Israeli Airstrikes on Gaza Refugee Camp: Impact and Controversy
JERUSALEM — The Israeli airstrikes that targeted the Jabalya refugee camp on October 31 resulted in the collapse of buildings, trapping displaced families from across the enclave. Numerous casualties, including women and children crushed under rubble, were reported by doctors.
Israeli military officials claim that their operation was successful in eliminating a high-ranking Hamas commander, Ibrahim Biari. “We were focused on our target,” stated Lt. Col. Richard Hecht, spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces. “We know that he was killed.”
Gaza’s Health Ministry reports that almost 10,000 Palestinians have been killed since the conflict began, as the Israeli military aims to dismantle Hamas. Although Israeli officials assert that each strike is legal, experts argue that the rules of engagement, which remain classified, may allow for a higher threshold of civilian casualties compared to previous conflicts.
“There was always a conscious effort to limit civilian casualties when we struck areas with known civilian presence,” explained Jonathan Conricus, international spokesman for the IDF. He did not comment on any changes to Israel’s rules of engagement and accused Hamas of inflating the death toll. “The laws of armed conflict aim to strike a balance between military advantage and expected harm to civilians,” said Pnina Sharvit Baruch, a former IDF legal adviser. “The higher the military advantage, the higher the harm to civilians could be considered proportionate. Any harm to civilians is collateral, not intentional.”
The consequences of these calculations can be seen in Gaza’s hospitals and morgues. Entire families have perished, with infants buried alongside their parents in mass graves. Vital infrastructure such as water towers, bakeries, schools, and ambulances have been destroyed. Human rights organizations have raised concerns about possible war crimes and called for an international investigation.
Last month, Karim Khan, the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court, stated that military decision-makers in the conflict should be prepared to justify each strike on civilian targets. International law requires a clear distinction between civilians and militants, as well as precautions to prevent harm to civilians. The principle of proportionality prohibits excessive civilian casualties in relation to the expected military advantage.
Assessing Israel’s target selection is challenging due to the secrecy surrounding it. U.S. officials claim they are unaware of how the IDF evaluates the risk to civilians, despite publicly urging Israel to minimize harm to innocent civilians. According to one senior State Department official, Israel has reduced airstrikes recently, potentially due to pressure from the U.S. However, strikes still result in significant casualties.
In the case of the Jabalya attack, which targeted an entire residential block, the IDF claimed it was a carefully planned strike aimed at a senior Hamas figure in the tunnels beneath the camp. While acknowledging the regrettable civilian casualties, Conricus defended the attack as a legitimate military operation.
Experts argue that given the planned nature of the attack, the IDF could reasonably expect hundreds of casualties. “The Jabalya strike indicates that Israel tolerates a significantly higher level of civilian casualties than, for instance, the U.S. Air Force did in the war against ISIS,” explained Mark Lattimer, executive director of the Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights.
Israel’s airstrikes on Hamas targets in Gaza have far surpassed the number of bombs dropped by the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan in 2019. The IDF has provided limited updates on the number of strikes conducted.
While acknowledging the differences in acceptable levels of civilian casualties between Israel and the U.S., U.S. officials stress that a robust assessment process is in place for each strike. The United States, as a provider of military and intelligence support, must ensure that Israeli bombings adhere to international law.
Israel recently hinted at the possibility of targeting major hospitals, alleging their use by militants to attack Israeli forces. Medical relief organizations and doctors within these facilities state that they cannot comply with evacuation requests due to the high number of patients, including newborns in incubators, as well as displaced residents seeking refuge.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has framed the fight against militants in Gaza as an existential battle. While experts acknowledge the savagery of recent Hamas attacks on Israel, they assert that the principle of proportionality remains unchanged.
Taking into account the high population density in Gaza and the limited means for civilians to escape, warnings issued by the Israeli military may not provide meaningful options for evacuation. With pre-planned target locations depleted, Israel’s air campaign strategy is shifting to dynamic targeting, leading to heightened civilian casualties in past conflicts, such as the U.S.-led campaign against ISIS.
Experts suggest that Israel may have limited visibility in identifying safer zones due to the frequent movement of displaced civilians seeking safety.
