Military, Legal Experts: Israel’s Gaza Campaign ‘Morally Justified and Legally Constrained’

Israel’s military campaign in Gaza is both morally justified and legally constrained, according to retired United States Army major and urban warfare expert John Spencer and human rights attorney Arsen Ostrovsky, who argue that “anyone asking whether Israel’s war was necessary should first understand what they are really asking — and then recognize that the answer, by every standard that matters, is yes.”

On Friday, the two experts published a detailed analysis on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter).

Following Hamas’s October 7 massacre — in which over 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians, were killed and more than 250 kidnapped — Israel launched a large-scale operation in Gaza, citing both moral and legal grounds for war.

Critics questioning the operation’s necessity, including some public figures, fail to distinguish between the two definitions of necessity, the authors argue.

“Since [October 7], there has been no shortage of uninformed actors, like comedian Dave Smith, or malign parties weaponizing international law to question whether Israel’s military actions in Gaza have been proportionate, lawful, and ultimately — whether even necessary,” they write.

“At the heart of that last question lies a critical misunderstanding,” they add.

“Moral necessity,” they explain, stems from just war theory: Force must be a last resort after diplomacy fails. 

“In the case of Israel, the record speaks for itself,” the authors write.

Israel, they note, fully withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and faced ongoing rocket attacks along with rejected peace overtures ever since. Hamas’s brutal assault on civilians, they say, removed any doubt about Israel’s right to act in self-defense.

“Legal necessity,” by contrast, comes from international humanitarian law, which governs how war is conducted. 

Under this framework, military action must achieve a concrete objective, avoid excessive civilian harm, and distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate targets. The IDF, they emphasize, follows one of the strictest legal standards in modern warfare, using legal oversight and real-time evaluations to guide strikes.

“Every Israeli military operation in Gaza is bound by this standard,” they note. “It is not enough to identify a Hamas presence in a building or a neighborhood. To strike lawfully, the target must provide a concrete and direct military advantage, and every feasible precaution must be taken to mitigate civilian harm.”

In addition, Israel’s military attorneys and commanders operate fully within this framework. 

“Target selection, weapon choice, timing of attack, and warning mechanisms are scrutinized in real time,” they explain. “The IDF not only operates under legal necessity — it documents and reviews its actions at a level few modern militaries do, particularly when fighting a terrorist group embedded in a civilian population.”

The authors go on to directly address if the war itself meets the test of moral justification.

“Was the war morally necessary? After October 7th — following the deliberate massacre of civilians, the kidnapping of hostages, and Hamas’s declared intention to repeat those atrocities — the answer is unequivocally yes,” they write.

They then shift focus to the legal framework guiding Israel’s conduct in the ongoing campaign.

“Are Israel’s military operations legally necessary? While each strike must meet specific legal thresholds, the IDF operates under one of the most stringent legal and ethical frameworks in modern warfare. It is bound by the law of armed conflict and has demonstrated an unprecedented commitment to minimizing harm, even while engaging an enemy that hides among civilians and violates every rule of war.”

The authors conclude: Israel’s war against Hamas meets both tests. It was not launched recklessly, but rather in response to an unprecedented terror attack. Its conduct remains under constant scrutiny to uphold legal and ethical obligations — even while facing an enemy embedded in civilian areas.

“A war can be both morally justified and legally constrained,” they write. “Israel’s campaign against Hamas is exactly that.”

“Anyone asking whether Israel’s war was necessary should first understand what they are really asking — and then recognize that the answer, by every standard that matters, is yes,” they add.

The matter comes as critics continue to demand Israel be held to impossible standards when fighting a terrorist organization openly committed to its annihilation and deeply embedded within civilian populations and infrastructure — including schools, hospitals, and residential neighborhoods.

Last month, Spencer explained how shifting battlefield conditions and renewed U.S. support under President Donald Trump provides Israel with “unprecedented opportunities” to dismantle the Hamas terror group once and for all.

Previously, he argued that Israel’s hard-earned military lessons from urban combat against Hamas are informing U.S. military doctrine — enhancing readiness, adapting tactical training, and helping save American lives.

Joshua Klein is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow him on Twitter @JoshuaKlein.