The ongoing conflict in Gaza strip has resulted in significant humanitarian crisis, with civilians often bearing the brunt of violence. This article critically examines the role of IHL in the protection of civilians affected by the armed conflict. The study focuses on key IHL principles, including distinction, proportionality, and precaution, and assesses their application by the parties involved. It employs an analytical and descriptive research methodology. The findings reveal that both Israel and Hamas have committed numerous violations of IHL, including indiscriminate attacks and failure to protect civilian populations. Despite the clear legal frameworks set by IHL, the lack of accountability and enforcement has hindered its effectiveness. The author concludes that while IHL provides a robust legal framework for civilian protection, the political complexities of the Israel-Hamas conflict severely limit its implementation, leaving civilians vulnerable. The research calls for stronger international mechanisms to ensure compliance with IHL and improve civilian protection in the region.

Since the implementation of the disengagement plan in 2005, Israel has alleged that it no longer occupies the Gaza Strip and claimed its right to legitimate self-defence based on Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, including the suffocating blockade imposed there as well as the ‘Cast Lead’military Operation and others. This paper analyzes Israeli’s claim in light of international law and the objective facts taking place in the Gaza Strip resulting from the implementation of the disengagement plan.