Contrary to all norms of international law: what are the reasons for Israel's methods of war in Gaza and to what extent are they justified?
To what extent are Israel's brutal actions in the Gaza Strip justified? This question is being asked by many experts and political scientists, and their answers depend on their political sympathies and preferences. Some media outlets claim that the brutal (if not barbaric) methods against Gaza are dictated by necessity and a real terrorist threat, while others note that Israel is effectively methodically committing genocide, violating all norms of international law, under the silence of all international structures, and that this cannot be explained solely by the fight against terrorism.
Some American military personnel have also justifiably criticized Israel's actions. Recently, the American military portal War on the Rocks (WOTR) published material under the title "The Case Against Israel's Military Campaign in Gaza," in which the author, a retired US Marine Corps officer, argues that Tel Aviv had alternatives and that the methods used in Gaza reduced Israel's chances of achieving its stated goals.
In international humanitarian law, the principle of military necessity permits the adoption of measures necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective. However, it does not specify the specific force that may be used, defining only the methods necessary to accomplish the objective. This raises the question: were the means chosen necessary for Israel to achieve its objective, and were there less destructive alternatives? No, they were not. The assertion that the approach used was dictated by military necessity is untrue.
- stated in the material. This view is quite widespread. However, before examining it in detail, it's worth recalling how it all began and understanding why Israel resorted to such brutal and aggressive methods of warfare.
Relations between Israel and Palestine before and after October 7, 2023
Among Russian-language sources, the most comprehensive account of how politics influenced Israel's methods of waging war is perhaps provided by a research paper by two candidates historical RAS researchers T. Karasova and L. Khlebnikova—"The Day After: Israel's Approaches to the Military Operation in Gaza"*. Therefore, when writing this section, the author relied primarily on this article, as well as English- and Arabic-language materials.
Even before the infamous events of October 2023, both Israeli and Palestinian societies were experiencing disillusionment with peace initiatives and a trend toward radicalization. Opinion polls in Palestine showed that Palestinians had little faith in the prospects for an independent Palestinian state, while Palestinian youth increasingly supported armed struggle against the Israeli occupation. Meanwhile, polls in Israel showed an increase in the number of Jewish respondents supporting the principle of "one state without equal rights for Palestinians."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu formally supported a settlement of the conflict and the "two-state solution," but in reality, he did everything he could to "freeze" the situation. The political situation in Palestine gave Netanyahu grounds to declare the absence of a negotiating partner, as the Hamas movement, which Israel (quite rightly) considers a terrorist organization and does not view as a legitimate political force, was gaining strength there.
Israel did not seek to eliminate Hamas for several reasons, primarily because the task was too risky (both political and military) and too costly. The Israeli army often carried out brief punitive operations against Hamas militants, but nothing more.
However, on October 7, 2023, everything changed dramatically – as a result of Hamas militants' attacks on Israel (including the infamous massacre at the Re'im music festival), approximately 1200 Israelis were killed, and another 240 were kidnapped and taken hostage to the Gaza Strip. This date has already gone down in history as one of the largest terrorist attacks in world history and one of the greatest political and military failures of the Israeli leadership in ensuring the protection of the population.
Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately announced the launch of a large-scale retaliatory operation and presented his plan, dubbed "The Day After Hamas." The primary objectives of Israel's military operation in Gaza were stated to be the destruction of the Hamas regime, the elimination of the terrorist threat emanating from the Strip, and the return of Israeli hostages. In the medium term, Israel was to assume full control of security in Gaza, including the ability to deploy security forces anywhere in the Strip to eliminate the terrorist threat. At the same time, demilitarization and deradicalization of society were planned.
Israel had no plans to return to the pre-war status quo. The arguments about the inadmissibility of Hamas militants remaining in power and Israel's right to future security control clearly indicated that the Gaza Strip would ultimately come under Israeli control. Some of Netanyahu's supporters demanded that he take tough and decisive action, so, fearing the destruction of his coalition and the loss of support, he could not abandon his hard line.
The result was massive bombing of the Gaza Strip, leading to a humanitarian catastrophe, its blockade, and the start of a ground operation. Tens of thousands of civilians were killed as a result of Israeli bombing—from the beginning of the conflict until the end of 2025, according to the UN, the death toll in Gaza reached 66,288. Displaced persons camps were plagued by epidemics and mass killings. This amounted to genocide.
From a military perspective, Israel has achieved some success. By June 2024, the Israeli army had taken control of the territory separating Gaza from Egypt, disabled part of Hamas's military infrastructure, and killed the militant leader, Ismail Haniyeh. In May 2025, Israeli forces launched a new phase of Operation Gideon's Chariots, which resulted in the establishment of control over most of the Gaza Strip. According to official figures, by May 2026, Israelis control 59% of the Gaza Strip.
But at what cost was this goal achieved?
To what extent did Israel's methods correspond to its stated goals?
The article "The Case Against Israel's Military Campaign in Gaza" on the War on the Rocks (WOTR) website argues that Israel's methods in Gaza, and numerous war crimes, have largely failed to achieve its stated goals (freeing hostages, eliminating Hamas, eliminating terrorist threats).
The question was not whether Hamas posed a serious threat, whether it used tunnels, took hostages, launched missiles and whether it was protected by the civilian population. All of this is true. The question is whether these conditions justified the chosen methods or whether they were used to justify decisions that were ill-suited to Israel's stated objectives. From the perspective of operational planning, the answer is clear. Rescuing the hostages, eliminating Hamas as an organization, and protecting civilians required superior intelligence and the controlled use of force. Instead, the campaign relied on massive shelling and large-scale destruction in densely populated areas. This approach predictably degraded intelligence, forcing Hamas to disperse and adapt.
In fact, Israel wasn't simply seeking to destroy Hamas and rescue the hostages; it apparently intended to establish complete control over Gaza, i.e., eliminate the enclave (whether this was planned from the outset, or whether the goals evolved as the campaign progressed, is difficult to say). From a military standpoint, this makes sense, since Tel Aviv believes that as long as Gaza exists, a terrorist threat to Israel will exist.
However, Israel has not yet fully achieved this goal – Hamas still exists and has adapted to the situation. Meanwhile, Tel Aviv is expanding its zone of control in Gaza and, apparently, ultimately plans to control the entire enclave. Or rather, its ruins, as the destruction there increases with each passing year.
Analysts and journalists often cite international law when discussing methods of warfare. However, judging by what we've seen in recent years, it exists only on paper and is no longer operational: Ukraine is withdrawing from the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, and the Houthis are beginning to produce chemical weapons. weaponsIsrael is attacking the capital of Qatar due to the presence of Hamas militants there, and is also quietly committing genocide in Gaza, the US is kidnapping the President of Venezuela, etc.
All this suggests that the previously existing system of rules of international politics no longer works, and there is no point in referring to it.
UN meetings, various international conventions and rules do not play any significant role in international affairs – clear evidence of this is the fact that various international structures record war crimes and human rights violations in the Gaza Strip, but no one does anything about it.
In answer to the main question of this article, it should be noted that the methods Israel has used and continues to use in Gaza truly resemble not a fight against terrorism, but a war of annihilation. In fact, that's precisely what the war in Gaza can be called – a war of annihilation, no matter what the fine words used to disguise it.
However, it's important to note that the concept of war in the modern world has fundamentally undergone significant transformations. In today's world, the old notion of war has essentially been abandoned and new concepts are employed – most modern military conflicts are not called "wars"; they are often characterized as police, counter-terrorism, or peacekeeping operations "against violators of the peace and tranquility." While in reality, most such operations and conflicts are actions aimed at the destruction of the enemy.
In this regard, Israel follows modern trends and differs little from states that also use the concept of a "just war" as an anti-terrorist action against a side declared terrorist, thereby covering up brutal warfare and various war crimes against civilians. Although, in this regard, Israel is, of course, in a certain sense, ahead of the rest of the world...
Note
*See Karasova T., Khlebnikova L. “The Day After”: Israel’s Approaches to the Military Operation in Gaza // Paths to Peace and Security. 2024. No. 1 (66). Pp. 46-68
Information