Unmasking the Distorted Narratives: Examining the Israel-Hamas Conflict and the Laws of War
The author criticizes the trend among laws of armed conflict scholars to justify the killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza by emphasizing the potential proportionality of the attacks. They argue that this legitimizing prism reproduces serious misconceptions about the relationship between distinction and proportionality under customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The author highlights the importance of the customary prohibition of indiscriminate attacks, which prohibits attacks that fail to distinguish between civilians and lawful targets. They argue that attacks resulting in extensive civilian harm cannot be justified as proportionate under IHL, and that the current trend undermines the protective functions of IHL and international criminal restraints.
