With an indefinite ceasefire between Hamas and Israel announced three days ago — brokered by Egypt, Qatar and others — we should look back and reflect on the fifty days of conflict that led to the ceasefire. More than 2,200 Palestinians, mostly civilians — including nearly 500 children — were killed by the Israeli Defense Force. Six Israeli civilians, including one child, and 64 IDF soldiers were also killed.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, claimed that Israel has the “right to defend itself” and therefore, we are to assume, the retaliation against Hamas by the American-funded IDF was justified. 

Here is a curiosity about Netanyahu’s statement: It states the obvious. Of course a nation has a right to self-defense. More penetrating questions are whether this is a case in which Israeli self-defense was justified and whether Israel defended itself justly in accordance with international standards? 

It is clearly the case that Israel had justification to defend itself. But an affirmative answer to the first of the above questions does not entail an affirmative answer to the other. A nation could be justified in defending itself but not be justified in the way in which it defends itself. Imagine if Israel had used chemical warfare or a nuclear bomb to protect its citizens and combat Hamas.

The question should then be whether we have reason to believe that Israel acted according to international laws and standards. Interestingly, this question is hardly, if at all, discussed in mainstream media. Popular discourse takes the general form of supporting Israel and lamenting the loss of Palestinians. The fact that so many Gazans have died is an unfortunate reality of Israel doing what it needs to do — and is permitted to do — to protect itself.

I suggest that this line of reasoning should be discarded. Multiple human rights agencies called for Israel to stop its offensive against Gaza because of human rights concerns. The United Nations voted to investigate Israel on suspicion of war crimes — 29 nations voted “yes,” the United States voted “no” and 17 abstained. Ban Ki-moon, secretary general of the U.N., said that an attack which resulted in the destruction of a school and the death of Gazan children was “a moral outrage and a criminal act.” Amnesty International stated Israel should “immediately cease indiscriminate and other unlawful attacks affecting the civilian population and do everything necessary to ensure [Israelis] uphold their obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law.” 

All of this suggests that Israel did not defend itself in accordance with international standards. It is probable that the IDF committed war crimes and that human rights were violated. Moreover, this is not something new. In an article published last December, Human Rights Watch urged Palestine to join the International Criminal Court “to open the door to justice for serious international crimes committed on Palestinian territory.”

Despite all of this, America has supported Israel both economically and militarily. For example, during the 50-day conflict, the U.S. granted Israel access to stores of munitions even though Obama had “serious concerns” about Palestinian civilian deaths. 

By giving Israel grants and arms, we have become not only complicit in Israel’s criminality but supporters as well. We should condemn, not condone, those countries that violate international law. Stopping funding to Israel is a clear way to say that we will not tolerate its breaking of international law. We should stop funding Israel.