More than 24,000 Palestinians have died since the start of the current war in Gaza, at least according to the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Ministry of Health.
The IDF, for its part, does not dispute these figures.
The killing of an entire percent of the Gaza population, with an average of 250 deaths per day, led to widespread condemnation of the Israeli activity and accusations of war crimes, which reached the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
However, it now appears that analysts and philosophers do not agree on the answer to the question of whether Israel violated basic principles of the ethics of war - especially those of proportionality and civilian immunity.
We used Forefront to understand the fundamental debate.
Proportionality - the word that the British defender of Israel Douglas Murray fiercely fought against - requires the use of the minimum force necessary to achieve military goals.
However, another crucial principle that receives at least media discussion is called discrimination, and establishes a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate goals.
The principle of discrimination is also referred to as the principle of immunity for the non-involved - that is, the prohibition of intentionally attacking civilians.
The theory of justice in war claims that civilians are also morally immune from attack.
Although civil immunity mandates protection from intentional attacks, it does not provide absolute protection.
Unintended civilian casualties as an unintended consequence of attacks on military targets can be justified under the "doctrine of double effect".
However, modern warfare in general, and the specific case of the Gaza Strip, makes it very difficult to clearly separate and distinguish between military forces and civilians.
This is because, as we know, Gaza is densely populated, and Hamas deliberately operates from civilian centers, which makes it difficult for Israeli operations.
Thus, for example, the state justifies attacks on the hospitals in the Gaza Strip by saying that Hamas used it for military purposes.
However, international law requires that civilians on such sites be protected as much as possible.
Even if it is possible to allow attacks on sites where both civilians and combatants are present, civilian immunity prohibits destructive attacks that disrupt infrastructure essential to civilian existence.
Respecting the moral equality of all citizens, regardless of nationality, is a central principle.
The current campaign shows that Israel is trying with all its might to respect these principles - even at the expense of the lives of our soldiers - but the high number of civilians killed, and especially the fact that, according to the Hamas Ministry of Health, one third of the dead are minors (another statement on which the IDF has not yet published its position), contribute to the fact that despite Despite all our efforts, there are still those who accuse us of genocide.
Ultimately, theories of "war justice" pose difficult challenges.
According to the experts, what is defined here as "fighting with one hand tied behind the back" is the required price of a just war against the kind of enemy that stands before us.
This leads to the fact that on the question of whether Israel can be accused of war crimes in Gaza, unfortunately there is no single correct answer - everything depends on the starting point of the observer and the Israeli ability to prove that, as Benny Gantz once boasted, our soldiers put themselves at risk in order to minimize damage to the enemy, not increase it.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us