Israel’s right to defend its population against Hamas does not remove its duties toward civilians in Gaza. International humanitarian law, also called the law of armed conflict, regulates how parties conduct war. It does not depend on whether the opposing force follows the same rules. The sections below define those duties and examine cases in which Israeli conduct warrants scrutiny.
The governing duties
In April 2025, the ICRC and participating states in the Global Initiative on International Humanitarian Law reaffirmed that distinction, proportionality, and precaution apply “without exception, and irrespective of whether the other party or parties abide by them.”
Distinction requires parties to direct attacks at military objectives rather than civilians or civilian objects. Proportionality prohibits an attack when the expected incidental civilian harm would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. Precaution requires feasible steps to verify targets and reduce harm. The ICRC’s explanation of international humanitarian law in Israel and the occupied territories provides a fuller public summary.
Urban war does not erase those duties
Gaza’s density and Hamas’s use of tunnels and civilian areas make target verification and civilian protection unusually difficult. The presence of military activity near homes, schools, hospitals, roads, shelters, or aid routes can affect the legal analysis. It does not remove the duties described above.
The ICRC’s March 2025 discussion of hospitals under fire explains that even when a protected site loses some protection through acts harmful to an opposing force, an attack must still satisfy distinction, proportionality, and precaution.
Aid access is part of shielding civilians
Civilian protection also includes access to food, medicine, water, shelter, and humanitarian personnel. The ICRC’s June 2025 appeal describes humanitarian access as a duty under international humanitarian law, not a discretionary act of charity.
OCHA’s March 2025 Gaza humanitarian update described aid held outside Gaza, fuel shortages, and thousands of truckloads waiting while needs inside remained severe. Its May 2025 update reported additional denials of trauma and emergency-care missions by Israeli authorities. These reports are produced by a UN office and should be read with that institutional context, but their specific access claims require a substantive response.
The World Central Kitchen strike still matters
On April 1, 2024, an Israeli strike killed seven World Central Kitchen staff members. The IDF’s April 5 investigation summary found serious failures in identification and command decision-making and announced dismissals and reprimands. World Central Kitchen’s response stated that its vehicles were clearly marked and traveling on a route coordinated with Israeli authorities. It called for an independent review.
The two statements answer different questions. The IDF inquiry records an official finding of operational failure. WCK’s statement challenges whether the military’s deconfliction process, which is intended to separate aid movements from military targets, offered meaningful protection.
What OZJF is and is not arguing
Civilian death alone does not establish that a particular attack was unlawful. Casualty figures also require attention to source, date, methodology, and any available distinction between civilians and combatants. Gaza’s difficult battlefield conditions do not cancel Israel’s right of self-defense.
OZJF’s position is that civilians retain their protected status, humanitarian access belongs in the legal analysis, and documented failures should be described directly. These duties are most important when fear, anger, and military urgency create pressure to overlook them.
Applying those standards to Israel is compatible with defending Israel’s existence and its right to protect its people.