In Gaza: Unveiling ‘No Uninvolved’ Civilians

A few days ago, it was reported that dozens of civilians in Gaza were killed in an operation by the IDF against senior Hamas member Raed Saad. Such reports about civilians killed during attacks have become common in recent months. One of the recurring questions is whether the civilians were “involved” or “uninvolved.” In this context, there have been repeated statements by ministers, Knesset members, public figures, and others suggesting that “there are no uninvolved civilians in Gaza.” It is difficult to say whether this sweeping statement is accurate or not, but in practice, its implications are not as broad as they are sometimes presented.

The basis for the discourse on “involved” and “uninvolved” civilians stems from a longstanding effort by legal and military experts to clarify that even during warfare, there is no legal or moral legitimacy for targeting of civilians who are not posing part of the fighting forces. Thus, a simplistic distinction was made between “involved” and “uninvolved” civilians. The purpose of this discourse was not necessarily to argue that “involved” civilians are legitimate targets, but rather to emphasize that “uninvolved” civilians are not legitimate targets for direct attack.

The recent use of these terms requires us to take a deeper look at their meaning. According to the laws of war, it is prohibited to directly attack civilians unless they are “taking a direct part in hostilities.” It is important to clarify that there is a significant difference between “involved civilians” and “civilians taking a direct part in hostilities”: while every civilian taking a direct part in hostilities is certainly “involved,” not every “involved” civilian is necessarily taking a direct part in hostilities. Direct attacks against civilians not taking a direct part in hostilities constitute a serious violation of the laws of war and a war crime.

For example, civilians who handed out candies in Gaza on October 7th may certainly be considered “involved” in their support, but they are definitely not taking a direct part in hostilities. On the other hand, civilians who kidnapped and actively assisted in the kidnappings on October 7th certainly took a direct part in hostilities during the kidnappings. The range in between is broad and highly complex, and cannot be addressed with sweeping generalizations. More complex examples include a civilian in whose home Hamas weapons are stored under children’s beds, and a civilian who keeps a hostage in their home or assists in moving them. These cases involve “involved” civilians aiding Hamas. Without taking a principled stance on these cases, it is clear that whether they are taking a direct part in hostilities, thus becoming legitimate targets, depends on the specific circumstances of each case. This means that the discussion is more complex than it is often presented.

The statement “there are no uninvolved civilians in Gaza” can be interpreted in several ways. Firstly, it can be seen as a justification for any use of force and any killing in Gaza as lawful: if the civilians are involved, then they are legitimate targets as it is claimed that they are all taking direct part in the hostilities. On the other hand, it can be seen as incitement to genocide or even establishing genocidal intent by pre-legitimizing widespread killing of civilians in Gaza, including those who are handing out candies or voted to Hamas in the 2005 elections. Indeed, in South Africa’s arguments against Israel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Israeli officials were quoted as saying there are no uninvolved civilians in Gaza as examples for inciting and encouraging genocide. When understanding the distinction between “involved” and legitimate targets, it is also clear that not every statement by politicians and public figures should be seen as encouraging genocide (unless that was indeed their intent, which is obviously illicit and dangerous).

The fighting in Gaza is extremely complex, and the challenges facing the IDF in carrying out its mission are unprecedented. Our tendency to simplify the rules into a binary framework of “involved” and “uninvolved” is understandable, especially in an era where immediacy outweighs accuracy. However, it is important to understand that within the framework of “involved” civilians, there are further distinctions, and only those civilians taking a direct part in hostilities are legitimate targets for attack. Israel’s engagement in the international arena, especially the international legal arena, requires caution with inaccurate and sweeping statements that are much more harmful than helpful.