitions on torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, and arbitrary detention.

Israel, Gaza armed groups (especially Hamas), and other actors are all bound by these rules.

---

## 2. What Independent Bodies Are Saying

### International Court of Justice (ICJ)

In the South Africa v. Israel case under the Genocide Convention, the ICJ has:

- Not (so far) ruled that Israel is committing genocide.
- Found that at least some of South Africa’s genocide allegations are **plausible enough** to require urgent provisional measures.
- Ordered Israel to:
  - Prevent acts that could fall under genocide (killing, causing serious bodily/mental harm, imposing destructive conditions of life, etc.);
  - Allow humanitarian aid;
  - Prevent and punish direct and public incitement to genocide;
  - Preserve evidence and report back on implementation.

This is not a final finding that Israel has violated IHL or committed genocide, but it reflects deep concern that some conduct might cross those lines.

### International Criminal Court (ICC)

As of 2024, the ICC Prosecutor has sought arrest warrants for:

- **Hamas leaders** (for crimes including murder, taking hostages, sexual violence, etc.);
- **Israeli leaders** (for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity), including:
  - Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare;
  - Wilfully causing great suffering;
  - Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population;
  - Extermination and persecution.

The judges still need to decide whether to issue these warrants, but the step itself shows the Prosecutor views there as being a reasonable basis to believe serious violations may have occurred.

---

## 3. Key Areas of Legal Concern About Israel’s Conduct

### A. Civilian casualties and bombardment

- Civilian deaths in Gaza are extremely high, including women and children, with large areas destroyed.
- Israel argues:
  - It targets Hamas and other armed groups embedded in dense civilian areas;
  - It uses intelligence, warning calls, and evacuation orders;
  - Civilian harm, though tragic, is incidental and not intended.
- Critics (UN officials, major NGOs like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, many states) argue:
  - The **scale and pattern** of destruction and casualties indicate:
    - Possible **indiscriminate attacks**; or
    - **Disproportionate** attacks where expected civilian harm was excessive compared to the military advantage.
  - Some specific strikes (e.g., on residential buildings, schools, UN facilities, markets, convoys) appear to lack a clearly demonstrated military necessity.

Whether IHL was violated in any given strike turns on facts often not fully public: what the target was, what was known about civilians present, what alternatives existed, etc. But the cumulative pattern is widely seen as legally suspect.

### B. Siege, aid restrictions, and starvation

- Israel has imposed tight controls on:
  - Food, water, fuel, electricity, and medical supplies;
  - Humanitarian convoys and crossings;
  - Movement of people in and out.
- Senior UN officials and many governments have warned that **famine conditions** either exist or are imminent in parts of Gaza.
- IHL prohibits:
  - Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare;
  - Attacks on or denial of objects indispensable to survival for that purpose.
- Israel argues:
  - It allows significant aid in;
  - Any restrictions are security-based (e.g., to prevent


text:
International humanitarian law (IHL) doesn’t label entire campaigns as “legal” or “illegal” in a single sweeping judgment; it evaluates specific acts and patterns of conduct against core rules. On Gaza, there is no consensus among states, experts, or international bodies, but there *are* some clear areas of serious legal concern that many authoritative actors have flagged.

Below is a structured overview rather than a verdict.

---

## Core IHL principles relevant to Gaza

Four main rules govern hostilities:

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 objectives.

2. **Proportionality**
   - 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.

3. **Precaution**
   - Parties must take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm (choice of weapons, timing, warnings, evacuation routes, etc.).

4. **Prohibition of starvation and blockade as a method of warfare**
   - It is prohibited to starve civilians as a method of warfare, including by impeding objects indispensable to their survival (food, water, medicine, shelter).

These apply to Israel and also to Palestinian armed groups (e.g., Hamas).

---

## What different actors say about Israel’s conduct

### 1. United Nations bodies and special rapporteurs
Multiple UN entities (OHCHR, UNICEF, WHO, UN Special Rapporteurs) have alleged:
- **Widespread, systematic civilian harm** from airstrikes and ground operations.
- Attacks on or near **hospitals, schools, UN facilities, shelters, and markets**.
- **Destruction of civilian infrastructure** (water, sanitation, electricity, housing) on a massive scale.
- **Severe restrictions on humanitarian aid**, including fuel, food, and medical supplies.

Several Special Rapporteurs and some UN commissions of inquiry have stated that they believe there is evidence of:
- Violations of **distinction, proportionality, and precautions**.
- Use of **starvation of civilians as a method of warfare**.
- Potential **war crimes and crimes against humanity**, and in some statements, acts that may amount to **genocide** (a claim Israel strongly rejects).

These are not court judgments, but they are formal expert and institutional assessments.

---

### 2. International Court of Justice (ICJ)

In its **South Africa v. Israel** provisional measures orders (2024), the ICJ:
- Did **not** decide that Israel is committing genocide, but held that some alleged acts are “plausible” under the Genocide Convention and that Palestinians in Gaza face a “real and imminent risk” of irreparable harm.
- Ordered Israel to:
  - Take all measures within its power to prevent genocidal acts.
  - Ensure provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance.
  - Prevent and punish direct and public incitement to genocide.
  - Preserve evidence.

The ICJ therefore signaled serious concern that some aspects of Israel’s conduct *might* breach IHL and the Genocide Convention, but its final judgment (which will address legality in more detail) is still pending and may take years.

---

### 3. International Criminal Court (ICC)

The ICC Prosecutor has:
- An open investigation into the situation in Palestine since 2014.
- Announced applications for **arrest warrants** (subject to judicial approval) against:
  - Hamas leaders for atrocities including murder, hostage-taking, and sexual violence.
  - Senior Israeli officials for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity related to:
    - Starvation of civilians.
    - Wilfully causing great suffering.
    - Intentionally directing attacks against civilians.
    - Extermination and/or murder as crimes against humanity, among others.

These applications are not convictions, but they indicate the Prosecutor’s assessment that there are **reasonable grounds** to believe serious IHL violations have been committed. ICC judges must decide whether to issue the warrants.

Israel contests the ICC’s jurisdiction and the substance of these allegations.

---

### 4. States and regional organizations

- A number of states (including some in the Global South and some European countries), the **Arab League**, and the **Organization of Islamic Cooperation** have accused Israel of **systematic IHL violations**, including:
  - Indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks.
  - Collective punishment.
  - Starvation and unlawful siege.
- Other states (notably the **United States**, **Germany**, and some close allies) support Israel’s right to self-defense, often acknowledge “concerning” civilian harm, and urge more compliance with IHL, but **do not formally conclude** that Israel is violating IHL as a matter of state policy.
  - Some of these governments have conducted internal legal reviews of arms transfers and say they **have not determined** that Israel is clearly


text:
International humanitarian law (IHL) doesn’t label whole campaigns as “legal” or “illegal” in a simple way; it evaluates specific acts against concrete rules (Geneva Conventions, customary law). On Gaza, there is deep disagreement among states, UN bodies, and legal experts. Some aspects are relatively clear in law, but contested in fact; others hinge on military information that’s not public.

Below is a structured summary of the main legal issues and where the debates lie, without asserting a final legal verdict.

---

## 1. Core IHL Principles Relevant to Gaza

Key rules in an international armed conflict and occupation (broadly accepted as applicable in Gaza):

1. **Distinction**
   - Parties must distinguish at all times between civilians and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives.
   - Intentional attacks on civilians or civilian objects are prohibited.

2. **Proportionality**
   - An attack is prohibited if expected incidental civilian harm would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

3. **Precautions in Attack**
   - Take all feasible precautions to:
     - verify targets;
     - choose means and methods of attack to minimize civilian harm;
     - give effective advance warning when circumstances permit.

4. **Protection of Civilian Objects & Infrastructure**
   - Hospitals, schools, UN facilities, water, electricity, and other indispensable objects for civilian survival are protected, unless and for such time as they are used for military purposes.
   - Even where dual-use exists, proportionality and precaution still apply.

5. **Humanitarian Relief & Starvation**
   - Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.
   - Parties must allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief, subject to narrow security-based regulation.

6. **Treatment of Detainees and Hostages**
   - Hostage-taking is prohibited.
   - Detainees must be treated humanely; torture and cruel treatment are prohibited.

7. **Genocide (separate from IHL, under the Genocide Convention)**
   - Requires specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such.
   - Extremely high legal threshold; not every pattern of very serious IHL violations constitutes genocide.

---

## 2. Indiscriminate or Disproportionate Attacks

### Allegations
- Very high civilian death toll, including many children.
- Repeated large-scale attacks on residential areas, markets, schools, and refugee camps.
- Strikes on or near hospitals and UN facilities sheltering displaced people.

### Israel’s Position
- Hamas embeds military assets (fighters, weapons, command centers, tunnels) in or near civilian objects.
- Many targets are said to be legitimate military objectives (e.g., command nodes, tunnel entrances).
- Warnings, leaflets, phone calls, and “roof knocks” are cited as precautions.
- Civilian casualties are attributed largely to Hamas’s use of “human shields.”

### Legal Debate
- **Distinction:** If a particular target is genuinely a military objective (e.g., a command center under an apartment block), attacking it is not per se unlawful. But:
  - If civilian objects were targeted knowing they were purely civilian, that would be unlawful.
- **Proportionality:** This is where a major dispute lies:
  - Critics (UN experts, many NGOs, some states) argue that the scale and repetition of strikes in densely populated areas, with foreseeable high civilian casualties for limited or unclear military advantage, strongly indicates systematic disproportionate attacks.
  - Israel and some supporting states argue that:
    - Hamas’s embedding tactics greatly increase inevitable civilian harm.
    - The nature of the objectives (leadership, tunnels, weapons) justifies significant risk of collateral damage.
- Because proportionality assessments depend on detailed, often classified, information about each strike’s objective and available alternatives, outside observers can’t conclusively assess every attack. However, multiple investigations (UN fact-finding mechanisms, NGOs, journalists) have documented patterns they consider indicative of serious IHL violations.

---

## 3. Attacks on Medical Facilities, UN Sites, and Schools

### Facts in Dispute
- Numerous documented strikes on or damage to:
  - hospitals and clinics,
  - UNRWA schools and shelters,
  - convoys and aid distribution points.
- UN and NGOs report that many of these were actively sheltering civilians.

### Israel’s Justifications
- Claims that:
  - some hospitals, schools, and UN facilities were being used to store weapons, conceal tunnel shafts, or as command centers;
  - some strikes targeted militants in or near such facilities, not the facilities as such.

### Legal Framework
- Medical units and UN facilities are protected objects.
- Protection can be lost if they are used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy—but:
  - only for such time as that misuse occurs, and
  - after


text:
International humanitarian law (IHL) sets rules for how wars are fought, not whether they are justified. Whether Israel’s conduct in Gaza is *consistent* with IHL is actively contested and cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. It depends on specific actions, evidence, and legal interpretations that are still being examined by courts and investigative bodies.

Below is a structured overview of the main IHL issues and how different actors assess them.

---

## 1. Applicable law

The main bodies of law are:

- **Geneva Conventions (especially the Fourth Geneva Convention)** on protection of civilians.
- **Additional Protocol I** (Israel has not ratified it but many of its rules are considered customary IHL).
- **Customary international humanitarian law**, including:
  - Distinction (combatants vs civilians)
  - Proportionality
  - Precautions in attack
  - Prohibition of indiscriminate attacks
  - Protection of medical facilities, humanitarian relief, and cultural property
  - Prohibition of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare
- **International human rights law** continues to apply alongside IHL.

These rules apply regardless of violations by the other party (e.g., Hamas’s attacks and hostage-taking do not legally justify Israel violating IHL).

---

## 2. Key IHL principles and contested issues

### A. Distinction and targeting

**Rule:** Parties must distinguish at all times between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives, and may only target the latter.

**Relevant facts/claims:**
- Israel says it targets Hamas fighters, command structures, tunnels, and military assets embedded in civilian areas, and that it uses intelligence and legal review to select targets.
- The scale of destruction in Gaza has been extreme: large parts of urban areas heavily damaged or destroyed; high number of women and children reported among the dead (numbers vary slightly by source but all indicate very large civilian casualties).
- Strikes on homes, apartment buildings, refugee camps, schools (including UNRWA schools), markets, and infrastructure have raised questions about:
  - Whether some targets were in fact military objectives.
  - Whether Israel treated entire neighborhoods or “civilian infrastructure” as dual‑use by default.

**Legal dispute:**
- Israel: many civilian structures are lawfully targeted because they are used for military purposes or are adjacent to major tunnel networks; Hamas’ tactics make civilian harm unavoidable.
- Many UN bodies, human rights organizations (e.g., Amnesty, HRW, B’Tselem), and some states: patterns of targeting suggest at least some attacks may have been indiscriminate or directed at objects that were not legitimate military objectives.

No definitive legal finding has yet been made on each type of strike; specific incidents are under investigation.

---

### B. Proportionality

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

**Relevant issues:**
- Extremely high civilian death toll and massive destruction, compared with the claimed military gains from certain strikes.
- Repeated strikes in densely populated areas where Israel knew civilians were present.
- Use of heavy explosive munitions in urban environments.

**Assessments:**
- Israel argues that:
  - Hamas’s military infrastructure is deeply embedded in civilian areas and tunnels.
  - Great military advantage is gained by destroying this infrastructure.
  - It uses legal advisers and proportionality assessments in real time.
- Critics argue that:
  - The scale and pattern of civilian harm across many operations point to systematically inflated assessments of “military advantage” or a willingness to tolerate very high civilian losses.
  - Some strikes (e.g., on crowded shelters or residential towers) could not reasonably pass a good‑faith proportionality test.

Whether proportionality was violated must be judged attack by attack, using information that is often classified; this makes outside assessment difficult but not impossible. Several UN commissions and NGOs have already concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe some attacks were disproportionate.

---

### C. Precautions in attack and warnings

**Rule:** Parties must take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm, including timing, choice of weapons, and advance warnings when possible.

**Facts/claims:**
- Israel has used:
  - Evacuation orders for large areas (including mass orders for Northern, then Southern Gaza).
  - Phone calls, SMS, leaflet drops, and sometimes “roof‑knocking.”
- However:
  - Many “safe zones” or areas to which civilians were directed were later struck or became active combat zones.
  - Gaza’s border closures and ongoing hostilities made genuine safe evacuation and shelter extremely limited.
  - Volume and pace of operations, and strikes on roads, may have undermined the effectiveness of warnings.

**Legal debate:**
- Israel: extensive warning measures show effort to comply with IHL; Hamas prevents civilians from leaving and uses them as human shields.
- Critics: warnings that do not lead


text:
It depends on which specific actions, which parts of the law, and whose legal interpretation you look at. There is no single authoritative ruling yet, but there are strong indications from UN bodies, courts, and many legal experts that *at least some* Israeli conduct in Gaza likely violates international humanitarian law (IHL) and possibly the Genocide Convention. Israel, for its part, rejects these claims and argues it is acting within the law.

I’ll summarize the main points so you can see the landscape clearly.

---

## 1. Applicable law

The main bodies of law are:

- **International humanitarian law (IHL)** – especially the Geneva Conventions and customary law on:
  - distinction (civilians vs combatants)
  - proportionality (incidental civilian harm vs concrete military advantage)
  - precaution (to minimize harm)
  - prohibition on starvation of civilians
  - protection of hospitals, medical units, humanitarian personnel, and infrastructure.

- **International human rights law** – especially on right to life, health, food, water, housing.

- **Genocide Convention** – if acts are committed with *intent to destroy*, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

Both Israel and Palestinian armed groups are bound by IHL. Hamas and others are also accused of serious violations (e.g., deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage-taking, using human shields), which do not lessen Israel’s legal obligations.

---

## 2. Key facts that matter legally

Among the most cited facts (numbers and details vary across sources, but rough contours are widely reported):

- Very high civilian death toll, including a large proportion of women and children.
- Widespread destruction of housing and civilian infrastructure (water, electricity, sanitation, schools, hospitals, universities).
- Severe restrictions on food, fuel, electricity, medical supplies, and humanitarian access; UN agencies have warned of famine conditions in parts of Gaza.
- Repeated strikes affecting hospitals, medical convoys, UN facilities, and shelters.
- Mass internal displacement of the vast majority of Gaza’s population.
- Statements by some Israeli officials widely interpreted as dehumanizing or endorsing extreme measures.

Israel argues:
- It is targeting Hamas and other armed groups embedded in a dense urban area.
- Hamas uses civilians and civilian objects as shields, placing military infrastructure in or near civilian areas.
- It issues warnings, evacuation orders, and attempts to coordinate humanitarian access.
- Some civilian harm is incidental and not excessive relative to the military advantage gained.

---

## 3. What major legal institutions and experts say

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

- The ICJ has **not** made a final determination that Israel is committing genocide.
- In January and March 2024, it did:
  - Find that at least some of South Africa’s genocide allegations are “plausible.”
  - Order **provisional measures**, including that Israel:
    - prevent genocidal acts,
    - ensure humanitarian assistance,
    - prevent and punish direct and public incitement to genocide,
    - report back on steps taken.
- In May 2024, the Court ordered additional measures relating to the situation in Rafah, including halting operations that could bring about conditions of life leading to the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part.

These orders imply that:
- The Court sees a serious risk that Israeli conduct could violate the Genocide Convention and IHL.
- It does **not** yet amount to a final legal conclusion that genocide is occurring.

### b. International Criminal Court (ICC)

As of my knowledge cutoff (Oct 2024):

- The ICC Prosecutor has an ongoing investigation into the situation in Palestine, covering alleged crimes by *all* parties since 2014.
- In May 2024, the Prosecutor applied for **arrest warrants** for:
  - senior Hamas leaders (for crimes including murder, hostage-taking, sexual violence, etc.),
  - and for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant (for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, intentional attacks on civilians, and extermination/persecution).
- The ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber still needs to decide whether to issue those warrants; that decision is a legal judgment on whether there are reasonable grounds to believe crimes have been committed and that these individuals bear responsibility.

This is a strong signal that, in the Prosecutor’s assessment, there is a reasonable basis to believe Israel’s conduct includes **serious IHL violations**. Israel contests the ICC’s jurisdiction and strongly denies these allegations.

### c. UN bodies and special rapporteurs

Multiple UN Special Rapporteurs, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and commissions of inquiry have:

- Alleged that some Israeli actions **likely violate**:
  - the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution,
  - prohibitions on starvation of civilians


text:
It depends what aspect, what time period, and which legal standard you mean. Different experts and institutions reach different conclusions, and there is no single authoritative legal judgment covering “Israel’s conduct in Gaza” as a whole. But there are some clear, concrete points:

## 1. Relevant law

Key bodies of law:

- **International humanitarian law (IHL)** / law of armed conflict:
  - Geneva Conventions and Customary IHL
  - Core principles:
    - **Distinction** (combatants vs civilians, military vs civilian objects)
    - **Proportionality** (no attacks where expected civilian harm is excessive compared to concrete and direct military advantage)
    - **Precautions in attack** (constant care to spare civilians, warning where feasible, choice of means/methods to minimize harm)
- **International human rights law**
- **International criminal law** (war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide)

These apply to both **Israel** and **Palestinian armed groups** (including Hamas).

## 2. What UN and international bodies say

### UN bodies and special rapporteurs

- The **UN Human Rights Council** and various **Special Rapporteurs** have repeatedly stated that many Israeli actions in Gaza since October 2023 *likely* violate IHL, especially:
  - Large‑scale civilian casualties from airstrikes and ground operations
  - Strikes on residential areas, schools, hospitals, UN facilities, and refugee camps
  - Severe restrictions on food, water, fuel, and medical supplies

- Several UN experts (independent rapporteurs, not speaking for states) have gone further, alleging:
  - Possible **war crimes**
  - Possible **crimes against humanity**
  - Risk of **genocide**, and in some statements, that elements of genocide may be present

These are **allegations and opinions**, not court judgments, but they are based on IHL frameworks.

### International Court of Justice (ICJ) – Genocide Convention case

In the case brought by South Africa against Israel (Allegations of Genocide, 2023–ongoing):

- **The ICJ has not ruled that Israel is committing genocide**, nor that all conduct is unlawful per se.
- In its **provisional measures orders** (Jan 2024, Mar 2024, May 2024), the Court found:
  - There is a “plausible” risk that some acts could fall within the scope of the **Genocide Convention**.
  - Israel must:
    - Prevent acts that could constitute genocide.
    - Ensure its forces do not commit such acts.
    - Enable humanitarian assistance.
    - Preserve evidence.
- The Court expressed serious concern about:
  - Massive civilian casualties
  - Destruction of infrastructure
  - Severe humanitarian conditions, including famine risk

These orders implicitly indicate **serious concerns about IHL compliance**, without being a final ruling on legality.

### International Criminal Court (ICC)

As of mid‑2024:

- The ICC Prosecutor has requested arrest warrants for:
  - **Israeli leaders**, including PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, alleging:
    - **War crimes** (e.g., starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, intentionally directing attacks against civilians)
    - **Crimes against humanity**
  - **Hamas leaders**, for:
    - Mass killings
    - Hostage‑taking
    - Sexual violence
    - Other war crimes and crimes against humanity

These are **allegations subject to judicial process**, not convictions—but they show that the Prosecutor believes there is reasonable basis to think serious IHL violations have occurred on *both* sides.

## 3. Key contested issues under IHL

### (a) Civilian casualties and destruction

- Gaza has seen tens of thousands of reported deaths, a very high percentage of them women and children according to UN and health authorities.
- Israel argues:
  - Hamas embeds forces and weapons in civilian areas.
  - That makes civilian harm unavoidable and legally attributable, in part, to Hamas’ unlawful tactics.
  - Israel uses warnings, leaflets, phone calls, “roof knocks,” and some precision weapons.
- Critics (UN officials, NGOs, many states) argue:
  - The **scale and pattern** of attacks, including on dense residential areas, suggests:
    - Repeated failures of **proportionality** and **precautions**.
    - Possible **indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks**.
  - Repeated strikes on “deconflicted” sites (UN facilities, clearly marked shelters) are especially problematic.

From an IHL perspective, **each attack must be judged individually** (what was the target, expected military gain, expected civilian harm, available alternatives). That analysis is very fact‑specific and not fully available publicly. But many independent legal experts believe there is strong evidence that at least some operations **breach proportionality and


text:
There isn’t a single, definitive legal answer yet, because:

- International courts have only partially ruled on related questions so far.
- Key facts (e.g., targeting decisions, intelligence, internal orders) are not fully public.
- Different legal bodies and experts interpret the same law and facts differently.

But we can summarize the main legal standards and how they relate to what is known.

---

## 1. Applicable law

Israel’s operations in Gaza are governed primarily by:

- **International humanitarian law (IHL)** / the law of armed conflict
  - Geneva Conventions, customary IHL
  - Core rules: distinction, proportionality, precautions, humane treatment
- **International human rights law** (especially regarding right to life, food, health, etc.)
- **Prohibition of genocide** (Genocide Convention) where relevant
- **Occupation law** may be relevant to some aspects (this is contested politically but many legal bodies treat Gaza as still under Israeli “effective control” in key respects).

The core IHL rules relevant to Gaza:

1. **Distinction** – only military objectives and combatants may be attacked; civilians and civilian objects must not be targeted.
2. **Proportionality** – attacks expected to cause civilian harm “excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated” are prohibited.
3. **Precautions in attack** – constant care must be taken to spare civilians (effective warnings, choosing means/methods to reduce harm, canceling or suspending attacks if it becomes apparent they are unlawful).
4. **Prohibition of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare** – including blocking food, water, and essential supplies.
5. **Medical protection** – hospitals, medical staff, ambulances are specially protected unless used for military purposes and after specific conditions are met.
6. **Treatment of detainees** – humane treatment, due process, prohibition of torture and enforced disappearance.

Both **Israel** and **Palestinian armed groups including Hamas** are bound by these rules.

---

## 2. What major legal bodies and UN entities have said

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

- **January 2024 provisional measures**:
  The ICJ did **not** rule that Israel is committing genocide, and did **not** order a ceasefire.
  It did find that:
  - Palestinian civilians in Gaza are at real and imminent risk of irreparable harm.
  - Some acts and statements could fall within the scope of the Genocide Convention.
  The Court ordered Israel, among other things, to:
  - Prevent genocidal acts.
  - Ensure its forces do not commit such acts.
  - Prevent and punish direct and public incitement to genocide.
  - Allow humanitarian assistance.

- **March and May 2024 additional orders**:
  The ICJ expressed grave concern about the humanitarian situation and ordered:
  - More facilitation of humanitarian aid.
  - Specific measures related to Rafah (in May) including halting operations that could bring about conditions of destruction of the group, in whole or in part, in that area.

These are not final merits findings, but they imply the Court considered there is at least a plausible risk of violations of the Genocide Convention and serious breaches of IHL/human rights.

### International Criminal Court (ICC)

- In May 2024, the ICC Prosecutor announced he was seeking **arrest warrants** for:
  - Israeli officials (including Prime Minister and Defense Minister),
  - Hamas leaders,
  for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in relation to the Gaza conflict and 7 October attacks.

For **Israeli officials**, the allegations include (according to the Prosecutor’s public statement):

- Using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.
- Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury.
- Wilful killing / murder.
- Extermination and/or murder as crimes against humanity.
- Persecution and other inhumane acts.

Arrest warrants are not convictions; they mean the Prosecutor believes there is **reasonable grounds** to think these crimes were committed and that these individuals bear responsibility. The Pre-Trial Chamber must still decide whether to issue the warrants, and a full trial (if it occurs) would determine guilt.

### UN bodies and Special Rapporteurs

Various UN officials, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Special Rapporteurs, have:

- Repeatedly stated that there are **serious indications** of IHL violations by Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups.
- Referred to specific concerns: indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks, destruction of civilian infrastructure, impediments to humanitarian aid, and blockade measures.
- Some Special Rapporteurs and independent UN experts have used the language of **“risk of genocide”** or stated they believe genocide is occurring; these are expert opinions, not court rulings, and they are not unanimous.

The **UN Human Rights Council


text:
Whether Israel’s conduct in Gaza complies with international humanitarian law (IHL) is actively contested. There is no single authoritative legal verdict yet, but there are clear legal frameworks, specific alleged violations, and differing expert assessments.

I’ll outline:

1. Relevant legal framework
2. Main alleged violations and factual issues
3. Key positions: UN bodies, ICJ, states, NGOs, Israel
4. What remains legally unresolved

---

## 1. Applicable law

IHL (law of armed conflict) governs the Israel–Hamas conflict:

- **Geneva Conventions & Customary IHL**, including:
  - Distinction (between civilians/combatants, civilian objects/military objectives)
  - Proportionality (no attacks expected to cause excessive civilian harm relative to concrete and direct military advantage)
  - Precautions in attack
  - Prohibition of indiscriminate attacks
  - Protection of medical facilities, humanitarian personnel, and objects indispensable to survival
- **Occupation law** likely applies to some extent, given Israel’s control over borders, airspace, and key infrastructure despite the 2005 disengagement (this is debated but widely accepted by UN bodies).
- **International human rights law** continues to apply in conflict situations (e.g., ICCPR).
- **Specific prohibitions**: starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, collective punishment, targeting of hospitals and schools absent military use, etc.

Both **Israel and Palestinian armed groups** (including Hamas, Islamic Jihad) are bound by IHL. Serious violations by one side do not legally justify violations by the other.

---

## 2. Main alleged violations in Gaza

These are the core areas where consistency with IHL is being challenged.

### A. Civilian casualties and proportionality

Facts (as reported by UN and Gaza health authorities; Israel disputes some figures):

- Very high civilian death toll, including women and children, from Israeli air and ground operations.
- Massive destruction of housing, civilian infrastructure, and displacement of most of Gaza’s population.

Legal questions:

- **Proportionality**: Were specific attacks expected to cause civilian harm excessive in relation to anticipated military advantage?
- **Indiscriminate attacks**: Was the choice of weapons and methods (e.g., use of large bombs in dense urban areas) compatible with distinction and proportionality?
- **Precautions**: Were feasible precautions (choice of weapons, timing, warnings, evacuation routes) effectively implemented?

Evidence:

- UN officials, independent experts, many states, and NGOs (Amnesty, HRW, others) have repeatedly said there is a strong basis to believe Israel has conducted **disproportionate and possibly indiscriminate** attacks.
- Israel argues it:
  - Targets only military objectives (e.g., Hamas fighters, tunnel systems, rocket launch sites).
  - Issues warnings (leaflets, SMS, phone calls, map-based orders to evacuate) and uses legal advisors in targeting processes.
  - Claims Hamas’ embedding in civilian areas causes much of the civilian harm.

Key problem: proportionality is assessed **attack by attack** with specific intelligence and military context that is largely secret. This makes definitive external legal conclusions difficult, but the scale and pattern of destruction have led many experts to consider repeated proportionality violations “plausible” or “likely.”

---

### B. Siege, blockade, and starvation

Facts:

- Israel has imposed tight restrictions on fuel, electricity, water, and the entry of aid, especially in early phases.
- UN bodies have warned of acute food insecurity, risk of famine in parts of Gaza, and collapse of health and sanitation systems.
- The flow of humanitarian aid has been far below assessed needs, with repeated interruptions and access problems.

Law:

- Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited (Art. 54 Additional Protocol I; customary IHL).
- It is unlawful to destroy, block, or impede objects indispensable to civilian survival (food, water, medical supplies) when the purpose or effect is to starve civilians or deny them sustenance.
- Collective punishment is prohibited.

Assessments:

- Multiple UN Special Rapporteurs and humanitarian organizations have said there are **credible indications** that Israel’s restrictions amount to unlawful starvation / collective punishment.
- The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its orders in the South Africa v. Israel case (genocide convention), did not rule on IHL violations per se but expressed deep concern over conditions suggestive of potential violations, and ordered Israel to ensure the provision of basic services and humanitarian aid.

Israel’s position:

- It denies any intent to starve civilians and argues:
  - Hamas diverts aid and fuel.
  - Security checks and Hamas attacks limit what can be safely allowed in.
  - It has progressively increased aid flows and opened additional crossings.

Key legal question: whether restrictions on essentials, viewed in light of intent and foreseeable effects on civilians,


text:
International humanitarian law (IHL) doesn’t give yes/no verdicts on whole campaigns; it evaluates specific acts and patterns of conduct. On Gaza, there is wide and serious legal controversy, and many credible bodies allege major violations. I’ll outline the core legal standards, the main alleged violations, and where legal consensus and disagreement lie.

---

## 1. Applicable law

The main IHL rules come from:

- The four Geneva Conventions (1949) and customary IHL
- Additional Protocol I (Israel is not party, but many of its rules are customary)
- The law of occupation (Fourth Geneva Convention)
- International human rights law (e.g., ICCPR), which continues to apply in armed conflict

They regulate:

- Conduct of hostilities (how force is used)
- Treatment of civilians and detainees
- Occupation and siege conditions

Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups are also bound by IHL and have clearly committed serious violations (e.g., deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage‑taking).

---

## 2. Core IHL principles relevant to Gaza

Key standards for assessing Israel’s operations:

1. **Distinction**
   - Parties must distinguish at all times between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives, and direct operations only against military objectives.

2. **Proportionality**
   - Even when attacking a legitimate military target, attacks that are expected to cause **incidental civilian harm excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated** are prohibited.

3. **Precautions in attack**
   - Constant care must be taken to spare civilians.
   - Parties must:
     - Verify targets
     - Choose means/methods with fewer civilian effects where feasible
     - Give effective advance warnings when possible

4. **Protection of humanitarian relief and essentials for survival**
   - Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.
   - Blocking humanitarian relief or destroying infrastructure indispensable to civilians (water, electricity, health facilities, food systems) is heavily constrained.

5. **Prohibition of collective punishment**
   - No adverse measure may be imposed on a population as punishment for acts they did not individually commit.

6. **Treatment of detainees and hostages**
   - Hostage‑taking is prohibited.
   - Detainees must be humanely treated; torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment are prohibited.

---

## 3. Main concerns about Israel’s conduct

### 3.1 Civilian casualties and destruction

Facts (to the extent they are reliably reported):

- Very high civilian death toll and injury numbers, including women and children
- Extensive destruction of housing, civilian infrastructure, universities, health system, water and sanitation infrastructure
- Use of large explosive ordnance in dense urban areas

Legal concerns raised by UN bodies, many governments, and NGOs (Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, etc.):

- **Indiscriminate or insufficiently discriminating attacks** in densely populated areas
- **Proportionality**: whether the scale of civilian harm could be legally justified by the concrete and direct military advantage in specific strikes
- **Pattern evidence**: repeated strikes on civilian objects (homes, schools, markets, camps, medical facilities) that were not clearly being used for military purposes at the time

Israel’s position:

- It argues that:
  - Hamas is embedded in civilian areas, using civilian objects for military purposes (tunnels under urban areas, command centers near or in civilian buildings, weapons in homes, etc.).
  - It conducts extensive target verification and uses measures such as phone calls, leaflets, “roof‑knocking”, and designated “safe” or humanitarian zones.
  - Civilian deaths, while tragic, are incidental to attacks on legitimate military targets and not excessive given the military advantage.

Assessment:

- IHL does not prohibit civilian casualties per se; it outlaws:
  - **Intentional attacks on civilians**, and
  - **Disproportionate attacks**.
- Independent investigators (UN commissions of inquiry, rights groups, some states) argue that:
  - The **scale and patterns** of harm and destruction, combined with choice of weapons and repeated strikes on protected sites, **strongly indicate** violations of distinction, proportionality, or precautions.
  - Some incidents may amount to **war crimes** (e.g., disproportionate attacks; attacks on clearly marked humanitarian facilities).
- Israel contests many factual characterizations (e.g., asserting military use of targeted sites; disputing casualty breakdowns; claiming Hamas use of human shields).

Definitive legal judgment on **each** strike requires detailed operational intelligence that isn’t publicly available; but the **overall pattern** has generated broad expert concern of serious IHL violations.

---

### 3.2 Siegelike conditions, blockade, and humanitarian access

Key facts:

- Severe restrictions on fuel, electricity, water, building materials, and movement in and out of Gaza


text:
International humanitarian law (IHL) doesn’t let us simply label an entire campaign as “legal” or “illegal” in one stroke. It regulates specific acts and patterns of behavior. Assessing Israel’s conduct in Gaza requires looking at concrete issues: targeting, proportionality, precautions, humanitarian access, treatment of civilians, and starvation as a method of warfare.

Below is a structured summary of how major legal bodies and experts have assessed the situation, and where the key legal controversies lie.

---

## 1. The basic legal framework

The conflict in Gaza is governed by:

- **Geneva Conventions of 1949** and customary IHL, especially:
  - Distinction (combatants vs. civilians)
  - Proportionality
  - Precautions in attack
  - Prohibition on collective punishment
  - Protection of hospitals, schools, humanitarian workers
  - Prohibition on starvation of civilians as a method of warfare
- **International human rights law**, which continues to apply alongside IHL.
- Relevant treaties such as the **Genocide Convention** (for the separate, higher‑threshold question of genocide).

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

---

## 2. Civilian casualties and proportionality

**Facts (broadly uncontested, though detailed numbers are disputed):**

- Very high civilian death toll in Gaza, including large numbers of children.
- Extensive destruction of civilian infrastructure: homes, schools, universities, hospitals, water and electricity infrastructure.
- Use of heavy explosive weapons in densely populated urban areas.

**Legal issue: proportionality**

IHL does not forbid civilian casualties per se; it forbids:

- **Intentional attacks on civilians** (war crime), and
- **Disproportionate attacks**: where expected civilian harm is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Key points:

- Whether particular strikes were disproportionate is a **case‑by‑case** factual and legal question; outsiders rarely have full targeting data.
- However, when the *pattern* of harm is extremely high and repeated, many legal experts argue this raises a presumption that proportionality and/or precautions rules may be systematically violated.

**Assessments:**

- **UN bodies** (e.g., UN Human Rights Council’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry, various Special Rapporteurs) have stated there are reasonable grounds to believe that Israel has committed war crimes through indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks.
- **NGOs** such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented particular strikes they conclude were unlawful (e.g., no clear military target, or apparently disproportionate harm).
- Israel argues that:
  - It targets only military objectives,
  - It faces an adversary embedding in civilian areas and using human shields,
  - It takes significant precautions (warnings, evacuation orders, “roof knocks,” etc.).

**Bottom line:** There is substantial and growing expert opinion that at least some Israeli attacks in Gaza are inconsistent with IHL (potential war crimes). Israel rejects these conclusions. Final determinations belong to courts or tribunals with access to full evidence.

---

## 3. Distinction and use of explosive weapons in populated areas

- Gaza is densely populated; Hamas operates from and stores weapons in civilian areas, which itself violates IHL and complicates Israel’s compliance.
- Even where a legitimate military objective is present, IHL still requires:
  - Weapons and tactics capable of distinguishing,
  - Avoiding means whose effects cannot be limited as required by IHL.

Concerns raised:

- Use of heavy bombs and artillery in crowded neighborhoods,
- Repeated strikes on areas known to shelter displaced civilians,
- Strikes near or in UN shelters and schools.

Many military lawyers and UN experts argue that the **scale and pattern** of destruction and casualties suggest at least *some* attacks may have been indiscriminate or used force in a manner inconsistent with the obligation to minimize civilian harm.

---

## 4. Starvation, siege, and essential services

IHL explicitly prohibits:

- **Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare**, and
- Attacks on objects indispensable to civilian survival (water, food, agriculture, etc.).

Key facts/claims:

- Israel imposed and maintained tight restrictions on:
  - Entry of food, fuel, medicine, and other essentials,
  - Electricity and water supplies,
  - Humanitarian access and movement.
- International agencies (e.g., **UNRWA, WFP, WHO, OCHA**) have reported:
  - Acute food insecurity and risk of famine in parts of Gaza,
  - Severe constraints on humanitarian operations,
  - Repeated denials or delays of aid shipments and convoys.

**Legal assessments:**

- Several UN Special Rapporteurs and the UN Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry have asserted that Israeli policies amount to using starvation as a method of warfare—an IHL violation and a war crime.
- Israel argues restrictions are militarily necessary (e.g., to


text:
Whether Israel’s conduct in Gaza complies with international humanitarian law (IHL) is actively disputed and cannot be answered with a simple “yes” or “no.” Different authoritative actors have reached sharply different conclusions, and many investigations are still ongoing. Here’s a structured summary of the main legal issues and positions, based on information available up to mid‑2024.

---

## 1. The Legal Framework

The main bodies of law:

- **International humanitarian law (IHL)** – esp. the Geneva Conventions and customary IHL:
  - Distinction (civilians vs. combatants)
  - Proportionality (no excessive civilian harm relative to anticipated military advantage)
  - Precautions in attack (warning, choice of weapons, targeting, etc.)
  - Prohibition of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare
- **International human rights law**
- **International criminal law** – Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)

These apply both to **Israel** and to **armed groups in Gaza** (e.g., Hamas and others).

---

## 2. Points of Broad International Agreement

Most states and legal bodies agree on several facts:

1. **Hamas’s 7 October 2023 attacks**:
   - Involved deliberate killing and abduction of civilians, rape and other sexual violence, hostage‑taking, and indiscriminate rocket fire.
   - These acts are widely described as **war crimes** and in some analyses as **crimes against humanity**.

2. **Heavy civilian harm in Gaza**:
   - Tens of thousands of Palestinians killed, very large numbers of them women and children; massive destruction of homes, infrastructure, and services.
   - Large‑scale displacement of most of Gaza’s population.
   - Severe humanitarian crisis, including hunger and risk of famine in parts of Gaza, especially earlier in 2024.

3. The situation has triggered:
   - UN inquiries (UN Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry, Special Rapporteurs reports).
   - Proceedings before the **International Court of Justice (ICJ)** in the case brought by South Africa under the **Genocide Convention**.
   - Investigations by the **ICC Prosecutor** into possible crimes by both Israeli and Palestinian actors.

Where the controversy lies is whether Israel’s conduct, given these facts, legally **violates IHL and/or the Genocide Convention**, and on what scale.

---

## 3. ICJ: Provisional Findings (Genocide Case)

In *South Africa v. Israel* (Genocide Convention):

- The ICJ has **not ruled** that Israel is committing genocide.
- It found that some Palestinian rights under the Convention are **plausible** and that there is a **plausible risk of genocide**, requiring urgent measures.
- The Court ordered Israel, among other things, to:
  - Prevent genocidal acts.
  - Ensure its forces do not commit such acts.
  - Allow humanitarian assistance.
  - Prevent and punish direct and public incitement to genocide.
- In May 2024, the ICJ ordered additional provisional measures focusing on:
  - The situation in **Rafah**.
  - The need to keep border crossings open for essentials.
  - Preserving evidence.

This means the ICJ sees a serious legal risk, but it has **not yet decided** on Israel’s final responsibility for genocide or other violations. That will take years and a full merits phase.

---

## 4. ICC: Criminal Liability (Ongoing)

The ICC Office of the Prosecutor:

- Has an open investigation into the situation in Palestine (covering alleged crimes by **all sides**).
- In May 2024, the Prosecutor announced he is seeking **arrest warrants** for:
  - **Hamas leaders** (for war crimes and crimes against humanity).
  - **Senior Israeli officials** (for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity related to conduct of hostilities and blocking aid).

A Pre‑Trial Chamber still has to decide whether to issue the warrants. These steps indicate that the ICC Prosecutor believes there are **reasonable grounds** to think international crimes have been committed by both Hamas and certain Israeli officials, but this is not yet a judicial finding.

---

## 5. Main IHL Issues Raised About Israel’s Conduct

### (a) Distinction and Indiscriminate Attacks

Concerns:
- Extensive bombing in densely populated areas, including residential buildings, schools, hospitals, and UN facilities.
- Some attacks on protected facilities allegedly used for military purposes (e.g., tunnels, command posts). Israel claims dual‑use or military use; critics question the evidence or proportionality.
- Use of heavy explosive weapons in urban zones, which tends to cause wide‑area destruction.

Allegations by UN bodies, NGOs (e.g., Amnesty, Human Rights Watch), and some states:
- Repeated patterns of attacks causing very high civilian casualties raise suspicion of:
  - **Indiscriminate attacks**,


text:
Israel’s conduct in Gaza raises very serious IHL (international humanitarian law) concerns. Some aspects are clearly unlawful; others are contested and depend on facts that are still being investigated. It is not accurate to say everything is clearly lawful, nor to say everything is clearly unlawful. The picture is mixed, but deeply troubling.

Below is a structured overview, based on IHL principles and what’s been reported by major UN bodies, reputable NGOs, and states as of mid‑2026.

---

## 1. Applicable law

Key legal frameworks:

- **Geneva Conventions (esp. Fourth Geneva Convention)** – protection of civilians.
- **Additional Protocol I** (many provisions reflect customary law and bind all parties).
- **Customary IHL** – rules on distinction, proportionality, precautions, humanitarian access.
- **International human rights law** – applies alongside IHL.
- **Genocide Convention** – relevant to claims of genocidal acts or intent.

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

---

## 2. Core IHL duties in urban warfare

Main obligations relevant to Gaza:

1. **Distinction** – attacks may only target combatants and military objectives, not civilians or purely civilian objects.
2. **Proportionality** – expected civilian harm cannot be excessive relative to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
3. **Precautions** – constant care, including:
   - Choosing means/methods of attack that minimize civilian harm.
   - Effective advance warning when possible.
   - Verification of targets.
4. **Protection of civilian objects** – especially hospitals, schools, places of worship, and UN facilities, unless used for military purposes.
5. **Humanitarian access** – allowing rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief, subject only to reasonable security controls.
6. **Prohibition of starvation of civilians** as a method of warfare.
7. **Treatment of detainees** – humane treatment; prohibition of torture, enforced disappearance, and collective punishment.
8. **No collective punishment** of the civilian population.

These apply regardless of Hamas’s own clear violations, including deliberate attacks on civilians and hostage‑taking, which are war crimes.

---

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

### 3.1 Civilian casualties and destruction

Facts (broadly consistent across UN, NGOs, and independent researchers; exact numbers and fighter/civilian breakdown are disputed):

- Tens of thousands of Palestinians killed; a very high proportion are civilians, including many children.
- Massive destruction of housing, civilian infrastructure, universities, hospitals, water and power systems.
- Use of large explosive munitions in extremely dense urban areas.

IHL assessment:

- **Not every civilian death is a war crime**; the law allows attacks on military objectives even when incidental civilian casualties occur, within proportionality limits.
- However, the **scale and pattern** of harm has led:
  - UN bodies, including the UN Commission of Inquiry and Special Rapporteurs, to allege that Israel has committed **war crimes**, including:
    - Indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks.
    - Failure to take feasible precautions.
  - Several states and major NGOs (e.g., Amnesty, Human Rights Watch) to reach similar conclusions.

Whether specific attacks were **disproportionate** needs detailed, fact‑intensive analysis of each strike (target, expected advantage, anticipated civilian harm, intelligence held at the time). Many such incidents are under investigation by international and domestic bodies, including the **ICC** and, in theory, Israel’s Military Advocate General.

---

### 3.2 Warnings, evacuations, and “safe zones”

Israel has:

- Issued mass warnings (SMS, leaflets, phone calls).
- Ordered large‑scale evacuations (e.g., northern to southern Gaza).
- Declared certain areas as “safer” or “humanitarian zones,” then sometimes conducted operations there.

Issues under IHL:

- Warnings are required **when circumstances permit**, but:
  - Warnings do **not** automatically make an attack lawful.
  - Orders to evacuate must be **feasible**, provide for **shelter, food, water, and medical care**, and cannot be used for forcible displacement without imperative military reasons.
- UN and humanitarian organizations report:
  - Repeated displacement of civilians from one “safe” area to another that was later attacked.
  - Insufficient provision of basic necessities where people were told to go.

These patterns support arguments that some evacuation measures may be inconsistent with IHL requirements to ensure **effective protection** and avoid **forced displacement** that is not strictly required by security or military operations.

---

### 3.3 Strikes on hospitals, schools, UN facilities, journalists

Facts:

- Numerous hospitals and clinics have been damaged or rendered non‑functional.
- UNRWA schools and shelters, clearly marked and serving civilians, have been hit multiple times.
- Journal


text:
International humanitarian law (IHL) governs all parties in an armed conflict, including Israel, Palestinian armed groups (like Hamas), and any other actors. Whether Israel’s conduct in Gaza is consistent with IHL is actively disputed and is the subject of ongoing investigations by international bodies, states, and NGOs. There is no single, definitive legal ruling that settles the question in full, but there are some clear reference points.

Below is a structured overview rather than a political judgment.

---

## 1. What IHL requires

Core IHL principles relevant to Gaza include:

1. **Distinction**
   - Parties must distinguish at all times between civilians and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives.
   - Attacks may only be directed against 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 in attack**
   - Parties must take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm, including choice of weapons, timing, warnings, and attack routes.

4. **Protection of civilian objects and infrastructure**
   - Objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population (water, food, medical facilities, etc.) are specially protected.
   - Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.

5. **Treatment of detainees and prisoners**
   - Prohibitions on torture, cruel treatment, and arbitrary detention.

These obligations apply equally regardless of who started the hostilities or who is “right” politically.

---

## 2. Findings and allegations regarding Israel’s conduct

### a) Civilian casualties and destruction

- The Gaza conflict since October 2023 has produced extremely high civilian casualties and large-scale destruction of homes, infrastructure, hospitals, and schools.
- UN bodies, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and human-rights organizations (e.g., Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, B’Tselem) have expressed serious concerns that:
  - Some attacks may have failed the **distinction** requirement (e.g., strikes hitting residential blocks, schools, shelters, medical facilities, or markets where no evident military target was identifiable).
  - Some attacks may have been **disproportionate**, given the scale of civilian harm relative to the apparent military advantage.

Israel responds that:
- Hamas and other groups embed fighters and military assets (rockets, command centers, tunnels) in densely populated areas and near protected sites (hospitals, schools, mosques), making civilian harm hard to avoid.
- Many targets were claimed to be dual-use or militarized objects.
- They issue warnings, leaflets, phone calls, and “roof knocks” as precautions.

Disagreement centers on whether these precautions were sufficient and whether choices of targets, weapons, and methods were consistent with proportionality and distinction.

### b) Siege tactics, blockade, and humanitarian access

Relevant IHL rules:
- It is forbidden to use **starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare**.
- Parties must allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for civilians in need, subject to security screening.

Allegations and concerns:
- Restrictions on fuel, electricity, food, water, and medical supplies entering Gaza; destruction of agricultural land and basic infrastructure; and obstruction/delay of humanitarian aid have led multiple UN officials, humanitarian organizations, and some states to argue that Israel may be violating:
  - The prohibition on starvation as a method of warfare.
  - The obligation to ensure humanitarian relief.

Israel’s position:
- It argues it allows substantial aid in subject to security checks, that Hamas diverts resources, and that measures are aimed at weakening Hamas rather than deliberately starving civilians.

International assessments:
- Numerous UN special rapporteurs and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) have described the situation as catastrophic and largely human-made, and have indicated that current restrictions and destruction may be inconsistent with IHL.
- Whether this meets the legal threshold of “starvation as a method of warfare” is under active investigation and will likely be judged in courts or tribunals.

### c) Attacks on medical facilities, journalists, UN premises

- Hospitals and medical units are protected unless they are used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy (and even then, a warning with time to comply is required before attack when feasible).
- Journalists and UN personnel have special protections as civilians.

Allegations:
- Multiple strikes have hit hospitals, clinics, ambulances, UNRWA schools-turned-shelters, and convoys marked as humanitarian.
- Attacks killing journalists and UN staff have been documented and condemned by UN and press-freedom organizations.

Israel often argues:
- Facilities targeted (or near targets) were being used for military activities (e.g., Hamas command posts, tunnel access points, weapons storage).
- Some hits were unintent


text:
Whether Israel’s conduct in Gaza is consistent with international humanitarian law (IHL) is currently *contested* and *unresolved* in legal terms. Different actors reach sharply different conclusions, and several international proceedings are still ongoing. What can be said clearly is:

1. **The applicable law**
   - The situation in Gaza is governed by:
     - The four Geneva Conventions of 1949, especially:
       - Common Article 3 (non‑international armed conflicts–minimum protections).
       - Fourth Geneva Convention (protection of civilians under occupation).
     - Customary IHL rules on:
       - Distinction (combatants vs. civilians, military vs. civilian objects).
       - Proportionality (no attacks causing excessive civilian harm relative to concrete and direct military advantage).
       - Precautions in attack (to minimize civilian harm).
       - Prohibition of indiscriminate attacks.
       - Prohibition on starvation of civilians, collective punishment, and targeting of civilian infrastructure not used for military purposes.
     - International human rights law (e.g., ICCPR) continues to apply alongside IHL.
   - Israel disputes that it is an “occupying power” in Gaza since 2005; most UN bodies and many states and experts consider Israel to retain *effective control* (airspace, sea, borders, population registry, etc.), so they treat it as an occupying power with additional obligations.

2. **Key contested issues about Israel’s conduct**

   The main legal debates focus on:

   **a. Distinction and proportionality**
   - Israel argues:
     - Hamas and other armed groups embed fighters, tunnels, and command centers in densely populated areas, hospitals, schools, and UN facilities.
     - It uses precision weapons, advance warnings (leaflets, phone calls, text messages), evacuation orders, and target‑review processes to comply with distinction, proportionality, and precautions.
   - Critics (including UN officials, many NGOs, and some states) argue:
     - The *scale* of destruction and civilian casualties, including many children, indicates either:
       - systemic failures in targeting and proportionality assessments, or
       - a pattern of attacks that are indiscriminate or disproportionate.
     - Strikes on residential buildings, schools, hospitals, refugee camps, and UN facilities, sometimes after coordinates were provided, suggest either:
       - disregard for civilian harm, or
       - inadequate verification and precaution.

   Under IHL, the legality of any *specific* attack is fact‑intensive: one must know the military objective, expected civilian harm, and available alternatives at the time of the decision—not just the outcome. Many of those facts are not publicly available yet.

   **b. Siege, blockade, and essential supplies**
   - Israel imposed a near‑total blockade early in the current hostilities, severely restricting fuel, electricity, water, food, and medical supplies.
   - IHL prohibits:
     - starving civilians as a method of warfare;
     - collective punishment;
     - blockades whose specific purpose or effect is to deny survival essentials to the civilian population.
   - Israel says:
     - It targets Hamas’ capabilities, not civilians;
     - Limits or inspections are necessary to prevent diversion of supplies to Hamas.
   - UN agencies, the ICRC, and others say:
     - The scale and duration of restrictions amount to using deprivation of essentials as a method of warfare against civilians or at least to unlawful collective punishment.

   This is a central point in ongoing international legal scrutiny.

   **c. Displacement and “evacuation orders”**
   - Israel has repeatedly ordered mass evacuations (e.g., from northern Gaza to the south) over very short time frames.
   - IHL:
     - Allows temporary evacuations of civilians for their security or imperative military reasons;
     - Prohibits forcible transfer and deportation, and requires adequate conditions and the possibility of return.
   - Critics argue:
     - The sheer scale (large majority of the population displaced), combined with destruction of housing and infrastructure, and lack of safe zones, creates a risk of unlawful forcible transfer and conditions incompatible with IHL.
   - Israel maintains:
     - Evacuations are protective measures, not intended to permanently displace the population;
     - Evacuation corridors and “safer areas” are designated to reduce harm, even if imperfectly.

   **d. Attacks on medical, educational, and UN facilities**
   - Hospitals, schools, and UN facilities have been repeatedly struck.
   - IHL:
     - Protects medical facilities and personnel, unless they’re used outside their humanitarian function to commit acts harmful to the enemy and after a warning has been given and ignored.
     - Protects UN and humanitarian facilities as civilian objects, subject to the same rules on distinction and proportionality.
   - Israel frequently claims:
     - Hamas uses or used these facilities for military purposes (command centers, arms storage, combat positions, tunnels).
   - UN officials


text:
International humanitarian law (IHL) doesn’t give simple yes/no verdicts on an entire war or an entire party; it assesses specific acts and policies against specific rules. With that in mind, here’s the clearest summary possible based on publicly available information up to late 2024.

### 1. The core legal framework

Key IHL rules relevant to Gaza include:

- **Distinction** – Parties must distinguish at all times between civilians and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives. (Art. 48, Additional Protocol I; customary law)
- **Proportionality** – Attacks expected to cause incidental civilian harm that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated are prohibited. (Art. 51(5)(b) AP I; customary law)
- **Precautions in attack** – Parties must take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm, including target verification, choice of weapons, warnings where possible, and cancellation of attacks if proportionality is not respected. (Art. 57 AP I)
- **Prohibition of collective punishment** – No party may impose sanctions or suffering on a population for the acts of a few. (Art. 33 Fourth Geneva Convention; customary law)
- **Prohibition of starvation of civilians** – Starvation may not be used as a method of warfare; objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population may not be attacked or blocked. (Art. 54 AP I; customary law)
- **Obligation to ensure humanitarian relief** – Parties must allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for civilians in need, subject to security screening. (Art. 23, 59–61 Fourth Geneva Convention; customary law)
- **Treatment of detainees, hostages, and prisoners** – Taking hostages is prohibited; detainees must be treated humanely. (Common Article 3; Art. 34 GC IV)

These rules bind both state and non‑state actors. Hamas and other armed groups are also accused of grave violations (e.g., deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage‑taking).

### 2. What has been alleged about Israel’s conduct?

Multiple UN bodies, NGOs (e.g., Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International), and some states allege that aspects of Israel’s conduct in Gaza likely violate IHL. Key areas:

#### a. Civilian casualties and destruction

- Extremely high civilian death toll and widespread destruction of homes, infrastructure, hospitals, and UN facilities.
- Use of heavy explosive weapons in densely populated urban areas.
- Repeated strikes on areas where civilians had been told to seek shelter.

Legally, these raise questions about:

- **Distinction:** Whether Israel has consistently targeted only military objectives and whether some strikes appear to have been directed at, or indifferent to, civilian objects.
- **Proportionality:** Whether expected civilian harm in specific operations was clearly excessive relative to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

There is significant dispute: Israel argues Hamas embeds fighters and weapons in civilian areas, turning them into military objectives; critics argue that even accounting for this, the scale and patterns of harm indicate systemic disproportionate or indiscriminate attacks.

#### b. Warnings and evacuation orders

Israel has issued warnings (e.g., evacuation orders, leaflets, phone messages). Under IHL, warnings are relevant to precautions, but they:

- Do **not** justify attacks that are otherwise disproportionate.
- Must be **effective**: civilians must have a realistic chance to leave and somewhere safer to go.

Concerns:

- “Safe zones” and evacuation routes have reportedly been struck.
- Repeated mass-displacement orders without adequate shelter, food, medical care, or protection.
- Short warning times in many cases.

If warnings are ineffective, or people have no real option to leave, the legal value of such warnings is limited.

#### c. Siege, blockade, and essential services

After 7 October, Israel imposed or tightened severe restrictions on:

- Fuel, electricity, water, medical supplies, and other goods.
- Entry and distribution of humanitarian aid.

IHL allows **blockades** and **sieges** targeting enemy forces, but:

- Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.
- Parties must not block relief indispensable to survival of the civilian population (subject to narrow security conditions).

UN agencies, humanitarian organizations, and several states have argued that:

- The level and method of restrictions, combined with the scale of civilian need, amount to using deprivation as a weapon—potentially **starvation as a method of warfare** or **collective punishment**.
- Israel rejects this characterization, claiming it targets Hamas, not civilians, and citing security checks and Hamas diversion of aid. But the factual result (widespread hunger, disease risk, collapse of health system) is central to the legal analysis, not only stated intent.

#### d. Attacks on medical facilities, UN sites, journalists

- Repeated strikes or damage to hospitals, clinics