Recent assessments from experts, including respected members from Israeli NGOs and a genocide scholar, have concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. In response, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refuted these claims. He stated that if Israel aimed to commit genocide, they could have resorted to bombings similar to those in Dresden, but that’s simply not their approach to warfare.
This comparison, referencing the extensive devastation of Dresden during wartime, seems striking. Yet, some argue that Israel’s military actions in Gaza are reminiscent of that destruction. Damage reports indicate that the level of destruction in Gaza is comparable to what was seen in Dresden, particularly in the northern regions.
No matter how one interprets Israel’s intent, the sheer scale of the destruction in Gaza has raised significant concerns regarding violations of international law. The data shows that within the first year of conflict, Israeli operations resulted in almost 60% of all buildings and 70% of residential structures being damaged or destroyed. In the heavily impacted northern governors, damage figures reached as high as 80% of residential buildings.
By July 2025, estimates suggest that as much as 78% of buildings in Gaza have faced similar levels of destruction, mirroring the rates seen in historical conflicts like Dresden. When compared to the aftermath of the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the devastation in Gaza is also alarmingly severe.
The ongoing destruction, essential for civilian survival, also extends to vital infrastructure. Reports indicate that around 94% of health facilities and 84% of water and sanitation resources have been damaged or destroyed during the first ten months of the conflict.
It’s important to remember that such extensive damage cannot be framed as an appropriate exercise of Israel’s self-defense rights. While supporters of Israel argue that the country has a right to defend itself after the attacks by Hamas, this does not allow for indiscriminate actions that violate international principles.
Moreover, Israel must recognize the repercussions of its actions on the people of Gaza. The principles of international law impose bounds that prohibit excessive harm, especially when it comes to civilian populations.
This topic will likely be explored further in upcoming discussions, especially Israel’s approach to the full-scale invasion aimed at dismantling Hamas military capabilities, which many argue is against international standards from the outset.
Israeli officials also knew that their aims would inevitably lead to widespread destruction in Gaza, a reality that should have influenced their military strategy, particularly given the densely populated nature of the area.
The concept of international law isn’t meant to bind nations to ineffective strategies. There are alternatives, as senior military experts from the U.S. have suggested, that could mitigate future threats from Hamas without resorting to excessive force.
However, rejecting these options has resulted in unbearable suffering for the people of Gaza. The conventional justifications for such mass destruction seem outdated, and there is a pressing need for allies of Israel to reconsider their support methodologies.
Ultimately, Israel is facing the consequences of its decisions. The need to eliminate Hamas without infringing upon international laws remains a formidable challenge. The current trajectory of conflict has led to tragic conditions for the civilians in Gaza, and a resolution is desperately needed.
