Civilians Are Not Targets: Understanding Combatants and Non-Combatants in Gaza
In the laws of war, there's a line that must not be crossed. In Gaza, that line has been erased
When Homes, Schools, and Ambulances Are Destroyed: Who Exactly Is the Target?
Amidst the rubble and despair in Gaza, one fundamental question continues to haunt us: who exactly is the target of this relentless military assault? When hospitals are attacked, UNRWA schools are laid waste, and ambulances become targets, we are forced to ask: is the fundamental distinction in the laws of war still being honored? In International Humanitarian Law (IHL), there is a clear boundary between combatants and non-combatants, a red line that must not be crossed. Yet in Gaza, the evidence emerging daily brutally shows that this line has been erased. This is not merely a tactical violation; it is a systematic pattern with horrific legal and moral implications.
Legal Clarification: Distinguishing Combatants and Non-Combatants
Understanding who can legitimately be targeted in armed conflict is at the core of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The fundamental principles of IHL, particularly in Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions, explicitly differentiate between two main categories:
Combatants: These are individuals who lawfully and directly participate in hostilities. This includes members of a state's armed forces, as well as members of non-state armed groups who meet specific criteria, such as having a chain of command, wearing fixed distinctive signs to distinguish them from civilians, openly carrying arms, and adhering to the laws of war. Lawful combatants are legitimate military targets and may be attacked. However, they also possess combatant privilege if captured, entitling them to prisoner of war status.
Non-Combatants (Civilians): This category encompasses all individuals who are not combatants. They are civilians, medical personnel, religious personnel, journalists, and humanitarian workers. According to Article 51 of Protocol I Additional, civilians must not be the object of attack. They have a right to protection from the direct effects of hostilities. This protection applies unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities—and this participation must be direct and specific to the act, not merely their presence in a conflict zone.
Two main principles underscore this distinction: the Principle of Distinction and the Principle of Proportionality. The Principle of Distinction requires parties to a conflict to always distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects, as well as between combatants and civilians. Attacks may only be directed at military objectives. The Principle of Proportionality prohibits military attacks that are expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
The Erased Red Line: Evidence of Violations in Gaza
In Gaza, this principle of distinction has not merely been violated; it appears to have been deliberately disregarded, even erased from military practice. The evidence of these violations is stark:
Targeting of Vital Civilian Infrastructure: Repeated attacks on densely populated refugee camps, UNRWA schools serving as shelters, hospitals that should be safe zones, and ambulances carrying the wounded, are clear evidence of the disregard for the principle of distinction. More than 70% of Gaza's health facilities have been reported destroyed (WHO, January 2024), and attacks on the Nasser Medical Complex and Al-Amal Hospital in early 2025 serve as grim reminders of the targeting of medical facilities. This is not merely a tactical error; it is a systematic destruction of infrastructure that sustains civilian life.
Alarmingly High Civilian Casualties: Recent data indicates over 54,000 civilian deaths by June 2025 (Gaza Ministry of Health, May 2025; OCHA, June 2025), with the majority being women and children. This figure significantly exceeds what can be justified by military operations, indicating an ineffective distinction between combatants and non-combatants in the military practices applied in Gaza.
Killing of Humanitarian Professionals and Journalists: The systematic killing of journalists and medical volunteers demonstrates a broader pattern of targeting that includes those specifically protected under IHL. This dims the world's eyes and impedes life-saving efforts.
Dehumanization Justifying Slaughter: Rhetoric from officials referring to Gazans as "human animals" or stating that "there are no innocent civilians" effectively erases the non-combatant status of the entire population in the eyes of the perpetrator. This is not mere rhetoric; it is the psychological foundation that justifies widespread and indiscriminate targeting.
Legal Implications: More Than Just Violations, Elements of Genocide
The disregard for or erasure of the principle of distinction in Gaza carries grave legal implications, extending beyond mere war crimes. When the targeting of non-combatants is systematic, widespread, and carried out with the specific intent to destroy a group, it becomes a key element of the crime of genocide.
Targeting Non-Combatants as Part of Genocide's Actus Reus: The mass killing of civilians, the infliction of serious physical and mental harm upon them, and the deliberate creation of conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction (e.g., total blockade of water and food leading to starvation) are actus reus acts of genocide directly evident from the targeting of non-combatants.
Dehumanization Reinforcing Mens Rea: The rhetoric that degrades the entire population of Gaza into "targets" or "animals" explicitly indicates the intent to destroy (mens rea). This is not an isolated "tactical error," but a destructive strategy driven by the intent to eliminate the group or render it incapable of existing.
Systematic Pattern of Attacks: When hospitals, schools, and densely populated civilian areas are repeatedly targeted, it reveals a pattern. This pattern can no longer be categorized as a "tactical error" or "unintended collateral damage," but rather a strong indication of a strategy designed to inflict widespread destruction and obliterate civilian life.
Conclusion: A Moral Call and Public Vigilance
The line between combatants and non-combatants is the foundation of our civilization amidst violence. If this internationally recognized line can be erased with impunity, then the principle of civilian protection will run asunder, and anyone, anywhere, could become the next victim of unrestrained atrocity.
This is our call to conscience. If civilians are no longer differentiated from fighters, then our very humanity is at stake. And if the world remains silent in the face of such blatant violations of these fundamental IHL principles, then we all tacitly consent to the eradication of humanity. As enlightened individuals, our duty is to understand the law, see the facts, and speak out.
Do not let that red line disappear entirely. Speak the truth: civilians are not targets.
Show solidarity: Share this writing. Participate in peaceful actions. Support international legal bodies urging accountability. Do not stop speaking out.