In support of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israel Defense Forces.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have since Israel’s declaration of war on Hamas following the October 7th attack on the state of Israel by Hamas faced significant international scrutiny and criticism regarding civilian casualties during military operations in Gaza. Most of these critics have however failed to consider the complexities and strategic necessities underpinning Israel’s approach.

The operational challenges posed by Hamas’s tactics of embedding military assets within civilian infrastructure necessitate difficult decisions. Organizations such as the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) have documented instances where Hamas has stored weapons and launched attacks from within or near civilian infrastructure, complicating efforts to safeguard non-combatants. The UNRWA’s reports highlight the inherent challenge of distinguishing between civilian and combatant in environments deliberately blurred by Hamas’s tactics.

The position of the International law on the protection of civilians during armed conflict is clear. Article 52 of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 sets forth the principle of distinction, which requires parties to a conflict to distinguish between civilians and civilian objects on one hand, and combatants and military objectives on the other. It further states that the civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack.

This position has been used by many critics of Israel to condemn the Zionist state. They however fail to realise that Hamas continues to apply tactics from which the terrorist group hopes to earn sympathy and portray Israel as the bad party in the conflict. Israel has in her commitment to observing international law continued to employ precision-guided munitions and advanced warning systems to mitigate civilian harm. This has however been made difficult by the presence of Hamas combatants within densely populated civilian areas which complicates the strict adherence to the principle of distinction.

The continuous use of human shields by Hamas also places civilians at undue risk, complicating Israel’s efforts to avoid civilian casualties. International law, as articulated in the Fourth Geneva Convention and Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1977, unequivocally prohibits the use of civilians to shield military objectives from attacks. This legal framework underscores the principle that civilians must not be deliberately placed in harm’s way to immunize military targets or impede military operations. However, the interpretation and application of these laws in modern asymmetric conflicts, such as those involving Hamas and the IDF, present unique challenges and complexities.

In Gaza for example, Hamas has constructed an extensive network of tunnels spanning hundreds of kilometres underneath densely populated civilian areas. These tunnels serve as strategic assets for Hamas, facilitating the movement of fighters and weapons, and are unequivocally legitimate military targets under international law. Yet, their subterranean placement beneath civilian infrastructure and residential areas fundamentally alters the dynamics of urban warfare.

The IDF faces the daunting task of neutralizing these tunnels while minimizing civilian casualties, critically, under international law, once civilians are used as human shields by an adversary, the responsibility for their safety shifts. The party utilizing civilians in this manner bears culpability for any harm that befalls them during military operations. This legal nuance underscores the ethical dilemma faced by the IDF: how to uphold its duty to protect civilian lives while countering a foe that cynically exploits the presence of non-combatants for its own military advantage.

Some have argued that Israeli military actions radicalize Palestinian youth and that Hamas is an ideology that cannot be fought. The proponents of this argument overlook the fact that Hamas’s ideology and propaganda play a significant role in fostering extremism. Hamas has a long history of inciting violence and glorifying martyrdom, independent of Israeli actions. Whereas Hamas is indeed an ideology, many critics have ignored the fact that Hamas had established a very complex military infrastructure which if not destroyed posed a significant threat to Israel’s security.

In light of these complexities, criticism of the IDF’s actions must be tempered with an understanding of the operational constraints imposed by Hamas’s use of human shields. While international law mandates the protection of civilians, it equally demands accountability from those who cynically exploit civilian populations for military gain. The IDF’s adherence to international humanitarian principles, despite facing an adversary that flouts them, underscores its commitment to minimizing civilian harm while fulfilling its mandate to defend Israel from security threats. The issue of civilian casualties in Gaza cannot be divorced from the deliberate and illegal tactics employed by Hamas.