Human Rights Violations in the Gaza-Israel Conflict: A Call for Justice

Human Rights Violations in the Gaza-Israel Conflict: A Call for Justice

 Gaza has no air force, no navy, no army, and no ordnance. Gaza has no means of defending itself. Is the cowardly attack on Gaza by Israel a legitimate way to fight a war?

Gaza has no air force, no navy, no army, and no ordnance. Gaza has no means of defending itself. Is the cowardly attack on Gaza by Israel a legitimate way to fight a war? I saw this question written on Quora, so I thought of writing an article about it and sharing it with you all. Please read it and let me know if it is right or wrong

The legitimacy of warfare, especially Israel's actions in Gaza, is highly complex and contentious, based on historical, political, and ethical considerations. International law, such as the Geneva Conventions and UN Charter, establishes parameters for "legitimate" warfare, focusing on proportionality, distinction (between military fighters and civilians), and necessity. Critics argue Israel’s military operations in Gaza—often involving airstrikes, blockades, and ground incursions—violate these principles due to high civilian casualties, infrastructure destruction, and Gaza’s limited defensive capabilities. Gaza, lacking a formal military, relies on groups like Hamas, which use guerrilla tactics and rockets, often deemed terrorism by Israel and others. Israel's defenders say they are aimed at Hamas, not civilians, and are legitimate self-defense against rocket fire and tunnel attacks that imperil Israeli security.

The fact that Gaza has no conventional forces (army, air force, navy) does not automatically taint Israel's actions as illegal under international law, as self-defense can be invoked against non-state targets. But the asymmetry makes questions about proportionality—i.e., Israel's highly advanced military vs. Hamas's modest arsenal—more of an ethical issue. UN reports (e.g., 2021 Gaza conflict) record thousands of Palestinian civilian casualties and injuries, with allegations of war crimes against Israel, although Israel denies these, pointing to Hamas's use of civilian locations for military operations. On the other hand, Hamas's indiscriminate rocket attacks are also universally condemned as illegal.

The word "cowardly" is value-laden, but military strategy frequently takes advantage of asymmetry—more powerful powers have targeted weaker ones historically to reduce their own casualties. Whether this is "legitimate" is in the eye of the beholder: legal (adherence to international law), moral (damage to civilians versus security objectives), or practical (does it result in enduring peace or increase rounds of violence?). Both have been criticized—Israel for disproportionate force, Hamas for attacking civilians and hiding among civilians.

No one answer answers this. Both sides have legally been accused of wrongdoing; ethically, there are sharply divided opinions depending on one's outlook. My purpose isn't to judge but to explain: what particular aspect—legal, ethical, or strategic—do you wish to explore further?