Violence is inherent in human beings and exists in nature, but war is not. War is a political term that gives violence a certain status and connotation and is an attempt by state actors to legitimize and formalize their participation in violence. The protection of civilians in wartime is an important aspect of the justification of war by states. As Walzer (1977) emphasized that limiting the deterioration of war and assisting non-combatant victims of war are the primary conditions for distinguishing war from murder. In just war theory, the justification of war is achieved by examining the law of war and the law of combat. Walzer calls these terms the “ends of war” and the “means of war.” In traditional state-to-state warfare, jus ad bellum refers to whether a particular war is just and morally acceptable, i.e., whether the war is in pursuit of a just cause and was initiated by a legitimate authority with the right intentions. The principle of non-combatant immunity is an important component of this war: the protection of “innocents” from harm, or the prevention of grave injustice, generally constitutes a necessary condition for the legitimization of a just war (Walzer, 2015).

The idea of “war immunity” has strong religious roots, like the concept of humanitarian aid itself. Its place in the theory of just war is crucial, for without it the theory of just war would lose its coherence and scientific character (McKeogh, 2002). Before the principle of the immunity of non-combatants was codified in international law, St Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, Article 40, II-II, laid down three conditions for just war: proper authority, just cause and right intention, which are still used in the discussion of the right to war. Aquinas (2009) pointed out that the just use of force against the innocent was a moral judgement and that it was a crucial step toward codified non-combatant protection. The principle of non-combatant immunity was developed during the American Civil War and continues to be a firm principle of international warfare. The ideology behind non-combatant immunity is succinctly stated in the Lieber Code: “Unarmed citizens shall be protected in person, property, and honor. “Later, the norm of non-combatant immunity appeared in the Laws of War on Land of 9 September 1880, Article VII, which “prohibits the ill-treatment of the non-offensive population” (Brough, 2004). The Hague Convention of 1907 states in Article 25 that “it is prohibited to attack or bombard in any manner whatsoever undefended towns, villages, dwellings or buildings.”

The First World War had a profound effect on the concept of civilian immunity in war, as civilians suddenly became the primary targets of war attacks. Despite previous codification, there was still very little protection for non-combatants at the start of the First World War. New weapons and tactics increased civilian casualties in war (McMahan, 2006). In response, the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare were adopted in 1923, which prohibited the use of airplanes for aerial bombardment to intimidate civilians and, for the first time, clearly delineated between civilians and military personnel. These provisions demonstrate the recurrence and prevalence of the norm of non-combatant immunity in international consciousness (Hough, 2023).

The tactics used in World War II shocked the world. The furious aerial bombardment of London, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki claimed the lives of thousands of civilians. Nazi state-sponsored genocide culminated in the Holocaust. To ensure the protection of non-combatants and civilians, the international community has called for legal remedies and the institutionalization of legal agreements. This led to the Nuremberg Principles, of which Principle 6 is particularly important as it defines crimes against humanity: “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts directed against any civilian population” (Coates, 2016). This is a manifestation of the evolving norm of civilian protection, which explicitly prohibits inhumane acts against civilians.

The most extensive definition of non-combat and codification of the protection of civilians appears in the first Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention of 1949, Article 48 adopts the basic rules for the protection of civilians, while Article 51 provides in part that “the civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations” (Galtung, 1969). Section 8(2)(b)(i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998 defines war crimes as offenses involving “intentional attacks against civilian objects, i.e., objects which are not military objectives” and further defines crimes against humanity as “any act committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population” (Cadwalader, 2011). According to Johnson, principle of non-combatant immunity restrictions on certain means of warfare, and weapons of war, such as chemical, biological and nuclear weapons as well as conventional weapons with indiscriminate effects, prevention of genocide, and the protection of cultural property (Johnson, 2000).

Although the definition of non-combatants and the protection of civilians have been codified in international law, they represent an idealistic or even utopian view of war (Waldron, 2008). Looking at the international community, the uncertainty of war and the unpredictability of wartime have posed unprecedented challenges to the international law on the protection of non-combatants (Cadwalader, 2011). The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a good example.

On 7 October 2023, the Palestinian militant group, Hamas, launched an unprecedented attack in which militants raided several towns in southern Israel, killing more than 800 Israeli personnel. Israel then declared war on the Gaza Strip, and the eyes of the world were once again focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Tens of thousands of people have died, and millions have been displaced from their homes as a result of the conflict, but what happens in a matter of days and weeks is a re-sprouting of the seeds left behind in history. Since the Hamas attack inside Israel, which killed more than 1,400 people, Israel's full-scale siege of Gaza by bombing and air strikes has led to an escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

According to the Arabic channel of Al-Jazeera TV, firstly, Israeli Air Attacks on Gaza, including an air strike on a shopping mall in the central Nuseirat refugee camp, which is estimated to have killed nine people and injured dozens more. The air strikes also sparked fires that destroyed several shops. In another deadly Israeli attack overnight, three people, including two women and an eight-year-old child, were killed in an air strike on a house in central Khan Younis in southern Gaza. Most particularly painful and shocking was the Israeli attack on the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City, which killed some 470 people. As the war continues to spread, Israel has declared a blockade of the Gaza Strip, stopping the supply of water, food, fuel and other necessities to the already besieged enclave.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has warned the international community that the Gaza Strip is about to run out of potable water, which could lead to a health and environmental catastrophe for the more than two million people living in the area, who are struggling under siege and the weight of war, and who have no other recourse but to use contaminated wells, which, due to the presence of many pathogens, will only worsen the situation.

The United Nations Secretary-General said: “The situation in Gaza is catastrophic.” “WHO has also reiterated its call for a ceasefire and for the release of all hostages and the achievement of a lasting peace.” Leaders of many countries around the world have used speeches, international forums and election campaigns to vocal support for Palestinian rights and statehood. They have pledged to advocate for justice, equality and self-determination for the Palestinian people. However, there is often a wide gap between these words and the concrete actions taken by these leaders to advance the cause of Palestinian rights. For example, leaders may vow to uphold international law and support the two-State solution as the path to peace in the Middle East, yet their governments continue to provide diplomatic, economic and military support to Israel, even in the face of Israeli human rights violations and illegal settlements. There are also leaders who condemn the violence against Hamas in their rhetoric but fail to take meaningful steps to hold those responsible for these acts accountable. This lack of accountability or the undermining of international law perpetuates a culture of impunity and undermines efforts to achieve justice and reconciliation. Fundamentally, despite the rhetoric of concern for the Palestinians, there is a lack of concrete action.

Palestinians face severe water shortages and water contamination, which pose serious challenges in terms of drinking, sanitation and agriculture, and the lack of basic safeguards for public health and wellbeing. WHO team has arrived at two hospitals in Gaza City to conduct assessments and deliver life-saving supplies, a United Nations spokesman said. “Due to the lack of antiseptics, doctors have had to sprinkle salt and vinegar on people's wounds, when in fact no antiseptics exist,” said Mr. Duharik, a WHO personnel. Israel's comprehensive closures and actions restrict access to health care, leading to preventable deaths and human suffering. School closures, military checkpoints and raids on educational facilities threaten the academic performance, literacy rates and prospects of Palestinian youth. Israeli restrictions on the freedom of movement of Palestinians, including checkpoints, roadblocks and the separation wall, limit access to basic services, disrupt daily life and perpetuate a vicious cycle of poverty and dependency (UN News, 2024). Regarding international aid efforts, the contribution of humanitarian organizations in aiding with Palestinians was significant. However, these efforts often fail to respond to the scale and complexity of humanitarian crises due to underfunding, bureaucratic obstacles and political commonalities (Ghaboun, 2021).

The international community's negative attitude toward Israel's continued occupation and colonization of Palestinian land, and its failure to actively condemn it, has effectively normalized it on the global stage. Such normalization perpetuates the status quo and entrenches the occupation and colonization, making it acceptable and even legal. Secondly, the international community's failure to hold Israel accountable for its violations of international law indirectly legitimizes Israel's continued expansion of settlements, confiscation of land and displacement of Palestinian communities. This normalization entrenches power imbalances and injustices and undermines efforts to achieve a just and lasting solution to the conflict (Barghouti, 2006). Moreover, the normalization of the Israeli occupation and colonization erodes the credibility of international norms and institutions established to maintain peace, security and human rights. It sends a dangerous message that the powerful can recklessly disregard the rights and sovereignty of the weak without meaningful consequences (UN News, 2024). The international community's passive stance on the question of Palestine thus not only perpetuates injustice but also undermines the prospects for a peaceful settlement.