Abstract

This paper argues that Israel has a right to self-defence under international law, but contends that its conduct in Gaza and the West Bank often compromises that very entitlement. To make this case, it first unpacks the classic elements of lawful self-defence material, temporal and personal showing how each is meant to constrain a state’s use of force. It then turns to the twin principles of necessity and proportionality, assessing whether Israel’s military responses to rocket fire and low-intensity West Bank incidents genuinely meet these strict criteria. Building on that foundation, the paper explores key International Humanitarian Law safeguards distinction between combatants and civilians, proportionality in attack, and the duty to take all feasible precautions. Drawing on ICRC analyses, ICJ jurisprudence and humanitarian reports, it highlights instances where broad bombardments, pre-emptive raids and punitive demolitions appear to stray beyond legal bounds. Throughout, the discussion balances Israel’s legitimate security concerns with the human cost of its operations, asking whether tactics that inflict civilian harm and blur combatant-civilian lines ultimately erode the very legal framework that justifies self-defence. In doing so, this paper offers a nuanced, human-centred critique of how Israel’s actions both invoke and undermine its right to protect itself.

Keywords