Who Won the Gaza War..? A Legal Approach to Responsibility, Loss, and the Collapse of the Legitimacy Standard!

Searching for a "winner" in the Gaza War is a misleading question from the perspective of international law, because armed conflicts are not measured by their military outcomes alone, but by the extent to which the rules of international humanitarian law are respected, legitimate political goals are achieved, and harm to the civilian population is minimized.
According to these standards, the recent Gaza War embodies a model of a legally and strategically failed war, which resulted in severe losses for all parties, without producing a recognized or sustainable victory.

The Palestinian People: The Protected and Violated Victim

Palestinian civilians are classified, under the Fourth Geneva Conventions, as protected persons.
Nevertheless, the Palestinian people bore the brunt of the war, both in terms of human losses and widespread destruction of civilian property and infrastructure.
The nature of the military operations raised serious legal issues related to the principles of distinction and proportionality, which are fundamental pillars of international humanitarian law.
This loss is not only humanitarian but also legal, as it leaves the issue of international accountability open, and holds the international community responsible for failing to fulfill its duty to protect and prevent grave violations.

The Palestinian Cause: Existing Rights and a Stalled Path

Legally, the Palestinian cause has not suffered any diminution in its essence, as the right to self-determination, ending the occupation, and the return of refugees remain fixed rights guaranteed by resolutions of international legitimacy.
However, the war contributed to stalling the political and legal path, and transforming the issue again into a humanitarian relief file, instead of dealing with it as a decolonization issue.
This loss is represented by the marginalization of legal and diplomatic tools in favor of crisis management, a path that prolongs the conflict and does not end it.

Hamas: The Problem of Armed Action Outside the Comprehensive Legal Framework

The war shows that the Hamas movement, despite its continuation as a field actor, found itself in a legal and political dilemma.
The absence of a unified national reference, and the failure to integrate military action within an internationally recognized political strategy, made the movement vulnerable to being held responsible for the human cost, regardless of the legitimacy of resisting occupation in principle.
The loss here is not purely military, but a loss in the ability to transform the legitimacy of resistance into a sustainable legal and political gain.

Israel: Abuse of Power and Limits of Military Superiority

Despite its military superiority, Israel failed to achieve a legal or political victory, as it did not end the conflict, nor did it impose a settlement, but rather faced an escalation in accusations of committing grave violations of international humanitarian law, which may amount to war crimes.
Internally, the war revealed a deep crisis of confidence in leadership and institutions, and externally, it led to the erosion of Israel's legal and moral image, and the widening circle of demands for accountability.
This is a deferred strategic loss, whose effects appear in international legitimacy, not on the battlefield.
Who won then...?!
From a strict legal perspective, no one won. The weaker party paid the highest human price, while the stronger party lost part of its international legitimacy. In contemporary wars, the erosion of legitimacy is more dangerous than the decline of power.
How can losses be minimized...?
Unifying Palestinian political representation within a recognized legal framework.
Subordinating any armed action to national interest calculations and respecting the rules of international law.
Activating international accountability mechanisms instead of merely rhetorical condemnation.

How can losses be compensated?

Legally: by internationalizing violations and prosecuting those responsible.
Politically: by restoring credibility to a solution based on ending the occupation.
Humanitarianly: by reconstruction that ensures human dignity and does not reproduce fragility.
In conclusion: The Gaza War proves that military force, when separated from law, loses its strategic meaning. The real question is no longer who won, but: who has the ability to return the conflict to its just legal path, instead of leaving it hostage to open cycles of violence?