A BBC analysis of international law experts concludes that the vast majority view Israel’s military operation in Gaza since the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack as disproportionate, citing the scale of civilian casualties, widespread destruction and severe restrictions on humanitarian aid.
More than 64,500 people have been killed in Gaza during the campaign, almost half women and children, according to figures from Gaza’s Hamas-run Ministry of Health that are used by the United Nations and aid agencies. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) dispute those figures and have not published their own civilian casualty breakdowns, but they say they take steps to mitigate civilian harm during operations and that Hamas operates within densely populated areas.
Legal scholars and practitioners interviewed by BBC Verify and analysis editor Ros Atkins described proportionality — the international law principle that harm to civilians must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated — as the central test for assessing Israel’s conduct. Many said that test is not met by Israel’s campaign as it has unfolded.
"I would struggle to see how Israel's military conduct in Gaza could potentially be characterised as proportionate," said Professor Janina Dill of the Blavatnik School of Government at the University of Oxford. Dr Maria Varaki of King’s College London said the use of force in Gaza is "undisputable, non-disputable... disproportionate." Professor Yuval Shany of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said the campaign "can no longer be seen as proportionate."
Those experts pointed to several lines of evidence. The UN has said the levels of death and destruction in Gaza are "without parallel in recent times." UN assessments cited in the analysis estimate that nearly 80% of buildings in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed, including a UN estimate that up to 42% of buildings have been destroyed and 37% damaged. Aid organisations and UN officials have warned of famine conditions: the UN-backed Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) has assessed that a quarter of Gazans are suffering from famine.
Experts also highlighted Israel’s restrictions on imports and the temporary total blockade of aid into Gaza, introduced in March 2024, which Israel says was intended to prevent Hamas from diverting supplies. Senior UN officials accused Israel of using food as a "weapon of war," which international law prohibits. Professor Mary Ellen O'Connell of the University of Notre Dame said starvation of civilians can never be lawful and humanitarian assistance must be permitted.
Israel partially eased the blockade in May and introduced a new distribution mechanism run by a US- and Israeli-backed group, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). More than 200 charities and NGOs called for the GHF’s closure, alleging that Israeli forces and armed groups regularly fire on civilians seeking aid. The UN has reported that more than 2,000 people have been killed around aid sites and convoys in recent months, saying most of the killings were by the Israeli military; Israel denies that.
The experts BBC spoke to drew distinctions between two tests under international law: whether the overall military response is proportionate to the threat and whether individual attacks met the proportionality standard. Professor Emily Crawford of the University of Sydney said the "complete destruction of infrastructure necessary for the survival of the civilian population... is clearly disproportionate." Sir Geoffrey Nice, a former UN prosecutor, said the number of innocent Palestinians killed in individual strikes can be difficult to justify by the military value of the targets.
A frequently cited example is a 27 June strike near the Palestine Stadium in Gaza City, which the IDF described as targeting a "suspicious individual" who posed a threat to troops. Medics and witnesses reported at least 11 dead, including children. The IDF told the BBC it followed legal processes, using "target cards" and mitigation steps in strike-by-strike assessments; outside lawyers said such internal processes alone are insufficient without transparent evidence that civilian harm was not excessive compared with the military advantage sought.
Israel argues it has an inherent right of self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter and that its operations seek to destroy Hamas and recover hostages taken on 7 October, when Hamas fighters killed about 1,200 people and took 251 hostages. Several Western governments affirmed Israel’s right to defend itself after the attacks. Some experts, including Professor Asa Kasher of Tel Aviv University — who co-authored the IDF’s early code of ethics — maintain the right to self-defence remains relevant so long as Hamas poses a threat.
But the application of that right is contested. Some legal scholars say Israel’s prior control over Gaza — including airspace and borders after the 2005 pullout — means the occupation did not end and that the right to invoke self-defence is affected by that status. Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, said Israel had "capsized" legal principles of distinction, necessity and proportionality. Professor Ralph Wilde of University College London argued Israel’s post-7 October operations were a continuation and amplification of prior uses of force.
Political statements and proposed policies have also fed concerns among legal analysts. In May, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said "Gaza will be entirely destroyed," and defence ministry discussions included proposals about relocating Gaza’s population to the south. The UN has warned that forcible transfer of an occupied population can amount to ethnic cleansing.
International judicial proceedings reflect the legal scrutiny. In late 2024 the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity; warrants were also issued for Hamas leaders. Netanyahu called the ICC decision antisemitic, and the United States later imposed sanctions on four ICC judges. South Africa has brought a case to the International Court of Justice alleging genocide; that case remains before the court and Israel rejects the accusation.
Not all experts reached identical conclusions on every point. Some said Israel’s early operations might have been legally defensible while arguing that at some point the continued intensity and scope made further action disproportionate. Others pointed to what they regard as permissive legal interpretations issued by Israeli authorities that, they say, stretch established international law.
The IDF told BBC Verify that it is committed to mitigating civilian harm and that it operates against "terrorist organisations in the Gaza Strip" whenever necessary. The Israeli government did not provide the BBC with legal advice or a summary explaining its position that the overall campaign is proportionate.
As fighting continues, legal and political questions about proportionality, occupation status and the humanitarian consequences remain central to international debate. Experts stressed that while international law is often slow, its rulings and the shared norms it embodies are consequential over time. Many of those the BBC consulted concluded that, given the human cost and destruction, at least some aspects of Israel’s conduct in Gaza present a strong case of disproportionate use of force under international law.
