ABOUT THE ARTICLE This article identifies the rules of international humanitarian law that have a bearing on the Israeli offensive in Gaza. It first of all attempts to establish whether or not Israel remained an Occupying Power after its disengagement from the Gaza Strip in 2005. If due to the control Israel continued to exercise over border crossings, electricity and water supplies and the like, Israel is found to be de facto in occupation of Gaza, the Hamas responses would qualify as a war of liberation, which in terms of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 is governed by the laws and customs applying to international armed conflicts. Firing rockets into civilian regions in southern Israel constitutes acts of terrorism. There is a body of opinion that maintains that strategies of terror violence are legal/legitimate if embarked upon by freedom fighters. The writer does not share that view. Hamas conducted its military operations from within a civilian environment. Some analysts maintain that this in itself amounts to the crime of using a human shield to protect oneself from a military attack. That oversimplifies the issue. A human shield requires the use of specific persons (children, prisoners of war, United Nations personnel) to protect the military target and is constituted by an intent requirement (mens rea) that requires more than merely operating from within a civilian environment. Putting civilians in harms way is nevertheless an offense in its own right. Hardships caused by the Israeli border control measures do not amount to “an armed attack” that would justify militant self-defense action by Hamas. The Hamas offensive can at best be tested against the law relating to reprisals, i.e. countermeasures (if Israel is not an Occupying Power in the Gaza Strip) or belligerent reprisals (if Israel is found to be de facto in occupation of the region). In both instances, attacks against civilians are prohibited. In terms of Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, Israel had every right to defend itself against the rocket attacks. But the right to self-defense is not a license to kill. International humanitarian law required Israel to estimate the loss of civilian lives and injuries, and the destruction of or damage to property, which might ensue from an attack, and to refrain from executing the attack if those harmful consequences would not be justified in view of the overall military advantage anticipated in consequence of the attack. The article cautions against seeking a solution to the problems of the Middle East through armed intervention and instead proposes peace efforts through meaningful, sincere and effective mediation.