We are accustomed to reacting aggressively whenever anyone suggests that Israel is in breach of the rules of international law of war, or that we are committing war crimes in the Gaza Strip, while accusing those who say we are of antisemitism.
International law of war, which consists primarily of international humanitarian law (IHL), is designed to regulate the conduct of armed conflict. It aims to limit the negative effects of war by protecting those not participating in hostilities (civilians, the wounded, prisoners of war) and by restricting the means and methods of warfare. This body of law does not determine whether a state can resort to war, but rather how the war must be conducted, once it has begun.
Within the framework of the laws dealing with war, Israel is most frequently accused of being in breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which contain several laws and protocols concerning the international legal standards for humanitarian conduct in war, which Israel signed and ratified in 1950-51, with several reservations.
There is nothing antisemitic per se in any of the laws relating to war, though a deliberately twisted application of them to Israel might reflect antisemitism by those doing so.
Israeli policy in Gaza is not free from breaches of international law
The reality in the current war between Israel and Hamas is mixed: In most cases, we are not in breach of international law, while in others, we apparently are. However, our policy in the Strip is not a policy based on the breach of international law, though it is not free from such breaches.
Where the Israeli policy occasionally finds itself in breach of international law is in such cases as failing to take sufficient care not to kill innocent civilians when attacking legitimate military targets; failing to prevent shortages of basic food and medical supplies from the inhabitants of Gaza; the deliberate destruction of civilian structures and infrastructures that have nothing directly to do with disabling and defeating Hamas; and the forceful wide-scale expulsion of civilian populations from their places of residence within the Strip.
The fact that Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich (Religious Zionist Party) and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir (Otzma Yehudit), as well as other prominent members of their respective parties, openly call for Israel’s reconquest of the whole of the Gaza Strip and Jewish settlement activities there, and deny that there are any innocent persons within the Gazan population (children included), which leads them to advocate the transfer (voluntary or not) of over two million Gazan Palestinians, leaves many open questions.
Do these two senior ministers speak in the name of the government? And what is the degree to which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is committed to the goals and activities they advocate, as part of his political dependence on them? Or does Netanyahu actually support these extremist policies independently of the two?
The greatest question of all is: How does what they advocate tally with the official goals of the war: a total victory over Hamas, rather than over the population of Gaza as a whole, and the release of the remaining 50 hostages? It is no secret that to release all 50 hostages, the war must end well before Smotrich’s and Ben-Gvir’s agendas can be implemented.
The issue of displacement
What further confuses the issue is the fact that Defense Minister Israel Katz has announced a policy of constructing a “humanitarian city” over the ruins of the city of Rafah. Numerous commentators, both in Israel and abroad, have referred to the concept of a “humanitarian city” as being equivalent to a concentration camp.
I think the term is inappropriate, even though the idea of hundreds of thousands of civilians being concentrated in an enormous compound of tents and other temporary living accommodations, allegedly for their own protection, but without the right to leave the compound, and without being provided with most of the basic services usually provided by cities to their residents, is preposterous, and inhuman.
At this stage it is not clear whether the idea is no more than a trial balloon on Katz’s part, whether it enjoys Netanyahu’s full support, or whether it is being seriously considered by the government as a feasible plan toward the realization of some sort of systematic voluntary transfer.
Last week, Netanyahu and IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir clashed over the idea of the rapid construction of such a city. Some commentators speculated that Zamir and the security system in general are opposed to the idea of IDF involvement in such a project. It is known that Zamir is also opposed to the idea of the IDF taking upon itself the administration of the Strip.
Whether all this is primarily because the IDF is currently short of manpower and resources, or whether it seeks to end the war – at least for the time being – as part of a hostage deal, is not completely clear. At least publicly, Netanyahu is opposed to ending the war at this stage.
Last Friday, Israeli journalist Barak Ravid reported that Mossad head David Barnea visited Washington last week to ask for American assistance in getting three states, which Israel is allegedly holding contacts with, as potential recipients of Gazan Palestinians – Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Libya – to agree to absorb several hundreds of thousands of them. Whether this is anything more than pie in the sky is not known. All previous attempts to reach a concrete arrangement in this vein came to naught, which is one of the reasons why US President Donald Trump no longer mentions his plan from last February to create an American-run Riviera in the Strip.
Israel has no concrete plan for Gaza
Since the beginning of the war in Gaza in October 2023, Israel has failed to present any sort of concrete, overall plan for the future. It has turned down all proposals for an alternative Arab, Palestinian, or international administration for the Strip, but at the same time has never spoken directly and openly of Israel assuming this task.
When Israel took upon itself to provide systematic humanitarian aid to the civilian population in Gaza, without Hamas being able to gain control over the aid, the project failed dismally. Various piecemeal ideas, such as the humanitarian city idea, have been picked up, and then discarded.
In fact, it is not only unclear what Israel’s policy for the future of the Strip is; it is not clear how such a policy is to be determined and by whom. Sometimes, one gets the impression that Netanyahu himself makes decisions on the basis of haphazard instructions he receives from the American administration, tempered by pressure from certain coalition partners.
Perhaps in retrospect, we shall get some answers.
The writer has written journalistic and academic articles, as well as several books, on international relations, Zionism, Israeli politics, and parliamentarism. From 1994-2010, she worked in the Knesset Library and the Knesset Research and Information Center.