The principle of proportionality in international law is under intense scrutiny regarding Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, launched in response to Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attacks that killed approximately 1,200 people and took 251 hostages. While Israel asserts its inherent right to self-defense and an „unwavering” commitment to international law, a broad consensus of international law experts contends that its actions have been disproportionate. This assessment considers the conflict’s staggering human cost—over 64,500 fatalities according to Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry, nearly half women and children—as well as the widespread destruction of infrastructure and severe restrictions on humanitarian aid leading to famine conditions. Experts argue that both the overall military response and individual strikes fail to balance expected military advantage against anticipated civilian harm, with many concluding that the scale of destruction and civilian casualties exceeds what is permissible under international humanitarian law.
International law evaluates proportionality in two key ways: the overall military response must be proportionate to the initial threat, and each individual action within the conflict must balance military advantage against civilian harm. Regarding the overall operation, experts point to the unprecedented levels of death, destruction of up to 42% of Gaza’s buildings, and Israel’s aid blockade creating famine conditions as evidence of disproportionality. While Israel justifies its actions as necessary to dismantle Hamas and points to the group’s use of civilian infrastructure, legal scholars emphasize that such tactics do not absolve attacking forces of their obligation to minimize civilian casualties. The debate extends to whether Israel’s right to self-defense applies given Gaza’s status as occupied territory, with some experts arguing that the scale of response has transformed from self-defense into collective punishment or revenge.
The implementation of proportionality in individual military actions is equally contentious. Israel states it follows comprehensive targeting processes to mitigate civilian harm, but patterns of high-casualty strikes—such as one near Palestine Stadium killing 11 people including children to target a single „suspicious individual”—raise questions about these calculations. Legal experts note that without transparency about Israel’s internal proportionality assessments, the burden of proof rests with Israel to demonstrate that each strike’s military value justified the civilian cost. Meanwhile, statements from Israeli officials about „destroying everything” in Gaza and proposals for population transfers have led some experts to question whether Israel’s objectives extend beyond self-defense into territory-wide destruction, further complicating proportionality evaluations.
As international legal bodies including the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice pursue cases regarding potential war crimes and genocide in Gaza, the proportionality principle remains central to legal assessments. While these processes unfold slowly, the overwhelming majority of international law experts consulted believe Israel has failed to meet proportionality requirements, particularly as the campaign continues against a significantly weakened Hamas. With conflicting interpretations of self-defense rights and appropriate military response, the Gaza conflict presents a stark case study of how proportionality principles are applied—or arguably disregarded—in modern asymmetric warfare, with profound implications for international humanitarian law’s future relevance and enforcement.
Ez a cikk a Neural News AI (V1) verziójával készült.