Israel’s Gaza Tactics Lack Legal Justification, Say Experts
Last Updated on April 11, 2025 by Athi Venkatesh
On March 24, 2025, an Israeli airstrike killed journalist Hossam Shabat in northern Gaza. Israel claimed he was linked to Hamas. Legal scholars reject this justification.
International law states that only those actively engaged in combat can be lawfully targeted. Yet, Israel often kills civilians based on alleged affiliations. Experts say these are not “targeted killings” but unlawful assassinations.
Israel has bombed densely populated areas, killing thousands, including children. Legal experts argue that these disproportionate attacks violate the Geneva Conventions. Heidi Matthews, a law professor at York University, said, “There is no legal justification for Israel’s actions.”
Analysts trace these tactics back to the early 2000s, when Israel redefined military doctrine. The U.S. adopted similar policies during its “war on terror.” Both countries shifted from targeting active combatants to targeting individuals based on group membership.
Israel justifies massive bombings as necessary to end war quickly. This logic follows the views of Francis Leiber, a 19th-century military theorist. He argued wars must be short, even if that means mass civilian casualties. Legal scholar Alonso Gurmendi Dunkelberg calls this philosophy “terrifying” and against modern humanitarian law.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants in 2024 for Israeli leaders Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant. They face accusations of using starvation as a weapon and targeting civilians. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Palestinians in Gaza face a real risk of genocide.
Israel’s legal defenses are losing credibility, experts say. Former Human Rights Watch director Nadim Khoury warns that Israel and its allies are now undermining the legal institutions meant to enforce international law.
Some European countries refuse to arrest Netanyahu, despite their ICC obligations. Matthews believes global powers must act now to preserve international law. “The system is flawed,” she said, “but letting it collapse would be worse.”
