Key figure in Israel’s own ICJ defense denounces latest Gaza operation as unlawful population transfer
A prominent Israeli legal scholar who previously defended his country at the International Court of Justice has now condemned Israel’s latest military campaign in Gaza as a serious breach of international law—going so far as to label it a “manifest war crime.”
Eyal Benvenisti, a heavyweight in the world of international law and a lead figure in Israel’s legal defense against genocide allegations brought by South Africa at the ICJ earlier this year, has co-authored a legal opinion denouncing the Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) current tactics as legally indefensible. His public break comes at a moment when global pressure on Israel is mounting once again.
Former Defender Becomes Harshest Critic
Benvenisti, who directs the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at the University of Cambridge, didn’t mince words in a blistering op-ed published in Haaretz on July 8. He, alongside Israeli legal philosopher Chaim Gans, argued that the policy of ordering Gaza’s population to “concentrate and move” violates basic international protections for civilians in wartime.
Just a few months ago, Benvenisti stood before the ICJ to dispute claims that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. Now, he’s sounding the alarm about the same government’s conduct.
“We are no longer talking about proportionality or military necessity,” Benvenisti wrote. “This is a state-organized attempt to forcibly remove a population under the cover of war. That is a war crime.”
Operation “Gideon’s Chariots” and Mass Evacuation Orders
The tipping point appears to be the IDF’s latest campaign, code-named “Gideon’s Chariots,” launched late last month. It came with sweeping evacuation orders affecting huge swathes of Gaza City and surrounding areas, prompting hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to flee once again—many for the third or fourth time since the war began in October 2023.
One resident described it bluntly: “We’re being told to move like cattle, with nowhere to go.”
Military officials maintain that the operation is aimed at rooting out Hamas combatants. But the evacuation orders were so broad—and so lacking in detail about aid, shelter, or return plans—that legal experts say it’s crossed a legal red line.
Benvenisti and Gans argue this is not just an operational overreach. It’s a deliberate attempt to reshape Gaza’s demographics.
Legal Standards and Where Israel Falls Short
International law does allow for the temporary evacuation of civilians in wartime—under extremely specific conditions. These include imminent danger to the population, guarantees of safe routes, humanitarian assistance, and the right to return once hostilities end.
Benvenisti says Israel has failed on all counts.
“There is no clear mechanism for return, no safe corridors, and no functioning humanitarian infrastructure left in the south,” he wrote. “Instead of providing safety, this operation ensures displacement.”
To break it down, here’s what the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute require:
-
Civilians can only be moved temporarily and for their own safety
-
Aid must be guaranteed, including food, water, and medical assistance
-
The displaced must have the right to return once conditions improve
-
Any policy aimed at permanent removal is a crime under international law
None of these, the legal opinion argues, are being followed in Gaza.
Political Rhetoric Raising Alarm Bells
Making matters worse, high-ranking Israeli officials have appeared to openly support the idea of permanent displacement. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Ya’alon have both publicly floated the notion of “voluntary emigration” for Palestinians in Gaza—a term widely seen as a euphemism for forced transfer.
This rhetoric is fueling concerns that the military operation isn’t just about defeating Hamas, but about reshaping the future of Gaza itself.
One line from Netanyahu, quoted in the op-ed, struck a particularly chilling chord: “We must ensure Gaza is no longer a threat—not just militarily, but demographically.”
Benvenisti called such language “an open admission of intent to commit a war crime.”
Growing International Pressure and UN Responses
The legal opinion has reverberated beyond Israel’s borders. Several UN bodies, including the Human Rights Council and OCHA (Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs), have flagged the latest evacuation orders as a possible violation of international norms.
Meanwhile, diplomats at the UN headquarters in New York are quietly preparing to revisit the ICJ’s interim rulings from earlier this year. The court had ordered Israel to prevent acts of genocide and ensure humanitarian access—measures that critics say are being blatantly ignored.
And that brings us back to Benvenisti.
His public break from the Israeli government is rare and significant. Not just because of his pedigree, but because of what it signals: a growing crack in Israel’s own legal establishment over how the war in Gaza is being waged.
Fallout at Home and Abroad
In Israel, reactions to the op-ed have been predictably divided. Supporters of the current government dismissed Benvenisti as “naïve” or “detached.” But among human rights lawyers, reservists, and some opposition figures, the opinion is being treated as a wake-up call.
One former IDF officer, who spoke anonymously, said: “This is the guy we trusted to speak for us at The Hague. If he’s saying this, we should be very, very worried.”
Internationally, the timing couldn’t be more awkward for Israel. The ICJ is still reviewing evidence submitted by South Africa and other states. A final ruling isn’t expected until later this year, but opinions like Benvenisti’s could shape how the court and global public view the legality of Israel’s war.
What Comes Next?
It’s unclear whether the Israeli government will alter course. But experts say it may now face greater diplomatic isolation and even fresh calls for sanctions or arms embargoes.
And if the ICJ or International Criminal Court (ICC) decides to move forward with legal proceedings based on population transfer charges, this legal opinion could end up as Exhibit A.
In the meantime, the evacuation orders stand. Families continue to pack their bags, move south, and hope they don’t end up sleeping in a tent for the fifth time in a year.
