The current proceeding before the International Court of Justice concerning the humanitarian obligations of Israel in Gaza questions the role and relevance of international humanitarian law. The figures are staggering: the attack on 7 October 2023 was the largest massacre of Jews in a single day since the Holocaust, while Palestinian losses continue to mount, with more than 52,000 dead and 118,000 wounded.

Humanitarian field workers are disillusioned by this hecatomb and the apocalyptic situation prevailing in the Gaza Strip. According to the President of Médecins du Monde, Jean-Francois Corty, international humanitarian law is “at a tipping point that will result in palliative care and certain death if humanity does not react in time”. For others, it is already too late: “humanitarian law is dead and buried in Gaza”, laments Elsa Softic from an NGO that has been working in Gaza since 2008.

In principle, international humanitarian law is firmly rooted in time-honored customary law rules reaffirmed by a broad range of treaties. The Geneva Conventions are universally ratified, including by Israel and Palestine. None of them dispute their application to the current conflict.

Humanitarian law has three essential characteristics that are particularly relevant for this conflict. Firstly, the laws and customs of war are binding upon all belligerents, regardless of their legitimacy and goals. As United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has pointed out, “international humanitarian law is not an à la carte menu and cannot be applied selectively”. It applies to both parties, notwithstanding Israel's right to self-defence and Palestine's right to self-determination.

Secondly, humanitarian law is based on undisputed and indisputable fundamental principles, including most notably the distinction between civilians and combatants, as well as the obligation of proportionality and precaution in attacks. As their legitimacy is not open to debate, the question focuses on their implementation and interpretation in a given attack. In this way, the cold rationality of the law of war aims to dispassionate debate.

Thirdly, violations by one of the belligerents do not justify violations by the other, nor reprisals against civilians.

While humanitarian law remains utterly relevant, it has to be said that both sides have committed blatant war crimes, starting with Hamas, through its attacks on Israeli civilians, hostage-taking, and use of human shields. As far as the Israeli army is concerned, the unprecedented scale of civilian casualties and destruction in the Strip of Gaza goes far beyond what is accepted as “collateral damage” in urban environment. According to various media and UN sources, the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) have lowered their criteria for selecting targets by increasing the previously accepted ratio of civilian to combatant casualties while resorting to artificial intelligence.

The UN has condemned and documented serious violations, such as indiscriminate bombings of residential areas and targeted attacks on hospitals and medical personnel. To give an order of magnitude, during the first month of the Israeli offensive, the equivalent of two nuclear bombs was dropped in the Gaza Strip, one of the most densely populated areas in the world.

Conversely, the siege of Gaza is not formally prohibited by humanitarian law. Nevertheless, the consequences of such a siege become illegal when famine is used as a method of warfare against civilians and humanitarian aid is obstructed. It is precisely for these two reasons and the indiscriminate attacks that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defence Minister. Israel has also failed in its obligations as an occupying power, by displacing the civilian population and depriving them of basic necessities.

Even the ICRC, which is traditionally very cautious and restrained, has come out of its usual reserve to denounce the breaches of the Geneva Conventions. The Israeli reprisals are tantamount to a collective punishment of the two million starving civilians in the Gaza enclave. This collective chastisement is a resurgence of the antique law of retaliation leading to a deadly escalation.

This war is certainly not the first to be accompanied by such flagrant violations. Atrocities are currently being committed in other regions of the world that receive far less media coverage, such as Sudan and Ethiopia. But it is precisely because the violations are most visible in Gaza that they question humanitarian law and our ability to react against violations.

Unlike many other wars, this one is documented in live by the UN and NGOs. This conflict is even being litigated at the highest level, involving the two courts in The Hague: the ICJ for genocide and the ICC for crimes against humanity and war crimes. No one will be able to say they didn't know.

And yet many European leaders seem paralyzed by the atrocity of the Hamas attack, the outrageous polarisation of the conflict, and the fear of accusations of anti-Semitism. European countries have a historic responsibility to ensure that humanitarian law is respected. This is not only a basic duty of humanity, but also a legal obligation. As States Parties to the Geneva Conventions, they are obliged to prosecute such violations before their own courts.

If justice is a matter of time, history will judge harshly those countries that fail to size up what is at stake in front of them. Gaza is turning into a massive cemetery and risks becoming the tomb of humanitarian law if nothing is done quickly.

This article was originally published in French in Le Temps, on 9 May 2025.