The ink had barely dried on the ceasefire agreement when the specter of war returned to Gaza. What was once framed as a diplomatic breakthrough brokered by Egypt, Qatar, and the United States has unravelled into yet another chapter of unrelenting violence. On March 18, 2025, Israel unilaterally resumed military operations in Gaza, shattering the fragile ceasefire and reigniting a conflict that international law had briefly paused but never resolved. Israel’s actions need to be scrutinized through the lens of international humanitarian law (IHL), the laws of occupation, and the jus in bello framework, evaluating the legitimacy of its justifications and the scope of its obligations under international legal instruments.
The late 2024 ceasefire was not a mere cessation of hostilities, it was a phased diplomatic accord, designed to de-escalate the conflict and lay the groundwork for sustainable peace. Phase I entailed the immediate halt of military operations, humanitarian access, and limited release of hostages. Phase II, left unrealized, envisioned deeper political engagement and further de-escalation measures.
Israel’s justification for the resumption of hostilities, namely the alleged rearmament by Hamas, must be examined in light of its own disengagement from the Phase II negotiations. Moreover, the geographic expansion of hostilities into Lebanon, Syria, and ongoing raids in the occupied West Bank suggests a pattern of military escalation incompatible with the principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity embedded in IHL.
Under Article 40 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, a material breach by one party may, under specific circumstances, entitle the other party to resume hostilities. Although Israel is not a formal signatory to the Hague Convention IV, the Regulations are widely acknowledged as customary international law, thereby binding upon all states.
The burden of proof rests with Israel to establish a material breach by Hamas sufficient to void the ceasefire obligations. However, independent assessments such as reports from the United Nations, cast serious doubt on Israel’s claims. Notably, the principle of pacta sunt servanda, enshrined in Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, mandates that treaties and agreements must be executed in good faith. Israel’s unilateral disengagement from negotiations and immediate recourse to force are, on their face, incompatible with this principle.
IHL prohibits attacks that may cause excessive incidental civilian harm relative to the anticipated military advantage, as codified in Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. Since March 18, more than 1,000 Palestinian civilians, including women and children, have reportedly been killed and civilian infrastructure has been extensively targeted.
Furthermore, attacks on medical personnel, such as the documented killing of 15 medics by the Palestine Red Crescent Society, may constitute war crimes under Article 8(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). These actions not only contravene legal norms but reflect a deliberate disregard for the principle of humanity.
Despite claims of disengagement, Israel retains effective control over Gaza, and continues military operations in the West Bank, rendering it an occupying power under Article 42 of the Hague Regulations and Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. As such, Israel is bound to uphold public order and civil life within occupied territories and is prohibited from forcibly transferring or displacing the civilian population.
Recent reports of mass expulsions from southern Gaza and the internal displacement of over 280,000 individuals constitute grave breaches of Article 49(1) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which forbids forcible transfers of protected persons unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons demand otherwise, conditions not convincingly demonstrated in this case.
The UN Secretary General has issued strong condemnation of Israel’s actions. However, expressions of concern alone are insufficient under the legal framework of the Geneva Conventions. Common Article 1 obliges all High Contracting Parties to ensure respect for the Conventions in all circumstances. This entails affirmative legal responsibilities, including the imposition of diplomatic sanctions, arms embargoes, and the facilitation of ICC investigations into alleged war crimes.
Moreover, Israel’s invocation of Article 51 of the UN Charter to justify its operations under the doctrine of self-defense is legally tenuous. Article 51 applies only in response to an armed attack. The continued occupation and disproportionate use of force suggest that these operations are punitive rather than defensive, undermining Israel’s claim to lawful recourse under the Charter.
The gravity of what is happening cannot be understated. This is not just a policy failure or a diplomatic misstep, it is a test of the global legal order itself. Because if ceasefires can be discarded at will, if civilian lives can be written off as collateral damage, and if international law is only respected when it is convenient, then what remains of the world’s moral compass?
In Gaza, the rules meant to shield humanity are being scorched by the very powers meant to uphold them. This is not just a war zone, it is a courtroom. And while the bombs fall, the world stands as both witness and jury. If the law dies in Gaza, what hope is there for justice anywhere else?
