As one approaches the site of Iran’s direct missile hit in Bat Yam, it feels less like a military strike and more like a natural disaster. On streets that are block away from the actual blast site, blinds hang twisted from windows with panes shattered completely. As one approaches the epicenter, roof tiles appear to have been ripped off nearby buildings, and a section of an apartment building is becoming a pile of rubble. This scene was mirrored in many other missile impact sites, many now fenced off and guarded by disaster crews.
From the 550 ballistic missiles that targeted Israel, 36 distinct impact sites litter Israel.
Though one missile hit the edge of IDF headquarters and six other ballistic missiles hit military targets according to foreign media reports, the rest hit civilian targets. This is illustrated by the Israeli death toll: 28 civilians were killed, while one off-duty soldier in Beersheba was killed as he was taking cover in his protected room. This war was distinct in the annals of warfare in its lack of military deaths on the Israeli side.
Over 15,000 Israelis have been rendered homeless. The Weizmann Institute in Rehovot suffered a direct hit, as did a ward of Beersheba’s Soroka Medical Center. Strikes near an oil refinery in Haifa and the Diamond Exchange in Ramat Gan savaged strategic areas but missed their mark. Military targets, as such, were left alone, giving the conflict an air reminiscent of the bombing of London in WWII.
A legal and moral breach
Iran is a recognized state with state obligations under international humanitarian law (IHL), with treaties that include the Geneva Conventions, and is bound by these obligations.
Under Common Article 3, individuals not actively participating in hostilities must be protected. Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the targeting of hospitals unless out of military necessity. Additional Protocol I, while unratified by Iran but signed and widely considered customary international law, further solidifies the principle of distinction in Articles 48 and 51 – combatants must distinguish between civilian and military targets.
Furthermore, Iran’s use of cluster munitions in its missiles, indiscriminate by design, constitutes a violation of customary international law, as documented in a 2005 ICRC study, even though Iran is not party to the specific convention banning them.
Global silence sets a dangerous precedent
Despite these violations, international response has been muted. UN Secretary-General António Guterres was one of the few global leaders to explicitly condemn Iran’s breach of IHL. Some Western governments denounced the attack and affirmed Israel’s right to self-defense, but they failed to explicitly articulate Iran’s grave violation of deliberately targeting civilians.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), tasked as the custodian of the Geneva Conventions, limited its statements to general appeals and restraint. Its director for the Middle East called for adherence to IHL, while an ICRC blog post commented that teams were “touring areas of Israel hit by missiles.” As of press time, no formal statement or report has been issued documenting and condemning Iran’s deliberate targeting of civilians.
The silence threatens the very foundation of IHL. If state actors can deliberately target civilians en masse and in full view of the international community without any legal, diplomatic, or reputational consequence, then the past 150 years of treaty-making faces collapse. The idea that war has rules seems to be no longer universally accepted, as states increasingly violate red lines with impunity. This could lead to a frightening new world order.
Upholding the law
Civilian suffering in recent conflicts is a common discourse, especially regarding the Russian-Ukrainian War and the war in Gaza. However, Israel – through statements, policies such as advanced warning, and the ability to investigate itself – has repeatedly made the protection of the opponents’ civilians a priority in its war efforts, which it did in Iran and continues to do in Gaza.
What makes Iran’s assault particularly alarming is its very nature: a campaign largely not based on military objectives but seemingly aimed directly at civilian life and infrastructure. This said, more can be done to reinforce IHL. NGOs committed to impartial humanitarian reporting must address these violations as vigorously as they do others. Failure to do so will only erode IHL further.
Israel’s Foreign Ministry, working alongside the relevant state authorities, should invite international investigators and document all evidence to create a clear case targeting Iranian violations to show relevant platforms.
Legal action, even though symbolic, can be initiated through the International Court of Justice.
Any state that values international norms should impose targeted sanctions or diplomatic consequences – not just for nuclear violations but also for war crimes. If violations continue, a police approach should be followed with strong world community support for Israel’s military response, guarded by the UN Charter.
Without enforcement, international humanitarian law is meaningless. However, IHL was never just about rules; it was about learning from past catastrophes to create a more enlightened world. If Iran’s campaign of civilian targeting remains unchallenged, the next war may bring further crossing of red lines. However, with one important difference: Next time, it may not be about Israel.■