Israel Is Doing What No Army in History Has Ever Done. The World Refuses to Acknowledge It.

The question of how modern states conduct war in asymmetric conflicts remains central to international law and military ethics. In this regard, Israel’s actions represent a unique case in history — a large-scale application of the principles of international humanitarian law (IHL) in combat operations, exceeding the standards adopted by most nations engaged in armed conflicts.

1. The Principle of Precaution

According to the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, parties to a conflict are obliged to take all feasible measures to protect civilians. Israel has implemented methods with no historical precedent: mass SMS alerts, individual phone calls, leaflet drops, as well as the practice known as “roof knocking” — dummy or low-yield strikes on the roof of a building minutes before an attack to signal residents to evacuate.

Such a complex of measures — including deliberate non-lethal warning strikes — has never before been applied in the history of warfare.

2. Restriction on the Use of Force

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) regularly suspend or cancel strikes if information emerges about the presence of civilians, even when the target is a high-priority militant. Investigative records document dozens of such cases.

In global practice, no army engaged in intense combat has systematically canceled strikes on such high-value targets for the sake of protecting noncombatant lives.

3. Medical and Humanitarian Assistance in a Conflict Zone

Even while engaged in active hostilities, Israel continues to provide medical care to residents of Gaza, including organizing evacuations of critically ill patients to Israeli hospitals. At certain times, border crossings have remained open for the delivery of medicine and fuel, even under rocket fire.

The practice of providing direct medical assistance to citizens of enemy-controlled territory during active warfare has no historical precedent.

4. Precision of Weapons and Target Selection

The use of precision-guided munitions and targeting technologies (including artificial intelligence) enables Israel to minimize collateral damage. Data show that in several operations, the ratio of combatants to noncombatants killed by the IDF was more favorable than in comparable conflicts.

Although precision strikes have been employed by other nations, no army has combined them with such a comprehensive set of preventive measures to safeguard civilians.

5. Legal and Public Oversight

Israel is one of the few countries where military operations are under continuous judicial review, including by the Supreme Court, which has the authority to suspend or alter military actions. In addition, the state maintains internal investigative mechanisms for incidents involving civilian casualties.

In the history of armed conflicts, there are no precedents of a supreme court holding real-time authority to intervene in the conduct of military operations.

Historical Contrast

For context, it is important to note that during World War II the Allies did not provide humanitarian aid to Japan or Germany, did not open corridors for medicine and food, and did not count civilian casualties. Civilian deaths in Germany from Allied bombings alone amounted to about 2 million. Historically, the rule was that neutral states opened their borders to refugees.

Conclusion

Today, the picture is reversed: Egypt refuses to open its border, yet Israel is condemned. Israel, even in wartime, feeds the residents of hostile territory, delivers humanitarian aid — which Hamas then seizes — and yet Israel is blamed. Israel abides by international law more rigorously than any other state, and still it is denounced. Israel uniquely employed its future enemies, and was condemned. Israel uniquely granted citizenship on a large scale to potential adversaries, and was condemned. Terrorists hid — and continue to hide — hostages in hospitals and clinics, using them as cover for combat operations, yet Israel is the one condemned. When Israel evacuates civilians, this is labeled “ethnic cleansing.” When Israel creates safe zones and aid distribution points — while Hamas attacks civilians in those very zones — accusations once again fall on Israel.

Such “coincidences” do not exist. Only one country in the world is told how it must wage war. Every other state combats terrorism, and it is deemed a domestic matter:

• Britain vs. the IRA (killed civilians, carried out “Bloody Sunday”) — not a single UN resolution, no international condemnation.

• Spain vs. Basque terrorism (used death squads) — no condemnation.

• Even when Jordan and Egypt occupied the West Bank and Gaza for 19 years, not a single resolution, not a single rebuke. Yet when Israel regained control of these lands, in the following 23 years alone, the UN issued 419 resolutions. (More on the UN in the next post.)

All this amounts to double standards. And all this is antisemitism.