Shielding civilians is where serious writing about war earns trust or loses it. It is easy to speak in absolutes. Either every Israeli strike is proof of a genocidal plan, or every worry about civilian harm gets brushed off as spin. OZJF rejects both shortcuts. Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas. Civilians in Gaza are still civilians. Those two lines belong together. Drop one and the case collapses.
The rule is simple even when the battlefield is not
The law of armed conflict is not built on vibes or factional loyalty. It is built on duties. In April 2025, the ICRC and participating states in the Global Initiative on International Humanitarian Law reaffirmed the basic point. Distinction, proportionality, and precaution apply in armed conflict “without exception, and irrespective of whether the other party or parties abide by them.”
Those rules are simple in theory and brutal in practice. Sides must tell military targets apart from civilians and civilian objects. They must avoid strikes likely to cause too much civilian harm for the military gain. They must take feasible steps to reduce that harm. The ICRC’s explanation of how international humanitarian law applies in Israel and the occupied territories is still one of the clearest public summaries of those rules.
Urban war does not erase those duties
Gaza is a dense urban battlefield. Armed groups work inside civilian areas. Tunnels, homes, schools, hospitals, roads, shelters, and aid routes share the same tight space. That makes lawful military action harder. It does not make the law optional.
The ICRC’s March 2025 discussion of hospitals under fire puts it well. Even when a protected site may have lost some shield through acts harmful to a foe, any strike still has to meet distinction, proportionality, and precautions. This is why OZJF resists slogan thinking. Dense urban war creates real tactical problems. It does not create moral blank checks.
Aid access is part of shielding civilians
Shielding civilians is not only about targeting. It is also about whether food, medicine, water, shelter, and aid staff can move. The ICRC’s June 2025 appeal for protection of civilians and unhindered humanitarian assistance states it plainly. Letting relief through is not charity. It is a duty under international humanitarian law.
The record in 2025 stayed deeply troubling. OCHA’s March 2025 Gaza humanitarian update described warehouses full of aid outside Gaza, fuel shortages, and thousands of truckloads waiting in the pipeline. Needs inside the Strip stayed severe. Its May 2025 response update noted more denials of trauma and emergency care missions by Israeli authorities. Ambulances and hospitals were under heavy strain. A pro-Israel case that refuses to look at those facts is not strong. It is brittle.
The World Central Kitchen strike still matters
If one event captured the review problem, it was the April 1, 2024 strike that killed seven World Central Kitchen staff. The IDF’s own April 5, 2024 investigation summary found that the convoy was hit because of a serious failure in how the vehicles were spotted and how command acted. It announced dismissals and reprimands. World Central Kitchen’s response argued that the convoy was clearly marked. It was moving on a route known to Israeli authorities. WCK called for an outside review.
Both statements matter. The IDF’s inquiry matters because it is an official admission of failure. WCK’s response matters because aid groups have to be able to say clearly whether deconfliction is keeping staff safe. This is the kind of case that separates honest war-time review from generic messaging.
What OZJF is and is not arguing
OZJF is not arguing that every civilian death proves an unlawful attack. It does not. We are not arguing that casualty figures should be repeated without care for source, check, and breakdown. They should not. We are not arguing that Israel loses its right of self-defense because Gaza is a hard battlefield. It does not.
We are arguing three things. Civilians keep their status even in the hardest war. Aid access is part of the legal picture, not a PR sidebar. And real failures should be named without euphemism. Civilian-protection law exists to force rules onto moments when rage, fear, and military urgency would otherwise swallow them.
That is not anti-Israel. It is one of the terms for defending Israel without lying.