“Understanding War Crimes in Gaza: Examining International Legal Standards Regarding the Targeting of Safe Spaces.”
During 48 consecutive days of relentless bombings in Gaza, prior to declaring a “humanitarian pause,” Israel has engaged in clear violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). These transgressions contravene the fundamental universal limits established by IHL to safeguard the humanitarian cause.
When a governing authority causes the loss of tens of thousands of civilian lives through airstrikes and ground offensives on a targeted population, and when essential institutions like hospitals, schools, and religious sites are attacked in the name of justice, one must question whether it constitutes a crime.
During the 48 days of relentless bombings in Gaza, Israel, before announcing a “humanitarian pause,” committed clear violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which establishes a fundamental universal limit against brutality to safeguard humanitarian causes. Numerous activists, legal experts, and the United Nations have condemned the Netanyahu government for its inhumane assault and the ongoing history of impunity that the occupying state enjoys in Gaza.
A surgeon from Al-Shifa Hospital, Gaza’s largest hospital, recently revealed to the press that Israel employed phosphorous as a weapon in densely populated residential areas of the war-torn Palestinian region. Additionally, Israel disrupted the supply of basic resources such as fuel and electricity in the enclave and forcibly displaced residents in the north, further cornering Palestinians in the south.
In central Gaza last month, Al-Ahli Baptist, managed by the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem, was targeted while providing shelter to thousands of Palestinians seeking refuge during intense Israeli air attacks across much of the besieged Gaza Strip. The victims were rushed to Shifa Hospital, the largest in Gaza, which, already overwhelmed, became the main target of Israel’s ground offensive, with claims that it served as a command base for Hamas.
When tens of thousands of innocent lives are lost, and targeted civilian populations endure airstrikes and ground offensives, while hospitals, schools, and places of worship bear the brunt of attacks in the name of justice by a governing authority, one must question whether these actions constitute crimes.
In a span of 48 days marked by relentless bombings in Gaza, Israel, before declaring a “humanitarian pause,” flagrantly violated the principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which establish universal limits against atrocities to safeguard humanitarian causes. Numerous activists, legal experts, and the United Nations have condemned the Netanyahu government for its inhumane assault and the historical impunity enjoyed by the occupying state in Gaza.
A surgeon from Al-Shifa Hospital, Gaza’s largest medical facility, recently attested to the use of phosphorus as a weapon by Israel in densely populated residential areas of the war-torn Palestinian region. Israel further exacerbated the crisis by cutting off essential resources such as fuel and electricity in the enclave and forcibly displacing residents from the north, pushing Palestinians to the southern corner.
Last month, Al-Ahli Baptist in central Gaza, operated by the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem, was struck while providing shelter to thousands of Palestinians seeking refuge amid a barrage of brutal Israeli airstrikes across much of the besieged Gaza Strip. The victims were urgently transferred to Shifa Hospital, Gaza’s largest medical facility, which, already stretched beyond capacity, became a target for Israel’s ground offensive, with claims that it served as a command base for Hamas.
Moreover, Israeli airstrikes devastated parts of the Jabalia camp in north Gaza, one of the largest refugee camps, where the UN was conducting relief operations. If these actions do not qualify as war crimes, one is compelled to question the threshold for international intervention.
These egregious acts are not isolated to Gaza alone but echo in conflicts worldwide. In Russia’s war on Ukraine, hospitals have been frequent targets, and the UN has held Moscow accountable for widespread torture, rapes, and killings since the 2022 invasion. The International Criminal Court (ICC) even issued a warrant for the Russian president’s arrest over the unlawful deportation of thousands of children from Ukraine to Russia.
The definition of war crimes is articulated in the Hague and Geneva Conventions, along with other international laws and agreements. Proposed by Henri Dunant, the founder of the International Humanitarian Law, the rules of war were initially outlined in his book “The Memory of Solferino.” These rules were expanded after the world wars to include protection for prisoners of war, civilians, and others, and were intended to supersede any special agreements.
According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court, war crimes encompass serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict and armed conflicts not of an international character, among other offenses.
The Hague Convention of 1907 prescribes rules for military conduct in war, while the Geneva Conventions address the rights of protected persons, including civilians and prisoners of war, in international armed conflicts. Many provisions of these conventions are considered customary international law, binding regardless of state borders.
The Hague Conventions list punishable violations under the War Crimes Act, including the use of poison or poisoned weapons, aggressive assaults, employing arms calculated to cause unnecessary suffering, and attacking civilian properties. The Geneva Conventions identify violations such as willful killing, torture, destruction of property, unlawful deportation, and taking of hostages.
In the context of Gaza, the bombing of hospitals and UN shelter homes constitutes a violation of the First and Fourth Geneva Conventions. These conventions provide for the establishment of hospitals, safety zones, and neutral zones to protect the wounded, sick, and civilians from the effects of conflict. Hospitals, designated safe zones under Rule 35 of the International Humanitarian Law, are meant to be far removed from military operations, while neutralized zones are intended for areas where military operations are ongoing.
The relevant provisions of the Geneva Conventions are integrated into many military manuals, emphasizing the necessity to respect these zones. The UN General Assembly states that places designated for the sole protection of civilians, such as hospital zones or similar refuges, should not be the object of military operations. These principles were established in 1970 based on guidelines for protecting civilian populations in armed conflicts, prohibiting attacks on zones harboring the wounded, sick, medical and religious personnel, humanitarian relief personnel, and civilians in international and non-international conflict zones.
Rule 28 of the Hague Relations stipulates that medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. Their protection is forfeited if they are used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy. This principle is also outlined in the First and Fourth Geneva Conventions.
According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court, intentionally directing attacks against hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives, constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.