From Atatürk’s homeland — where 'peace at home, peace in the world' still resonates — Süleyman Güngör argues that Gaza is Palestinian land. The violence there, and between Israel and Iran, we must recognise as war under international law — and urgently bring it to an end
Israel calls its attacks 'security operations'. Iran maintains its missile launches are 'self-defence'. But legal definitions rely on facts, not political language.
The 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, and the International Committee of the Red Cross, define 'war' as an armed conflict between states or between a state and organised armed groups. This includes military clashes and sustained hostilities in which civilians come to harm.
Labels like 'counterterrorism' don’t change the legal reality. When two countries’ militaries engage in combat, international humanitarian law (IHL) governs the conduct of hostilities. IHL’s core purpose is to protect human dignity and civilians during war.
When two countries’ militaries engage in combat, international humanitarian law governs the conduct of hostilities to protect civilians
IHL rules that civilians must never be targeted directly, humanitarian aid must flow without interference, prisoners must be treated humanely, and disproportionate attacks are prohibited. Violations of these rules are war crimes and carry international consequences.
Gaza is not an independent state; it is Palestinian territory. Though Israel withdrew its troops in 2005, it controls Gaza’s borders, airspace, and coastline. United Nations reports and international rights groups concur that this control amounts to effective occupation.
Israel’s blockade has, since 2007, severely restricted the flow of food, medical supplies, fuel, and construction materials. In combination with repeated military strikes, the blockade has devastated Gaza’s economy and civilian infrastructure.
Homes, schools, hospitals, water, and electricity systems have been destroyed or damaged repeatedly. Civilians, including children and women, bear the brunt of these attacks, often suffering indiscriminate harm.
The resulting humanitarian crisis is among the worst globally, leaving millions lacking access to basic needs. It raises serious legal and ethical questions under IHL and human rights law.
Since October 2023, intense Israeli bombardments have devastated Gaza, making civilian life nearly impossible. The relentless attacks have caused major civilian casualties, including many children. Under international humanitarian law, parties must distinguish between combatants and civilians. Direct attacks on civilians are strictly prohibited. These repeated civilian deaths raise grave concerns about violations of the laws of war. The destruction of homes, schools, and hospitals deepens the humanitarian crisis. It also underscores the urgent need for all parties to respect civilian protections.
A fundamental principle of IHL is distinction: the obligation to distinguish between combatants and civilians. Civilians must not be deliberately targeted or suffer disproportionate harm.
In Gaza, however, Israeli forces have repeatedly killed civilians in attacks on homes, schools, ambulances, and hospitals. Numerous investigations by independent human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have documented these violations.
International law prohibits the targeting of non-combatants. Yet in Gaza, Israeli forces have repeatedly killed civilians in attacks on homes, schools, and hospitals
Israel's attacks constitute collective punishment, which is clearly prohibited under international law. Israel is inflicting suffering on the civilian population to pressure or punish political actors.
Such actions undermine the rules meant to protect humanity even in war. They worsen the human toll of conflict and perpetuate the cycle of violence.
On 18 June 2025, Israel launched missile and drone strikes on Iranian military and nuclear facilities. Iran retaliated with over 150 ballistic missiles and more than 100 kamikaze drones. Its targets were Israeli cities including Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem. The strikes killed civilians on both sides of the conflict. Among the Iranian casualties were scientists uninvolved in hostilities; Israel directly violated the principle of distinction under international humanitarian law.
This violent exchange marked a strategic tipping point. The spiral of retaliation devastated urban centres and critical infrastructure, with no regard for civilian safety. These were not surgical strikes but large-scale assaults causing mass casualties. The violence signalled a new phase of conflict that stretches beyond conventional military engagement.
More alarmingly, the conflict is now threatening to cross a nuclear threshold. Israel has never officially confirmed it possesses nuclear weapons, though it is widely believed to possess them. At the same time, targeting Iran's nuclear facilities raises a chilling possibility: radioactive fallout. A successful strike on nuclear sites could release contaminants across borders and generations. This would create not just regional trauma but a global environmental and humanitarian crisis.
The risks are no longer confined to national borders or conventional warfare. Trade routes, ecological systems, and international security arrangements could all suffer irreversible damage.
States with strategic interests in the region — especially nuclear powers — must act with restraint and urgency to prevent further escalation
The international community must not remain a passive observer. States with strategic interests in the region — especially nuclear powers — carry a special responsibility. They must act with restraint and urgency to prevent further escalation. Peaceful resolution is no longer an ideal; it is a global necessity. This is not only about war — it is about preventing catastrophe on a planetary scale.
Words have power in law and politics. Calling the hostilities by their legal name — war — triggers obligations that protect civilians and enable accountability.
Political rhetoric may frame attacks as 'security' or 'self-defence'. The facts, however, tell a clearer story: mass destruction, civilian deaths, chaos unleashed.
Ignoring these legal facts fosters impunity, encourages further violations, and prolongs suffering for innocent people on all sides. Atatürk’s famous phrase 'peace at home, peace in the world' is more than a motto. It is a principle that must guide how we understand and manage global conflict.
Calling the violence in Gaza and the wider region what it is — war — is not about taking sides. It is about recognising human suffering, protecting rights, and demanding justice.
Update (23 June 2025):
The recent US airstrike on Iran signals a dangerous escalation of the conflict. It significantly increases the risk of nuclear confrontation and radioactive fallout. This is no longer a regional crisis; it now carries the potential for global catastrophe. Even more concerning is the growing ease with which world leaders speak of 'World War III'. Such rhetoric can be as dangerous as the weapons themselves. In moments like this, reason, restraint, and diplomacy are more vital than ever. Only by upholding international law can we hope to limit the horrors of conflict, and move toward lasting peace.
I have been reading, watching the news on the war against Palestine by Isreal, and am disturbed in which Isreal feels that it can totally control what can and cannot be taken into Gaza , ie, food water medication to the point that children who were lucky enough not to be killed by the bombs that Isreal reigned down on civilians are now starving to death. This is 2025 not 1940’s during WW11. I personally believe that Isreal is doing to the Palestinians what Hitler tried to do to the Jews and yet the west still back Isreal prime minister even when people of Isreal don’t . I could go on and on about all that is happening in Gaza and what Isreal is doing should be stopped and the prime minister should be held accountable for all the unnecessary violence and bloodshed and deaths he has caused like the Germans were tried by the International Criminal Courts
Re: Recognising war: Gaza’s occupation and the Israel-Iran conflict.
Significant parts of this article are not correct.
First of all, the 1949 Geneva Conventions only apply to conventional warfare, where 2 (or more) standing armies wear military uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians.
Guerrilla warfare is completely different. Typically one standing army wearing military uniforms (like the Israel IDF) is fighting against guerrillas (irregulars—combatants) who wear civilian clothes (do not wear uniforms) and who are not formally members of a government's standing military.
Therefore, the rules of engagement in a guerrilla war, are not the same as the 1949 Geneva Conventions. In fact there have been many attempts to write and re-write the special rules of guerrilla warfare. I am not an expert, but all of these rules are available online if you want to become an expert.
Therefore as mentioned above, significant parts of this article are not correct.
Thank you sincerely for speaking so clearly and boldly about the brutal violence carried out under the orders of the Israeli Prime Minister.
I wholeheartedly share your outrage and sorrow in the face of this horror—where civilians are targeted and children are left to starve. The fact that terror has become a tool of state policy, and that global leaders still defend it, is a disgrace to humanity.
I truly hope that as more voices rise, consciences awaken—and one day, this world becomes a fairer, more livable place for all.
In defense of human dignity, not geopolitical convenience,
The law of war was never meant to serve empires. Its soul lies in shielding civilians—regardless of who holds the drone or the stone. Today, as Gaza bleeds under the gaze of a silent world, we must confront a fundamental truth: International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is not a privilege of state actors, but a shield for the vulnerable.
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk once envisioned: “Peace at home, peace in the world.” But when hospitals are shelled and famine is engineered, peace without accountability becomes complicity.
The theoretical distinction between conventional and guerrilla warfare overlooks a fundamental truth: International Humanitarian Law (IHL) exists not to serve power, but to protect humanity. As we engage in this critical discourse, I am reminded of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s timeless principle—"Yurtta Sulh, Cihanda Sulh" ("Peace at Home, Peace in the World")—which transcends borders and eras. It is this very ethos that compels us to reject legal exceptionalism and uphold universal dignity.
Contrary to to the false assertion earlier, the Geneva Conventions were never confined to symmetrical conflicts. The drafters’ wisdom anticipated complexity:
• Common Article 3 (1949): Explicitly binds all parties in non-international conflicts to minimal humanitarian standards.
• Additional Protocol II (1977): Codifies protections for civilians against collective punishment, indiscriminate attacks, and starvation—regardless of uniforms.
• ICRC Customary Study (Rule 1): "Parties must distinguish between civilians and combatants in all circumstances."
The International Court of Justice affirmed this in the Wall Opinion (2004): "International law knows no vacuum. Its protections apply erga omnes—to all."
Israel’s control over Gaza’s borders, airspace, and coastline (UNSC Res. 1860) constitutes de jure occupation under the Hague Regulations (Art. 42). In such contexts:
• Collective punishment (e.g., blocking food/medicine) violates GC IV Art. 33.
• Disproportionate force (e.g., 72% civilian casualties per OHCHR) breaches the Rome Statute (Art. 8).
• Settlement expansion defies UNSC Res. 2334 (2016)—a resolution invoking Chapter VII authority.
"Mankind is a single body”… its pain in Gaza is an injury to all humanity. It is a litmus test for civilizational values.
As for the the fatal fiction of "Guerrilla Exceptions", no credible IHL instrument permits: “Targeting hospitals (Al-Shifa) or journalists (Shireen Abu Akleh); Weaponizing famine (95% of Gazans in acute food insecurity, per IPC); Forcible displacement (1.9 million Gazans, per UNOCHA).
The Martens Clause (1899 Hague Convention) obliges compliance with "the laws of humanity and the dictates of public conscience"—a principle echoed by scholars like Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pappé, who recognized that justice cannot be fragmented by political expediency.
The international community has spoken unequivocally: 45+ UNSC vetoes since 1972 shield violations from accountability. 170+ General Assembly resolutions (1947–2023) condemn occupation practices. ICJ Provisional Measures (2024) order Israel to prevent the atrocities ongoing in Gaza. Yet as Atatürk warned: "Laws without enforcement are but ink on paper." This is the conscience of the world: UN Resolutions as Moral Witness!
True peace demands not neutrality in the face of oppression, but solidarity with the oppressed. This aligns irrevocably with IHL’s purpose: to place humanity above all. We thus call for:
1. Immediate adherence to UNSC Res. 2334 (end settlement expansion).
2. Full cooperation with ICC investigations (Case ICC-01/18).
3. Unconditional humanitarian access per ICJ orders.
From the ashes of Gallipoli to the resilience of Gaza, one truth endures: Human rights are not concessions—they are birthrights. As Güngör rightly invokes Atatürk’s vision, we affirm that "peace in the world" remains contingent on justice for Palestine. To deny this is to betray the very civilization IHL seeks to preserve.
With respect for the dialogue,
A voice from the other side of the veto.