The Question of Proportionality in the Israel-Hamas Conflict: Balancing Self-Defence and Civilian Protection

Abstract The 2023–24 Israel–Hamas conflict has prompted renewed scrutiny of the proportionality requirement in the law governing self-defence. This article explores how jus ad bellum proportionality applies when a state responds to large-scale attacks by a non-state actor embedded within a civilian population. Distinguishing ad bellum from in bello proportionality, it examines whether self-defence is constrained solely by a means-ends assessment or also requires broader balancing of humanitarian consequences. The paper analyses doctrinal debates, state practice, and jurisprudence to clarify the legal parameters of proportionate force. Using the Israel–Hamas case as a lens, it investigates how far a state may lawfully go in seeking to neutralise an ongoing threat, and when military operations may exceed the bounds of lawful self-defence. The discussion contributes to the evolving understanding of proportionality in asymmetric conflicts, particularly where defensive objectives are pursued amid significant civilian harm and contested assessments of military necessity.