Israel, International Humanitarian Law, and the Asymmetrical Logic of Contemporary Conflict
Abstract
This article analyses the ethical, legal, and strategic dilemmas faced by Israel in the context of its conflict with Hamas, in light of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and the regional geopolitical landscape. It argues that Israel’s response cannot be understood outside the asymmetrical logic of modern warfare, and that the international community’s demand for Israel to adhere to near-flawless conduct—while often excusing or ignoring terrorist practices—reveals a troubling erosion of international justice standards.
1. Introduction
Since its establishment in 1948, the State of Israel has faced existential threats from both state and non-state actors across the region. The wars of 1948, 1967, and 1973, along with decades of terrorism from groups such as the PLO, Hezbollah, and more recently Hamas, have placed Israel in a permanent state of heightened alert and self-defense. Yet, its right to self-defense has, for decades, been subject to disproportionate international scrutiny.
The attack on 7 October 2023 marks a watershed moment—not only due to its brutality, but also because of its strategic and legal ramifications. This article examines the impact of that event through the lens of IHL, critiques the international community’s asymmetrical response, and calls for a reassessment of legal frameworks in light of the realities of asymmetrical warfare.
2. 7 October and the Violation of Jus in Bello
The Hamas-led attack on 7 October 2023 was not a mere act of terrorism; it was a premeditated massacre of civilians—including children, the elderly, and infants—followed by the abduction of dozens of individuals, who remain captive in conditions that egregiously violate the Geneva Conventions. These acts clearly constitute war crimes.
The civilian status of the victims is indisputable: they were not combatants but deliberately targeted innocents. Yet the international reaction to this breach of law and morality was, in many cases, marked by a deafening silence—or worse, couched in language that implicitly sought to contextualize or justify the violence.
3. Hamas’s Cynical Strategy and Israel’s Ethical Dilemma
Hamas operates according to a cynical logic, embedding its command centers, weapons stockpiles, and rocket launchers within hospitals, schools, and mosques. This tactic not only violates the principle of distinction enshrined in IHL but also aims to reap political benefit from the inevitable civilian casualties that result from Israeli countermeasures.
Israel, in turn, faces a cruel dilemma: to wait and negotiate, thereby risking Hamas’s rearmament and signalling strategic weakness; or to act decisively, endangering the lives of the very hostages it seeks to save. This is not merely a military quandary—it is a deeply ethical and legal one, unique in the modern international arena and unfolding under relentless global scrutiny.
4. Proportionality and the Illusion of Symmetry
The concept of proportionality, frequently invoked to criticise Israel, is often misunderstood in public discourse. IHL does not demand a numerical equivalence of casualties, but rather that military action be proportionate to a legitimate objective. Israel’s goal—the dismantling of Hamas and the rescue of hostages—is fully consistent with jus in bello.
However, international expectations that Israel distinguish with surgical precision between civilians and combatants—while its enemy deliberately obscures that distinction—amount to a distortion of the law’s intent. This asymmetry ultimately serves to protect those who exploit civilian immunity, rather than the civilians themselves.
5. The Instrumentalisation of Hostages
Hamas’s war did not end on 7 October. It continues through the calculated detention of hostages—women, children, elderly—used as political capital and human shields. These individuals are not simply bargaining chips; they are pawns in a strategy that weaponizes suffering.
The international community’s near-silence on this matter is striking. Despite its vocal concern for Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, the plight of the hostages is often marginalized—as though their fate were ancillary rather than central to the conflict.
This is starkly illustrated by the photographs and videos recently released by Hamas, showing David Evyatar — abducted on October 7 — being forced to dig his own grave somewhere in a tunnel. The images are profoundly disturbing and chillingly reminiscent of the horrors of the Holocaust. The instrumentalisation of humiliation, the subterranean setting, and the despair captured on video evoke a vision of brutality we believed consigned to history. Such public displays of cruelty constitute not only a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law — they are an affront to historical memory and to the moral conscience of humanity.
6. A Proxy War: Iran’s Strategic Role
The war in Gaza is but one front in a broader regional conflict. In the north, Hezbollah—financed and armed by Iran—launches near-daily attacks into Israeli territory. In the Red Sea, Houthi rebels, likewise backed by Tehran, threaten international shipping. In the West Bank, Iranian incitement exacerbates tensions. And within Israel, friction is growing between Arab and Jewish citizens.
Iran is thus the architect of a regional proxy war. Its objective is not Palestinian statehood, but the destruction of Israel and the collapse of any rapprochement between Israel and moderate Arab states.
7. The International Narrative and the Fallacy of Neutrality
The statement by UN Secretary-General António Guterres—that “the attacks did not happen in a vacuum”—epitomizes the tendency to contextualize terror when its victims are Jewish. Uttered days after the massacre, the remark functioned, however unintentionally, as a rhetorical shield for Hamas’s actions.
This is part of a longstanding pattern: Jewish trauma is often subjected to explanatory burdens that are not applied to other victims. This narrative asymmetry entrenches a form of moral bias and undermines the credibility of international institutions.
8. The UN and the Crisis of Moral Authority
The United Nations, envisioned as a guardian of international peace and justice, is undergoing a profound crisis of credibility. The UNRWA has been linked to terrorist activities; the General Assembly passes more resolutions against Israel than against regimes like North Korea or Syria. Scandals involving peacekeeping forces and the chronic dysfunction of the Security Council further erode the institution’s legitimacy.
While the UN retains operational relevance, it has forfeited the moral authority required to act as a neutral arbiter in conflicts such as the Israeli–Palestinian dispute.
9. Israel as the Global Scapegoat
Israel is judged by a uniquely demanding standard in the international system. Several factors contribute to this:
- Optics of Power: Israel’s military strength obscures its underlying strategic vulnerability.
- Post-colonial Projection: For some, Israel is a convenient surrogate upon which to project the guilt of European colonialism.
- Historical Stigma: As Abba Eban once noted, Israel is “the Jew among nations,” expected to display unattainable moral perfection.
- Media Narratives: The suffering in Gaza dominates global coverage, while atrocities committed against Israelis—rape, murder, torture—are frequently downplayed or rationalized.
10. Conclusion: Towards an Ethic of Coherence
Affirming Israel’s right to exist and defend itself does not necessitate uncritical support of its policies. Similarly, acknowledging Palestinian suffering should not entail legitimizing organizations like Hamas. What is needed is moral coherence: a refusal to conflate resistance with massacre, legitimate criticism with moral equivalence, or justice with selective sentimentality.
As Hannah Arendt warned, “the sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.” Today, more than ever, that decision must be made—by institutions, leaders, and civil society alike.
Comments
Post a Comment