International Humanitarian Law and the Israel-Palestinian Conflict

Commentary on the current conflict between Israel and Hamas has brought into popular use a number of terms such as genocide and war crimes that emerge from distinct and specific legal traditions. Using powerful terms like these in political and human rights advocacy can conflate the moral, political, and legal implications of the conflict—or rhetorically, advance certain moral beliefs, cultural allegiances or political agendas. Throwing around legal terms for emotive impact can obscure the important legal framework governing armed conflict that must be applied in addressing this conflict as a matter of international law.

The international community, including the United States, has chastised the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) for purportedly insufficient protection of civilians and decried the harm to civilian life and infrastructure in absolute terms—some at the fringes even going so far as to say this constitutes evidence of genocide. Others, drawing on extensive experience in urban warfare, assert that Israel’s measures to protect civilians during combat are unparalleled, and note that in comparison to the U.S. military’s actions in conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel’s precautions far exceed what international law mandates.