The Israeli military’s recent airstrike on a crowded beachfront cafe in Gaza has drawn widespread condemnation and raised concerns over the use of heavy munitions in civilian areas. The assailant targeted a very public place, a symbol upon which families and tourists alike relied. In the process, it dropped a devastating 500-pound bomb to do so, killing 24 to 36 Palestinians, including a well-known filmmaker, an artist, a housewife and a four-year-old child. Medical officials said dozens of others were hurt, including a 14-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl.
Eyewitness reports and preliminary investigations indicate that the cafe was multi-storey. The second-story upper deck was open, and the wide, sliding windows on the lower level provided picturesque views looking directly onto the beach. The bomb created a terrible blast wave, hurling shrapnel across an enormous radius. This horrific demonstration underscored the lethal potential of these arms in heavily populated urban areas. Trevor Ball, a weapons researcher at Save the Children, visited the scene and identified critical fragments. By process of elimination, he concluded that the attack was either an MPR500 or an MK-82 bomb.
Dr. Andrew Forde, assistant professor of human rights law at Dublin City University, expressed his dismay at the munitions choice. He opposes the decision because he thinks it poses grave threats. He stated, “When you see a situation where there are heavy munitions being used, particularly [in a] crowded civilian space, even with the best targeting in the world … that will necessarily create an indiscriminate outcome that is not in compliance with … the Geneva conventions.”
After the recent attacks on Israel, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) are highly critiquing what went wrong in their operations. They claim that through aerial surveillance they were able to minimize civilian casualties. Human Rights Watch’s Gerry Simpson directly disputed this assertion. He went on to say the military was aware that the cafe was packed when the strike took place. He noted, “The Israeli military hasn’t said exactly whom it was targeting but it said it used aerial surveillance to minimize civilian casualties, which means it knew the cafe was teeming with customers at the time.”
The use of these munitions has triggered profound moral concerns about the rules of engagement in urban warfare. Marc Schack, an associate professor of international law, remarked on the gravity of the situation, stating, “It is almost impossible to see how this use of that kind of munition can be justified. If you are talking about 20, 30, 40 or more civilian casualties, usually that would have to be a target of very great importance.”
Israel has a history of using other munitions as precision strikes. This case is a huge break from those ingrained customs and habits. The IDF spokesperson defended the choice of weaponry, explaining, “While some targets are suitable for smaller payloads, others may require heavier munitions to achieve mission success – for example, when intending to destroy structures that are built with certain hard materials, large structures, or underground tunnels.”
Most experts believe that the mounting civilian death toll makes it difficult to justify the use of such large explosives at all. Their worries show just how steeped with moral consequences these choices are. Simpson elaborated on this concern: “The military would have known that using a large guided air-dropped bomb would kill and maim many of the civilians there. Firing a weapon as big as that in a packed pedestrian cafe would be utterly reckless. If so, this act would amount to an unlawful, disproportionate or indiscriminate attack and should be investigated as a war crime.
As investigations continue, international observers are urging for accountability in this terrible attack. According to international law, military forces are not allowed to attack when doing so would cause civilian casualties. They can only move forward if the military advantage they achieve is proportional to the civilian harm inflicted. So with such a high civilian death toll, we have to ask if these legal standards are being followed.