The Obstacles to the Implementation and Enforcement of International Humanitarian Law in the Israeli-Palestinian Armed Conflict 2023-2024

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a protracted military and political confrontation that has evolved from the late nineteenth century into the twenty-first century, making it one of the longest-running and most complex conflicts in modern international relations. Despite its longevity and the extensive human suffering it has produced, the international community has repeatedly failed to make a sustained and effective effort to bring the conflict to an end. One clear indicator of this lack of seriousness is the persistent failure to ensure the implementation and enforcement of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian armed conflict. Fundamental principles of IHL, including distinction, proportionality, necessity, and the protection of civilians, have been widely alleged to be violated, yet accountability mechanisms remain weak and largely ineffective. This article seeks to examine why International Humanitarian Law is particularly difficult to implement in the Israeli-Palestinian armed conflict and to identify the key political, legal, and structural factors that hinder its enforcement. Employing a descriptive research design and relying on secondary data sources such as academic literature, United Nations reports, resolutions, and documentation from international humanitarian and human rights organizations, the study analyzes patterns of compliance and non-compliance with IHL by the parties to the conflict. The research does not aim to adjudicate individual violations, but rather to understand the broader international environment that enables recurring violations to persist without meaningful consequences. The findings suggest that multiple, mutually reinforcing factors undermine the application of IHL in this conflict. These include the asymmetry of power between the parties, the politicization of international law, weaknesses in international enforcement mechanisms, and the fragmentation of international consensus. Among these factors, the role of the United States emerges as particularly significant. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council with veto power, the United States has consistently shielded Israel from binding resolutions, sanctions, or coercive enforcement measures. This political protection contributes to a culture of impunity and signals to other international actors the limits of legal accountability in this case. Consequently, International Humanitarian Law in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains more aspirational than operational, raising broader questions about the credibility and universality of IHL in situations where major powers’ strategic interests are at stake.