Abstract
International humanitarian law has made robust provisions in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and its 1977 Protocols for the protection of the civilians and civilian objects in the conduct of hostilities during armed conflict. Critical amongst the protective principles are the principles of distinction and proportionality. However, the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) has demonstrated disregard to these basic principles in the targeting of Mohammed Deif and his deputy by killing 90 civilians in pursuit of just two Hamas fighters. This article sets out to interrogate the classification of the Israel-Hamas conflict and concludes that Hamas is a terrorist armed group not representing any state, thereby making the conflict a non-international armed conflict. The paper argues that the definition of military advantage envisioned in any attack is subjective and gives the IDF the latitude to give it a broad interpretation which legitimize the killing of civilians depending on the importance attached to then legitimate target of attack. The paper concludes with a call for an-overhaul of article 57(2)(iii) of AP 1 on the determination of whether loss of civilian life damage to civilian object is excessive in relation to concrete military advantage anticipated from the attacker and place it under the control of a neutral party.