Legal scholars are raising pressing questions about Israel’s continued justification of its Gaza military operations under the right to self-defence, as defined in international law.
Initially invoked after the October 7 Hamas attacks, Israel’s claim to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter is now under scrutiny as the war in Gaza extends into its eighth month, with massive civilian casualties and widespread destruction.
“Self-defence is not a blank cheque,” argue legal experts.
According to international law, the right to self-defence must meet three criteria: necessity, proportionality, and a clear ongoing armed attack. Critics say Israel’s actions may no longer meet these thresholds, particularly as large-scale offensives continue despite Hamas’s diminished operational capacity.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the UN Human Rights Council have both signalled growing concern, with allegations of excessive use of force and failure to distinguish between military and civilian targets.
While Israel maintains its operations target legitimate threats, legal observers suggest the burden of justification grows heavier with each passing week—especially in the face of mounting humanitarian disaster. As global scrutiny intensifies, the legal and moral legitimacy of Israel’s continued campaign in Gaza remains sharply contested.
