Gaza’s Humanitarian Crisis: International Law on the Brink

In times of war, certain rules exist to protect civilians from the worst consequences of armed conflict. These rules, outlined in the Geneva Conventions, particularly the Fourth Convention created after World War Two, are not conditional or open to interpretation. They are binding commitments meant to be followed by all parties in a war, regardless of the circumstances.

The deadly Hamas attacks on 7 October 2023, which resulted in the deaths of 1,200 people and the abduction of 250 hostages, do not nullify Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law. Legal norms dictate that civilian lives must be safeguarded, even in the face of aggression. The idea that “Even wars have rules,” as emphasized by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), is not a mere slogan but a foundational principle of modern warfare.

In Gaza, the reality is far removed from these ideals. The destruction and death toll are staggering, and accurate information is hard to obtain. Independent journalists have little access, with Israel restricting entry into Gaza for foreign reporters. At least 181 journalists, most of them Palestinian, have lost their lives in the conflict, further narrowing the window for outside observation and independent verification.

This lack of transparency appears to be a deliberate policy. At the start of the war, Israel welcomed international journalists to document the aftermath of the Hamas attacks on its soil. In contrast, it has blocked access to Gaza, raising concerns that it is attempting to prevent scrutiny of its military conduct. Without open media access, verifying the legality of operations becomes nearly impossible.

As doubts grow about the conduct of the war, international legal experts and governments are turning to the Geneva Conventions to measure Israel’s actions. While many nations initially supported Israel’s right to self-defense, mounting evidence of civilian suffering has prompted some to question whether its ongoing military campaign remains legally and morally justifiable.

Some observers argue that Israel’s continued military operations are being driven more by political calculations than military necessity. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political survival may hinge on prolonging the conflict, as it helps sustain his fragile coalition government and diverts attention from previous leadership failures. His communication strategy, which avoids press conferences in favor of scripted social media videos, has further shielded him from accountability.

Despite Israel’s repeated assertions that it is adhering to international law, legal bodies and humanitarian groups paint a different picture. The International Court of Justice is hearing a case accusing Israel of genocide, and the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and other officials over alleged war crimes. These proceedings signal that the global legal system is taking the allegations seriously.

The human toll in Gaza is catastrophic. In response to Hamas’s initial attack, Israel’s military campaign has resulted in over 54,600 deaths and at least 125,000 injuries, according to Gaza’s health ministry. Many of the casualties are women and children. Despite Israeli claims that these figures are unreliable due to the ministry’s ties to Hamas, they are widely accepted by international organizations and foreign governments.

Children have borne the brunt of the violence. UNICEF estimates that 14,500 Palestinian children have been killed, and 17,000 have lost or been separated from their parents. Gaza now has the highest number of child amputees in the world. According to The Lancet, actual casualty figures may be even higher, as thousands of bodies are still trapped under debris, and the healthcare system has collapsed.

A further layer of suffering is being caused by Israel’s blockade of humanitarian aid. From March to May, aid deliveries were nearly stopped altogether. The resulting food shortages have led to severe malnutrition and accusations that Israel is using hunger as a weapon. British officials and human rights groups have condemned the strategy, especially after a top Israeli official admitted that limiting aid was meant to pressure Hamas—an action that is likely illegal under international law.

ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric recently visited Gaza and described the conditions as “worse than hell on Earth.” She warned that if the rules of war are ignored in Gaza, the entire international humanitarian framework is at risk. Violating these norms in one conflict sets a precedent that could encourage similar behavior in future wars around the world.

Speaking from Geneva, Spoljaric reminded the world that international law is not selective. The pain of Palestinian children should be regarded with the same urgency as that of Israeli children. When the world treats these lives unequally, it erodes the credibility of the very laws designed to protect all civilians.

Spoljaric clarified that neutrality in humanitarian operations does not mean silence in the face of injustice. The ICRC’s mission is to remain impartial, but it also has a duty to advocate for the rights of civilians and ensure that wartime conduct remains within legal boundaries. She fears that Gaza is becoming a turning point where these principles are being dangerously undermined.

After Hamas’s brutal attack, Netanyahu vowed to dismantle Hamas and destroy Gaza’s infrastructure. He promised to reduce Gaza to “rubble”—a goal that has been carried out with lethal effect. But this strategy has prompted widespread condemnation for its devastating impact on the civilian population and raised serious legal and ethical questions.

Countries that initially supported Israel are now expressing serious concerns. Governments in Canada and across Europe have criticized the scale of civilian deaths and the blockage of humanitarian aid. Israel’s long-standing allies are increasingly uncomfortable with its wartime actions and the political motivations behind them.

Experts like Professor Janina Dill of Oxford University stress that the legitimacy of a military operation cannot be judged solely by its cause. Each side must be held accountable for how it fights, not just why it fights. Self-defense is not a free pass to ignore laws designed to protect innocent people.

As the war drags on, so do questions about the future of international law. If rules meant to safeguard civilians are disregarded, the global order risks descending into chaos. The world must now decide whether it will uphold the standards forged after the darkest chapters of history—or allow them to be cast aside in the fog of modern conflict.