CIVILIAN CASUALTIES AND COLLATERAL DAMAGE IN CONFLICT: ISRAEL AND HAMAS BY: RITIKA SUHAG & DIKSHA THAKUR

• Principle of Distinction: Parties to a conflict must distinguish between combatants and civilians, ensuring that only military targets are attacked. Attacks must not be directed at civilian populations or infrastructure unless they are being used for military purposes.
• Principle of Proportionality: Even if a military target is legitimate, an attack may not proceed if it is expected to cause excessive civilian harm in relation to the anticipated military advantage gained.
• Principle of Necessity: Force must only be used to achieve legitimate military objectives. Attacks that do not contribute to military success are prohibited.
• Principle of Humanity: This principle prohibits any use of force that causes unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury to combatants or civilians. It is based on the idea that human beings should not be subjected to undue suffering or cruelty, even in the context of war.

• Distinction and Precision: Israel emphasizes its use of advanced technology, such as the Iron Dome missile defense system and precision-guided munitions, to minimize civilian casualties. While these technologies can help limit harm, the density of Gaza’s population and the location of Hamas's military infrastructure in civilian areas complicate efforts to avoid collateral damage. According to the United Nations and human rights organizations, Israel’s strikes in Gaza have often led to large numbers of civilian deaths and the destruction of civilian infrastructure, such as hospitals, schools, and homes.
• Proportionality: Israel has been accused of using excessive force in some of its military operations, resulting in disproportionate harm to civilians. For example, during Operation Cast Lead (2008–2009), Operation Protective Edge (2014), and Operation Guardian of the Walls (2021), significant civilian casualties were reported, even as Israel insisted that its actions were aimed at targeting Hamas’s military infrastructure. International bodies such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have criticized Israel for disproportionate responses to rocket attacks from Hamas, especially when the military advantage gained did not justify the level of destruction caused.

• Indiscriminate Attacks: Hamas has been accused of firing rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas of Israel, violating the principle of distinction. While Israel’s Iron Dome intercepts many of these rockets, some still manage to penetrate Israel’s defenses, causing civilian casualties. These actions are prohibited under IHL, as they target civilians directly without regard to military necessity or proportionality.
• Use of Human Shields: Hamas has been accused of using human shields, a tactic that involves placing military assets in or near civilian infrastructure to deter Israeli airstrikes. While Hamas denies these accusations, human rights organizations have documented instances where Hamas fighters were located in hospitals, schools, and residential buildings, increasing the risk of civilian casualties during Israeli counterstrikes. This practice violates the principle of distinction, as it intentionally exposes civilians to harm in order to protect military targets.

• Israel’s Collateral Damage: While Israel claims to take extensive precautions to minimize civilian casualties, airstrikes and artillery fire aimed at Hamas targets often result in widespread destruction. High civilian death tolls and the destruction of civilian infrastructure such as homes, schools, and hospitals are frequently reported. This raises questions about whether Israel’s attacks are consistent with the principle of proportionality, especially in densely populated urban areas where Hamas operates.
• Hamas’s Impact on Civilians: Hamas’s use of urban areas for military operations complicates the situation. The group often launches rockets from residential neighborhoods, schools, and mosques, knowing that Israel may retaliate with airstrikes. This puts civilians at significant risk, violating the principle of distinction by deliberately blending military objectives with civilian areas. While Hamas may argue that it is fighting an occupying force, the use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes undermines the protection of non-combatants.

• Distinction and Proportionality: Both Israel and Hamas must ensure that military actions strictly adhere to the principles of distinction (separating combatants from civilians) and proportionality (avoiding excessive harm to civilians in relation to military objectives). Israel, for example, could refine its intelligence-gathering methods to better distinguish between legitimate military targets and civilian areas, while Hamas must stop targeting civilian populations in Israel.
• Humanitarian Access: Both sides should facilitate unhindered access for humanitarian aid organizations to deliver essential services, including medical supplies, food, and water, particularly to civilians in Gaza. The blockade on Gaza has exacerbated humanitarian crises, and lifting or easing it, even temporarily, could save lives.

• Israel: Israel’s military should continue to prioritize precision targeting, which uses advanced technology, like drones and intelligence from surveillance, to avoid civilian casualties. In past operations, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have used techniques like “roof knocking” (a tactic that involves firing non-lethal warning shots at buildings to evacuate civilians before launching an airstrike). However, this tactic is not always effective in preventing civilian harm and should be carefully reviewed and improved.
• Hamas: Hamas should abandon indiscriminate rocket attacks, which target civilian areas in Israel, violating international law. The use of more precise, targeted attacks, avoiding civilian areas, would minimize the risk to civilians on both sides.

• Ceasefires: Ceasefires, whether temporary or long-term, should be actively pursued, especially during humanitarian crises. The international community should work to broker more durable ceasefires and ensure that both sides adhere to them. Temporary ceasefires can provide critical windows for humanitarian aid, evacuation of the wounded, and rebuilding efforts.
• Humanitarian Corridors: Establishing safe corridors for civilians to escape conflict zones or for aid to enter could significantly reduce casualties. These corridors need to be respected by all parties and monitored by neutral international bodies to ensure their integrity.

• Safe Zones: Both Israel and Hamas should take steps to protect civilians during military operations. For Israel, this could involve providing better shelter options for residents of Gaza or increasing warnings to civilians when strikes are imminent. For Hamas, it could mean evacuating civilians from areas where combat is likely to take place and refraining from using civilian buildings for military purposes.
• Evacuation Plans: Israel should continue to provide advance warnings for civilians in Gaza, using various communication channels like text messages, leaflets, or broadcasts to help them evacuate before an attack. Hamas should also facilitate civilian evacuation from military areas.

• Independent Investigations: Independent, impartial investigations into the actions of both sides should be conducted to hold parties accountable for violations of international law, including the targeting of civilians and the use of human shields. Accountability can help deter future violations and reinforce the importance of respecting civilian life.
• International Pressure: The international community, including the United Nations, should apply consistent diplomatic pressure on both Israel and Hamas to comply with IHL and to prioritize the protection of civilians. This includes holding both parties accountable for any violations, whether through sanctions, legal action, or diplomatic isolation.

• Dialogue and Negotiation: Encouraging dialogue and negotiation between Israel and Hamas, and more broadly between Israel and Palestinian factions, is key to reducing violence in the long run. This could include third-party mediation by international organizations, such as the UN or regional powers, to broker peace talks and ceasefires.
• Humanitarian Diplomacy: Countries with influence on Israel and Hamas (e.g., the U.S., Egypt, Qatar, Turkey) should increase their efforts to mediate and facilitate peaceful resolutions to conflicts, advocating for ceasefire agreements and long-term peacebuilding.

• Protection from Rocket Attacks: Israel has invested heavily in missile defense systems like the Iron Dome, which intercepts short-range rockets fired from Gaza. Expanding and enhancing these defensive measures can help reduce civilian casualties in Israeli cities under threat from rocket fire. Ensuring these systems are accessible and effective across more areas can minimize the impact of Hamas’s rockets.

• Human Rights Oversight: Human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, should continue to document and report violations by both parties. Their work can draw international attention to specific incidents of harm to civilians, ensuring that these are addressed and, when appropriate, punished.
• International Prosecution: If there is sufficient evidence of war crimes, international courts, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), should pursue legal action against individuals responsible for grave violations, regardless of which side they are on.

• Israel's Allies (U.S., Western Countries): Israel enjoys strong diplomatic support from key Western powers, particularly the United States, which provides military, financial, and diplomatic backing. This support often includes shielding Israel from international condemnation, particularly at the United Nations, where the U.S. has historically used its veto power to block resolutions critical of Israeli actions. This diplomatic support allows Israel to conduct military operations with less concern about external sanctions or diplomatic isolation.
• The U.S. and EU countries often emphasize Israel's right to self-defense against Hamas's rocket attacks, which they label as terrorism. This backing gives Israel more confidence in responding militarily, knowing that its allies will not isolate it diplomatically for these actions.
• Hamas's Allies (Iran, Qatar, Turkey): Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, is supported by a smaller but significant group of countries, such as Iran, Qatar, and Turkey. These countries provide financial, political, and sometimes military support to Hamas, seeing it as part of the broader resistance against Israeli occupation.
• Iran, for instance, has provided significant military and financial assistance to Hamas, viewing its support for the group as part of its wider strategy to resist Western influence and confront Israel. This backing strengthens Hamas's ability to continue its military operations against Israel, making diplomatic resolutions harder to achieve.
• Qatar and Turkey have provided humanitarian aid to Gaza and support for Hamas's political goals, while also urging a broader regional strategy for Palestinian statehood. Their support helps Hamas maintain political legitimacy and operational capacity, but it also contributes to the polarization of the conflict.

• Egypt and Jordan: Egypt and Jordan play critical roles in mediating ceasefires and attempting to bring both sides to the negotiating table. Egypt, in particular, has been an important mediator in past conflicts between Israel and Hamas, facilitating temporary ceasefires and working with both sides to reach limited agreements. However, Egypt's relationship with Hamas is complex because of Hamas’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, an ideological rival to the Egyptian government. Despite these tensions, Egypt continues to act as an intermediary because it shares a border with Gaza and seeks to prevent further instability in the region.
• Arab States (e.g., Saudi Arabia, UAE): While many Arab states strongly support Palestinian rights, their diplomatic positions on Hamas are more nuanced. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE have, in recent years, shifted their focus to broader geopolitical and security concerns in the Middle East, including confronting Iran’s influence. This shift has led to a more cautious stance on Hamas, and some Arab states have increasingly distanced themselves from the group, especially as they pursue normalization of relations with Israel (e.g., through the Abraham Accords). These shifts affect the diplomatic landscape, potentially reducing Hamas's regional support.

• United Nations: The United Nations, through various bodies such as the Security Council and the General Assembly, has been a platform for calls for ceasefires, humanitarian assistance, and peace negotiations. However, U.N. resolutions related to the conflict often face political blockades, particularly from the U.S. and Israel, who have vetoed or opposed resolutions critical of Israeli actions. The lack of consensus within the U.N. can result in delays in humanitarian aid and weakened pressure on both sides to cease hostilities.
• International Law and Accountability: Diplomatic relations shape the extent to which international law is enforced, particularly with respect to war crimes and human rights violations. Countries that back Israel tend to downplay accusations of excessive force or violations of international law, while those critical of Israeli actions may push for investigations into war crimes, particularly related to civilian casualties in Gaza. This political division affects efforts to hold parties accountable.

• Diplomatic Relations and Humanitarian Aid: Diplomatic relations also influence the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza. Israel’s blockade of Gaza, which is supported by Egypt, is a major point of contention. The blockade is justified by Israel as a security measure to prevent weapons smuggling to Hamas, but it has created a dire humanitarian situation. Diplomatic relations with international aid organizations, as well as pressure from governments, can influence the degree of humanitarian assistance that reaches Gaza. For example, countries like Qatar and Turkey often work to ensure that aid reaches Gaza, despite Israeli restrictions.
• Aid and Sanctions: Some countries and international organizations also use diplomatic pressure to impose sanctions or restrict aid to Hamas, seeing the group as a terrorist organization. These sanctions aim to weaken Hamas’s financial and operational capacity, but they also impact civilians, complicating the situation in Gaza.

• The Role of the U.S. and EU in Peace Efforts: The U.S. and European countries have historically advocated for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which envisions the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. While Israel’s diplomatic relations with the U.S. and EU have largely reinforced its security concerns and territorial claims, these relations have also been channels for discussions about peace, often promoting negotiations and the eventual goal of a peaceful resolution.
• Hamas's Stance on Peace: Hamas, however, rejects the legitimacy of Israel's right to exist as a state, and its charter has historically called for the destruction of Israel. This stance makes diplomatic negotiations with Israel very challenging. Countries like Egypt and Qatar have pushed for Hamas to soften its position and engage in political negotiations, but Hamas’s ideological commitment to armed resistance complicates diplomatic efforts aimed at achieving a peaceful settlement.
• Arab Peace Initiative: The Arab League's peace initiative, proposed in 2002, offers Israel normalized relations with Arab states in exchange for withdrawal from occupied territories and the establishment of a Palestinian state. While this initiative has not led to a resolution, shifting diplomatic relations in the region, such as the normalization of relations between Israel and some Arab states (e.g., the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan via the Abraham Accords), have altered the dynamics of the conflict and reduced the Arab League’s influence.

• Shifting Alliances in the Middle East: The normalization of relations between Israel and several Arab countries, particularly through the Abraham Accords (brokered by the U.S. in 2020), has changed the diplomatic landscape. These agreements were primarily driven by mutual concerns over Iran’s regional influence and the desire for economic cooperation, but they also represent a shift away from the Arab consensus that Israel must withdraw from occupied Palestinian territories before full normalization. This shift has reduced the diplomatic pressure on Israel, while Hamas finds itself increasingly isolated in the region.
• Iran’s Influence: Iran remains a key diplomatically of Hamas and other Palestinian factions opposed to Israel. Iran’s backing strengthens Hamas’s resolve and provides significant military and financial support, which impacts Israel’s ability to achieve military and diplomatic victories over the group. However, Iran’s influence also contributes to the broader regional instability, making peace negotiations more difficult.

• International Diplomacy: Strong, coordinated efforts by international actors—such as the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, and regional powers like Egypt or Qatar—could mediate between the parties. Ceasefire agreements, peace talks, and broader negotiations could be pursued to address both immediate violence and long-term political issues.
• Third-Party Mediation: Neutral mediators (e.g., non-aligned countries or international organizations) could help broker discussions on issues like territorial disputes, security, and humanitarian aid.

• Access to Aid: Ensuring that humanitarian aid reaches those who need it—especially in Gaza, which often faces a blockade—can reduce civilian suffering. This involves facilitating food, water, medical supplies, and rebuilding infrastructure.
• Ceasefire for Humanitarian Relief: Humanitarian corridors can be established during ceasefire periods to allow aid to flow more freely, minimizing civilian harm and allowing medical teams to assist those in need.

• Stopping Military Operations: Both Israel and Hamas could agree to halt attacks, including airstrikes, rocket fire, and ground incursions. A sustained ceasefire would give both sides an opportunity to engage in dialogue.
• Reducing Provocations: Both sides could work to avoid actions that escalate violence, such as provocative rhetoric, settlement expansions, or military provocations. Confidence-building measures, such as prisoner exchanges or humanitarian gestures, could also help.

• Political Solutions: Long-term peace requires addressing the political and territorial issues at the heart of the conflict, including the status of Jerusalem, the borders of Israel, and the future of a Palestinian state. Comprehensive peace talks addressing both security concerns and Palestinian sovereignty could be part of a broader resolution.
• Economic Development in Gaza and the West Bank: Improving living conditions and economic opportunities for Palestinians can help reduce the support for violent extremism. International aid and investment in infrastructure, education, and job creation can contribute to stability.

• Promoting Inter-Community Dialogue: Efforts to build trust between Israeli Jews and Palestinians could foster better understanding and reduce the divide. People-to-people peacebuilding programs and community-based projects can help to overcome stereotypes and build long-term peace.
• Supporting Non-Violent Movements: Empowering moderate Palestinian voices and organizations that advocate for non-violent resistance, as well as Israeli peace groups, can challenge extremist ideologies and promote peaceful alternatives.

• De-Radicalization Programs: On both sides, efforts to address radicalization, particularly among young people, can reduce support for violence. Educational programs and social services can counter extremist ideologies and provide alternatives to violence.

• Condemnation of Violations: International actors can exert pressure on both sides to respect human rights and international law. For example, the United Nations and human rights organizations can document violations of international law, which could help hold violators accountable.
• Targeted Sanctions or Incentives: International pressure, including targeted sanctions on Hamas or certain Israeli policies, could push for a reduction in violence or encourage compromise on contentious issues.

• Balanced Reporting: The media plays a critical role in shaping public opinion. Promoting responsible, balanced, and fact-based coverage of the conflict can prevent the spread of misinformation, reduce hatred, and promote a more nuanced understanding of the issues on both sides.