Israel’s critics level false war-crimes charges to keep the Jewish state from defending itself.

  • Israel’s efforts to defend itself are not war crimes
  • International law does not require a nation to choose between committing war crimes and having war crimes committed against it
  • Civilians often become victims in war
  • Israel resorts to war only as self-defense
  • Even unintentional harm to civilians does not constitute illegal collective punishment
  • The law of war prohibits directly targeting civilians
  • Israel’s objectives are only military
  • Civilian casualties must be balanced against anticipated military advantage
  • Hamas has violated international law by hiding among civilians
  • The presence of civilians near military objectives does not render those objectives immune from attack
  • Israel’s response must take into account the barbarity and scale of Hamas’s attack
  • Defeating Hamas is an existential national objective for Israel
  • Siege is a legitimate and ordinary part of lawful war
  • Siege aimed at military objectives will also affect civilians
  • Israel does not have a strategy of starving out civilians
  • Israel has moved its own citizens away from the Gaza border
  • Hamas has ordered its civilians to stay put
  • Israel’s critics are not interested in saving civilian lives
  • The commitment of modern international law may change if these voices prevail

Prominent international voices suggesting that Israel’s efforts to defend itself are war crimes raise an important question: Does international law require a nation to choose between committing war crimes and having war crimes committed against it? The answer is no. While civilians often become victims in war, Israel resorts to war only as self-defense, which is every nation’s inherent right according to the United Nations Charter. The law of war prohibits directly targeting civilians, but military targets can be attacked even if there is a risk of civilian casualties. Hamas has violated international law by hiding among civilians, but international law does not reward the use of human shields. Israel’s response to Hamas’s attack must take into account the scale of the threat. Siege is a legitimate part of lawful war, and Israel’s critics are not interested in saving civilian lives. If these voices prevail, the commitment of modern international law may change.