تحلیل اخلاقی جنگ اسرائیل ـ فلسطین(2023) و امکان‌سنجی اطلاق نسل‌کشی

Extended Abstract

Introduction: The war between Israel and Hamas (since October 7, 2023) in the Gaza Strip has become one of the most prominent and controversial cases in the field of the ethics of war and international law. The continuation of armed conflict, extensive civilian casualties, destruction of vital infrastructure, and the prolonged blockade of Gaza have raised serious questions about the moral and legal legitimacy of Israel’s military actions. Some analysts, experts, and international human rights organizations have employed terms such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity to interpret and describe Israel’s military conduct in Gaza. Conversely, others view such claims as exaggerated or politically motivated.

This paper seeks to examine the ethical status of war in the 2023 Israel–Palestine conflict, addressing the central question: Can Israel’s military conduct be considered a violation of just war principles, and is there evidence supporting its interpretation within the framework of genocide?



Methodology: Given the normative nature of the research, the author employs a reasoning approach based on a deductive analytical framework to analyze and explain the dimensions of the Israel–Hamas's war. The reasoning approach emphasizes the use of logical and rational processes to uncover truth. In the first stage, the study draws on a theoretical foundation—the Just War Theory—and a legal principle—the Prohibition of Genocide—to identify the conceptual and normative dimensions of war ethics and genocide. In the second stage, these theoretical insights are tested against empirical data, field reports, and observational evidence.

Findings: The findings indicate that Israel has failed to meet the core criteria of jus ad bellum—including right intention, legitimate authority, last resort, and reasonable chance of success—and has repeatedly violated fundamental jus in bello principles such as distinction between combatants and non-combatants, proportionality, and military necessity. Field data and reports from international organizations reveal patterns of systematic destruction of critical infrastructure, long-term blockade, and political discourse among Israeli officials that exhibit elements of specific intent to destroy, targeting of a population group, and systematic and widespread character—criteria defined in the 1948 Genocide Convention.

Conclusion: This study emphasizes two key points: First, while Just War Theory provides a valuable normative framework for assessing the legitimacy of military actions, it remains insufficient in explaining asymmetric conflicts and contemporary forms of structural violence; thus, theoretical reconsideration and development of this framework are necessary. Second, there is an urgent need for the international community to seriously investigate allegations of genocide concerning Israel’s actions and to activate binding mechanisms for prevention, cessation, and prosecution. Without effective accountability under international law, the foundational principles of war ethics and humanitarian law risk erosion and loss of credibility.

Second, there is an urgent need for the international community to seriously investigate allegations of genocide concerning Israel’s actions and to activate binding mechanisms for prevention, cessation, and prosecution. Without effective accountability under international law, the foundational principles of war ethics and humanitarian law risk erosion and loss of credibility.



Keywords: Israel–Hamas War; Palestine; Ethics of War; Just War Theory; Genocide

Keywords: Israel–Hamas War; Palestine; Ethics of War; Just War Theory; Genocide