"An Ethical Analysis of the Israel–Palestine War (2023) and the Feasibility of Applying the Term Genocide"

Introduction: The war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip (beginning October 7, 2023) has rapidly become one of the most prominent and controversial cases in the fields of Just War Theory and international humanitarian law (IHL). The prolonged armed conflict, extensive civilian casualties, widespread destruction of vital infrastructure, and the continuous blockade of Gaza have raised serious questions regarding 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. Conversely, others view such claims as exaggerated or politically motivated. This study seeks to examine the ethical and legal status of the war, addressing the central question: Does Israel’s military conduct constitute a violation of Just War principles, and is there evidence to support its interpretation within the framework of the prohibition of genocide?
Methods: Given its normative nature, this research employs a deductive analytical framework to analyze the ethical and legal dimensions of the Israel-Hamas conflict. First, the study establishes a robust normative foundation, utilizing the theoretical principles of Just War Theory and the legal framework of the 1948 Genocide Convention to define the criteria for evaluating military actions. Second, these theoretical criteria are tested against empirical data, field reports, and documented observational evidence provided by international organizations.
Results and discussion: The findings indicate that Israel has failed to meet critical 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. Furthermore, field data and reports reveal patterns of systematic destruction of critical infrastructure, a long-term blockade, and political discourse among Israeli officials that exhibit elements aligning with the criteria of specific intent (dolus specialis), systematic targeting of a protected group, and widespread character—as defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention.
Conclusion: This study yields two key conclusions: First, while Just War Theory provides a valuable normative framework for assessing military legitimacy, it remains insufficient for fully explaining asymmetric conflicts and contemporary forms of structural violence, necessitating theoretical reconsideration and development. Second, there is an urgent need for the international community to thoroughly investigate the allegations of genocide concerning Israel’s actions and to activate binding international 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.