When the Rules of War Are Ignored: The Gaza Crisis and Global Conscience

In the midst of warfare, there exists a framework designed to preserve a sliver of humanity—the Geneva Conventions. These rules, particularly the Fourth Convention formed after World War Two, are intended to protect civilians even during the worst of conflicts. They are not conditional or optional, and they apply to all sides regardless of provocation or previous attacks.

The tragic events of 7 October 2023, when Hamas launched a deadly assault on Israeli communities, do not absolve Israel from its legal responsibilities. International humanitarian law is clear: no side is allowed to disregard the protections afforded to non-combatants. The principle that “Even wars have rules,” displayed prominently at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, is more than a slogan—it is a standard that nations are expected to uphold.

However, the conflict in Gaza is revealing just how often these rules are violated. Journalistic access to the region is severely limited. At least 181 journalists, mostly Palestinians, have been killed since the conflict began. Meanwhile, international reporters are denied entry by Israel, making it nearly impossible to verify events independently. This information blackout contributes to a growing fog of war that shields potential violations from scrutiny.

This strategic restriction on media is not without intent. In the early stages of the conflict, Israel invited international journalists to witness the aftermath of Hamas attacks within its own borders. In contrast, similar access to Gaza has been blocked. This asymmetry has raised concerns that Israel is deliberately limiting visibility into its military operations in Gaza to avoid international condemnation.

To assess what is really happening, legal experts and diplomats are increasingly relying on the standards of international humanitarian law. Many Western governments that once supported Israel now express discomfort with the unfolding events. There is a growing belief that the continuation of military operations in Gaza may be more politically motivated than strategically necessary.

Observers point to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political circumstances as a potential driving force behind the war’s duration. Critics argue that maintaining a state of conflict helps him keep his fragile governing coalition intact and delays investigations into his administration’s failures before 7 October. Netanyahu’s communications strategy avoids press conferences, favoring pre-recorded messages and social media, distancing him from tough questions.

Despite official Israeli assertions that its military actions comply with international law, a chorus of legal voices suggests otherwise. Multiple reports accuse Israel of violating core principles, including the proportional use of force and protection of civilians. International courts are now involved: the International Court of Justice is reviewing a genocide case against Israel, while the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and others for alleged war crimes.

The scale of human loss in Gaza is devastating. Following Hamas’s attack that killed approximately 1,200 people and took around 250 hostages, the Israeli response has inflicted far greater harm. Gaza’s health ministry reports more than 54,600 deaths and 125,000 injuries, with many casualties being women and children. These figures, while disputed by Israeli officials due to the ministry’s Hamas affiliation, are widely used by humanitarian agencies and foreign diplomats.

The suffering of children is particularly distressing. UNICEF stated in January that 14,500 Palestinian children had died, and 17,000 had lost or been separated from their parents. Gaza now has the world’s highest rate of child amputees. The medical journal The Lancet suggests the actual death toll could be significantly higher, as thousands of bodies remain buried under rubble, and many more people may die due to the collapse of medical services.

Adding to the humanitarian crisis is Israel’s blockade of aid. From March to May, aid deliveries to Gaza were virtually halted. This led to widespread hunger and malnutrition, sparking accusations that Israel was weaponizing starvation. British officials have openly accused Israel of using famine as leverage, especially after a senior Israeli leader admitted that aid was restricted to pressure Hamas into releasing hostages—a strategy that violates international law.

ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric has visited Gaza and describes it as “worse than hell on Earth.” She warns that the Geneva Conventions are being disregarded by all parties involved, jeopardizing the global system of humanitarian protection. The erosion of these norms threatens to normalize brutal conflict conditions and diminish protections for civilians in future wars worldwide.

Speaking from Geneva, Spoljaric emphasized that international law is not about nationality but about universal human dignity. The suffering of Palestinian children, she argues, should matter just as much as that of Israeli children. When the law fails to protect them equally, it loses its legitimacy and meaning on the world stage.

She clarified that neutrality in humanitarian work does not imply indifference. The ICRC, while impartial, remains committed to defending the rights of all civilians caught in conflict. Spoljaric believes the disregard for these rights in Gaza could lead to a global unraveling of humanitarian principles if left unchallenged.

Following the 7 October attacks, Netanyahu vowed to destroy Gaza’s infrastructure and eliminate Hamas. His promise to reduce Gaza to “rubble” has guided Israel’s military strategy, but it has also drawn sharp criticism for the disproportionate suffering inflicted on the civilian population. Many question whether such tactics align with international norms or violate them outright.

Initial global sympathy for Israel has given way to growing concern among its traditional allies. Countries like Canada and several European nations have expressed dismay over the high civilian death toll and the near-total blockade of humanitarian aid. Once firm supporters are now reevaluating their stance in light of mounting evidence of potential war crimes.

Legal scholars such as Oxford’s Janina Dill stress that justification for war does not translate into carte blanche on the battlefield. Both Hamas’s attacks and Israel’s military response must be judged independently under international law. The right to self-defense does not absolve a state from observing rules designed to protect civilians.

The longer the war persists, the greater the risk to international norms and Israel’s global standing. Calls for accountability grow louder with each passing day. As the world watches the Gaza conflict unfold, the question becomes whether the principles forged in the aftermath of past atrocities will be defended—or quietly forgotten.