No Longer Human: Israel’s Reconfiguration of International Humanitarian Law Post-October 7th Gaza

About the Author: Laiba Imran recently completed her Bachelor of Laws degree with Honors at the Pakistan College of Law, Punjab University. During her time as a student, she served as President of the Debating Society. She is currently the Director and Research Associate at the Technology Law Research Society, a non-partisan and non-profit think tank in Pakistan focusing on the intersection of law and technology. Laiba has also worked as an intern at the Chamber of Advocates Supreme Court Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, and at esteemed law firms, including the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Pakistan, Minto & Mirza, and AUC | Law.

Her publications address critical societal issues in Pakistan, including minor children, youth, and democracy, unilateral divorce, and gender-based inequities. With a foundation in legal drafting and analytical skills, Laiba is committed to bringing about meaningful change in Pakistan, particularly in areas where women face systemic injustice.

She can be reached at laibaimran8500@gmail.com.

Since Israel initiated its military aggression in Gaza on October 7, 2023, or the Nakba of 1948, Palestinians have been confronted with a dystopian reality. Despite the ongoing situation in Gaza, Israel has categorically denied all allegations of human rights violations and genocide, asserting that its military is "the most moral in the world." Israel employs well-worn strategies to obfuscate its transgressions by denying the humanity of its targets. The systematic dehumanization of Palestinians through the use of a "language of genocide" bears resemblance to previous instances in which groups have been targeted with similar rhetoric, such as the "merciless Indian savages" in America or the "untermenschen non-Aryans" in Europe. Indeed, dehumanization constitutes an integral phase in the commission of genocide. The process of dehumanization serves to mitigate ethical reservations concerning the act of killing, as it enables the perception of the victims as no longer human and, consequently, as being different from us and inferior. This phenomenon is exemplified by the cheers from Israeli citizens, encouraging the devastation in Gaza, and the chanting of "Death to Arabs" with other racist slogans. Furthermore, there is the incitement of racism by the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) and Israeli leaders. These instances underscore Israel's strategic employment of state-sanctioned hate to nurture societal acceptance for the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

This analysis examines Israel's actions in Gaza after October 7, 2023, contextualizing them within International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and the wider legal and moral implications.

It is imperative to acknowledge that legal principles are non-reciprocal, meaning that they apply regardless of the opposing party's actions. Attributing blame to the actions of another party, citing imbalances of power, or other forms of injustice, cannot justify violations of these principles, such as the deliberate targeting of civilians or the imposition of collective punishment.

Key Principles of International Humanitarian Law

The Swiss government formally established International Humanitarian Law (IHL) with the 1864 Geneva Convention and has since evolved significantly. By the late 20th century, IHL enshrined several key humanitarian principles, including:

• The distinction between civilians and combatants

• The protection of those hors de combat (i.e., “out of action due to injury or damage”)

• The prohibition of unnecessary suffering

• The principles of necessity and proportionality

  
  

These principles are designed to protect civilian lives and preserve human dignity, even in the context of armed conflict.

From Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977):

Article 48 (Basic Rule): "Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives."

Article 41(2): "A person is hors de combat if: (a) He is in the power of an adverse Party; (b) He clearly expresses an intention to surrender; or (c) He has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself." 

According to the modern perspective articulated by Theodor Meron, a former judge for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT), the “humanitarian rights system directly addresses the responsibility of governments vis-a-vis populations over which they exercise power, authority, or jurisdiction, largely regardless of nationality.” The purpose of international law is to prevent any state from pursuing only its own national interests at the expense of human dignity or integrity, and to hold states accountable when they do so. This framework is equally applicable to unequal and asymmetric party relationships, like the dynamic between Israel, the occupier, and Palestine, the occupied state.

Article 42 of the Fourth Hague Convention defines an occupied territory as one that is “placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” And an occupying power is a foreign state that assumes unconsented-to effective control over a territory to which it has no sovereign title.” A “belligerent occupation” is one in which “the occupying power exercises provisional and temporary control over [a] foreign territory.” By these definitions, Israel has belligerently occupied Palestine since 1967, a status affirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its July 19, 2024, Advisory Opinion.

Because Israel is an occupying power under IHL, it is bound by certain duties towards the population, and it is not permitted to acquire sovereignty over the territory. Israel has a dual obligation to protect the lives and property of the inhabitants of the occupied territories and to respect their sovereignty. In addition, IHL prohibits specific tactics of war and attacks on vulnerable groups, including children, civilians, and the wounded or sick.

International Law Violations in Gaza

Preservation of Life and Property

It is evident that Israel has not fulfilled its legal obligations in accordance with the laws of belligerent occupation, outlined in Articles 42-56 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and Additional Protocol I, by not pursuing the preservation of life and property. In contrast to the preservation of the lives of Palestinian children and sick or injured civilians, Israel has employed carpet-bombing tactics in densely populated areas of Gaza, including the Jabalia Refugee Camp, Khan Younis, Deir el-Balah, and most recently, Rafah, designated as the last "safe zone." Consequently, according to Gaza’s Ministry of Health, more than 50,000 Palestinians have been killed since Israel launched its military offensive on October 7 in the wake of deadly Hamas attacks. The cumulative effects of Israel’s war on Gaza could mean the true death toll could reach more than 186,000 people.

Furthermore, the use of heavy munitions, including dumb bombs, bunker busters, thermobaric bombs, and white phosphorus, many of which are prohibited under international law, has further exacerbated the devastation. These operations, justified by Israel as necessary to eliminate Hamas, have resulted in the deliberate targeting of children, pregnant women, and medical patients with live ammunition and targeted air strikes. Survivors' testimonies reveal other violations such as field executions, detention, and enforced disappearances in military detention centers such as Sde Teiman, and the use of mass graves for its 'Ghost' operation in Gaza. The IDF has treated Palestinian abductees like "animals,” refusing to distinguish between innocent civilians and armed combatants.

In addition to deliberately targeting civilians, Israel has also violated Article 56 and 57 of the Fourth Geneva Convention by purposefully destroying and damaging civilian infrastructure such as hospitals, including Gaza’s largest functioning medical center Al-Shifa Hospital, United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) schools and universities,  orphanages, and Gaza’s only functioning wheat mill and water plant. Israel's deliberate targeting of civilian welfare structures has led to the near-total collapse of the social fabric of Gaza and pushed millions of people to the brink of famine. Such attacks constitute grave war crimes under Article 54 of the 1977 Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which prohibits “starvation as a method of warfare.” Moreover, Israel's decision to target protected buildings, such as educational institutions, hospitals, and historical monuments, also constitutes a serious crime under Article 8(2)(b)(ix) of the Rome Statute.

Economic Warfare and Humanitarian Crisis

The concept of respecting sovereign rights entails the acknowledgement of a state's legitimate authority over its territory and resources. However, the status of Gaza remains a subject of contention, with various parties contending that it is a sovereign entity and others asserting that it is under occupation. As of 2007, Israel has kept Palestine under a strict military and commercial blockade, a form of economic warfare that has turned Gaza into "the largest open-air prison in the world." In 2024, the ICJ ruled that Israel's presence in the Palestinian territories is unlawful, thereby emphasizing that Israel lacks the right to exercise sovereignty over these regions.

Despite the ruling, Israel continues to enforce strict blockades. The Israeli border control has prohibited the entry of numerous essential items, including cement, tar, irrigation pipes, and fabric, into Gaza. These materials are crucial for the reconstruction of structures that were partially or wholly destroyed during Operation Cast Lead, a 22-day military offensive that resulted in significant fatalities in Gaza in 2009. This policy was most recently reviewed by Israeli authorities to enforce a total siege of the Strip following the events of 7 October.

Israeli border control has also withheld critical medical supplies, including anesthetics, anesthesia machines, oxygen cylinders, ventilators, water filtration systems, cancer medications, water purification tablets, and maternity kits. In May 2024, over 15,000 tons of their relief supplies awaited Israeli approval to enter Gaza. These restrictions have had a profoundly detrimental humanitarian impact on the civilian population in Gaza, severely impeding their ability to rebuild and access essential healthcare services at a time when 96% of the water from Gaza's sole aquifer is unfit for human consumption and children's access to water and sanitation in Gaza continues to be restricted and insufficient. There are also numerous instances of acute respiratory infections, diarrhea, and jaundice.

This obstruction of humanitarian assistance, coupled with targeting aid workers, further violates IHL. According to the UN, up to 254 aid workers have been deliberately targeted since the beginning of Israeli aggression on Gaza, a serious violation of IHL under Article 8(2)(b)(iii) of the Rome Statute. Moreover, Israel has made allegations of involvement in terrorism against UNRWA, along with the countries that provide financial support to the organization, without providing evidence to substantiate these claims. These allegations aim to hinder UNRWA's and other countries’ operations in the Gaza Strip.

A New Look at International Law

Despite appeals for accountability, international mechanisms recognize certain limitations. On November 21, 2024, resulting from an inquiry into war crimes and crimes against humanity, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for two high-ranking Israeli officials: Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav Gallant, Israel’s former Minister of Defense.

However, it is crucial to acknowledge the intricacies of the legal process and the need to address the systemic causes of conflict, such as economic, political, and military hegemony, which have been responsible for seven decades of military occupation, ethnic cleansing, and economic warfare. Furthermore, the United Nations Security Council's (UNSC) reluctance to swiftly pass a resolution regarding Gaza is attributable to political pressures from the United States. At the time of composing this article, the United States had utilized its veto power forty-six times to block resolutions that addressed Israel or supported Palestinian statehood.

For an extended period, Israel has strategically employed the terms "self-defense," "terrorism," and "antisemitism" to maneuver within the global political landscape, effectively countering the demands of the Palestinian people. It has presented a unilateral and partial interpretation of international law, ultimately shaping the international order in its favor. This strategic approach has reshaped the rules-based international order to serve as a means to an end for various geopolitical agendas. Notably, despite the gravity of the transgressions—namely genocide, annexation, and apartheid—Israel continues to operate within an alternative rules-based order that affords it a degree of protection.

In the aftermath of October 7th, the Gaza conflict has given rise to a novel unipolar paradigm within the global legal order, one that is predicated on the principles of victor’s justice and global inaction. It is imperative to examine the rationale behind a state's ability to profess adherence to legal principles while simultaneously disparaging international bodies and displaying impunity for their genocidal actions. The international community's apparent paralysis and inability to halt the ongoing genocide in Gaza have exposed the inherent limitations of international law, whether intentional or not. This situation underscores the pressing need for a new order free from the constraints of "security" hegemony, jurisdiction restrictions, and political actors. Preserving the sanctity of life demands the implementation of such a new order.