Is this a war? International law says ‘yes’

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: Palestinian territory under de facto occupation

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.

Civilian deaths breach international humanitarian law

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.

Israel, Iran, and the nuclear threshold

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.

Why calling this conflict 'war' matters

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.

Recognising the legal status of war:

• Requires all parties to distinguish civilians from combatants, and protect the former.
• Demands proportionality in attacks, avoiding excessive civilian harm.
• Obligates the delivery of humanitarian aid, without obstruction.
• Ensures the perpetrators of war crimes face justice; for example, at the International Criminal Court.
• Upholds law and protects peace.

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.

The post Recognising war: Gaza’s occupation and the Israel-Iran conflict appeared first on The Loop.