Scrutiny Mounts Over Israel's Actions in Gaza: A Closer Look at Proportionality
Israel's military operation in Gaza has killed tens of thousands of people, destroyed thousands of buildings, and severely restricted the supply of food.
The operation was launched after Hamas rampaged through villages, military posts and a music festival in Israel on 7 October 2023, killing about 1,200 people and taking 251 others hostage. The United Nations' (UN) human rights body would later conclude that Hamas had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at the time that 'like every country, Israel has an inherent right to defend itself.' He argues his country's military operation in Gaza is a 'just war' with the goals of destroying Hamas and bringing home all the hostages.
In January 2024, he said that 'Israel's commitment to international law is unwavering.' That commitment is coming under ever-increasing scrutiny.
Leading human rights organisations and some countries accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing and acts of genocide. Netanyahu denies this and has strongly criticised such allegations.
An important aspect of how international law applies to wars is the principle of proportionality.
In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, it means that 'the effects of the means and methods of warfare used must not be disproportionate to the military advantage sought.'
BBC Verify has spoken to a range of international law experts to ask whether they consider Israel's actions to have been proportionate.
The vast majority of them, with different degrees of certainty, told us that Israel's actions are not proportionate. In drawing that conclusion, some reference Israel's conduct of the whole war, some focus on events in recent months.
'I would struggle to see how Israel's military conduct in Gaza could potentially be characterised as proportionate,' says Prof Janina Dill from the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford.
Dr Maria Varaki, from Kings College London, told us that 'it is undisputable, non-disputable, actually, that the use of force in Gaza has been disproportionate.'
Prof Yuval Shany, at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, states: 'The military campaign can no longer be seen as proportionate.'
And Prof Asa Kasher of Tel Aviv University, who was the lead author of the IDF's first code of ethics, told us the number of non-combatants killed 'seems too high to be taken to result from reasonable proportionality considerations.'
International law is made up of a series of agreements that most countries in the world have signed. The agreements detail what states can and can't do. They include the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions, both of which Israel is party to and both of which are relevant to proportionality.
Proportionality, as understood in international law, is assessed in two ways: firstly, regarding the state’s overall military response to a threat, and secondly, assessing individual military actions such as air strikes.
The expected harm to civilians must be proportionate to the expected military advantage gained from each action. Intent is a vital consideration in this framework.
More than 64,500 people have been killed by Israel during its campaign - almost half of them women and children, according to Gaza's Hamas-run Ministry of Health. This figure is disputed by Israel, which has not provided any figures of its own regarding civilian casualties.
In May, Israel's far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, declared that 'Gaza will be entirely destroyed.'
Current uncertain conditions render the situation continously evolving. For Israel, the operational narrative insists on a need for self-defense yet invites critical examination regarding the proportionality and humanitarian implications involved in military tactics executed.
