Introduction: The Gendered Costs of Armed Conflict

Armed conflict often deepens pre-existing inequalities, subjecting women to multiple, overlapping vulnerabilities. In the Israel–Palestine war, women face extreme gender-based harms: the use of sexual violence as a strategic tool of warfare aimed at further marginalization of community, ethnic cleansing and intimidation of the rival group, and the collapse of vital health, social, and economic infrastructure. Reports show Israeli forces systematically employed sexual, reproductive and other forms of gender-based violence against Palestinians. Women, children and newborns in Gaza already bear the heaviest burden of casualties. With hospitals shelled and shortages of food and medicine, women become the primary caregivers for displaced families. International humanitarian law calls for the protection of all civilians without discrimination and specifically prohibits sexual violence as a war crime. As Justice Hilary Charlesworth notes, Israeli occupation measures give rise to “multiple and intersectional discrimination” disproportionately affecting women and girls.

This article investigates the prevalence of gendered vulnerabilities in armed conflict, such as economic marginalization, sexual violence, and the burden of care-giving.  It subsequently examines the legal framework that applies in cases of occupation, evaluating the protections that are owed to civilians who are either displaced from or residing in occupied territories.

Where Sexual Violence may be a Weapon

Armed conflict creates a devastating impact on all sections of the society, however the harms suffered by women often acquires a distinct dimension characterized with disproportionate violence. While women suffer from the consequences of war that impact civilians at large, they are also subjected to gender-based violence which intersects with their ethnic, political and socioeconomic vulnerabilities resulting in layered victimization of women. The violence against women during armed conflict is not merely a result of the brutality of war but also the ingrained structural inequalities of the society.

During times of conflict, the sexual violence inflicted on women exemplifies how their bodies are transformed into strategic tools of warfare. Violence such as rape, forced pregnancy and sexual slavery are not just incidental effects of battle but are often calculated tactics which are intended to terrorize communities and erode communal identity of oppressed communities. Women are specifically targeted because they are perceived as symbols of continuity and reproducers of the collective. The aim of such violence towards women therefore serves the larger aim of dishonoring families, destabilizing communities and redrawing ethnic boundaries. In the 1990s, sexual violence against women was used as a tool of ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia and as a tool of genocide in Rwanda. In the former case, marginalized women representing a specific ethnic group were intentionality impregnated through rape; in the latter case, Tutsi women were systematically raped by HIV-infected men recruited specifically for the purpose of removal of an entity by the Hulu-led government. Further, recently during the Russia-Ukraine crisis, the UN special representative on sexual violence Pramila Patten, called the use of sexual violence by Russian forces a “military strategy” being used as a “deliberate tactic to dehumanise the victims”.

In each case, women’s bodies were inscribed with violence in order to shatter the integrity of whole communities, making the assault operate on personal, cultural, and political levels.

Invisible Burdens: Care-giving, Hunger, and Structural Inequalities

In addition to women’s bodies being used as a tool of warfare, women suffer in subtler yet equally pernicious ways during armed conflict. While sexual violence often dominates discussions of women’s wartime experiences, the structural violence embedded in daily survival such as care-giving burdens, hunger, healthcare deprivation, constitutes an equally devastating dimension of gendered harm. The collapse of family structures during wartime, and the absence of male wage earners leave them with the disproportionate responsibility of survival of the family as well as care-giving. The vulnerability of women is often exacerbated by their reproductive responsibilities due to the increased risk of maternal mortality, malnutrition, and deprivation of basic healthcare. Further, resource scarcity, which impacts the entire population at large, often impacts women more indiscriminately as social norms dictate that men eat first which ensures that during times of conflict women’s hunger and suffering are magnified.

Therefore, during times of war, women undergo layered victimization due to their gender identity along with the oppression they face due to their ethnic and sociopolitical identity leading to a phenomenon of intersectional discrimination. This phenomenon of intersectional discrimination and compounded harm suffered by women, is also highlighted in Justice Charlesworth’s separate opinion as discussed in the following section. By foregrounding these non-sexual forms of violence, this analysis moves beyond mainstream feminist approaches that emphasize statist responses to sexual violence, and instead aligns with social, anti-war, and anti-imperial feminist perspectives that interrogate the deep structures from which all forms of subordination stem.

Intersectional Discrimination in International Law

In its advisory opinion on the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared the continued presence and settlement activity of Israel as unlawful. Justice Hilary Charlesworth gave a separate declaration on the discriminatory effect of Israel’s measures on women and children. She criticized the single axis analysis by the Court while recognizing the illegal differential treatment of Palestinians. She emphasized that while recognizing such differential treatment it is pertinent to take into account the compounded harm suffered by women stemming simultaneously from their Palestinian identity and their gender. Therefore, Justice Charlesworth highlights a rather unconventional lens of looking towards war. Traditionally, we gauge war from the lens of a battlefield, destruction, monetary impact and so on and so forth. However, in the current situation in Palestine, she emphasizes on the suffering of Palestinian women by virtue of Israel’s control and/or security policies in Palestine.

In furtherance of the same, Charlesworth explicitly details the impact of Israeli occupation on women. The prioritization of water and infrastructure for Israeli settlements over Palestinian communities puts a disproportionate burden (para. 56) on women and girls who are primarily responsible for household care and hygiene, and have an additional need for water for such privacy and hygiene (para. 71). The gross violence against women further marginalizes the privacy needs of Palestinian women. Palestinian women are now even more economically exposed as a result of the decline of the agricultural sector which has disproportionately impacted employment opportunities of Palestinian women (paras 72-73) and the discriminatory residence permit policies (para. 78). These policies lead to economical and social  deprivation such as access to healthcare, education, agricultural income and increased care-giving burden. Moreover, issues of separation from their husband and/or family lead to loss of spouse-dependent benefits. These issues culminate into fear of reporting abuse, psychological and physical trauma. Many women are also frequently compelled to remain in violent relationships due to these vulnerabilities because they fear deportation or being cut off from their families (paras. 44-45). The underlying reason for the suffering faced by the Palestinian women is simply that either they were not afforded protection from Israel or not provided recourse to justice in areas under Israel’s-control.

The findings of the UN Human Rights Council-appointed International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory are consistent with her viewpoint. Sexual assault, the demolition of women-centric healthcare facilities, and the denial of essential services are a few examples of the systemic and intentional gender-based violence against women that the Commission found. According to the study, gendered violence is not just accidental harm caused by conflict, but also intentional actions committed as instruments of oppression.

When taken as a whole, Justice Charlesworth’s statement and the Commission’s conclusions demonstrate the complex suffering that women endure throughout war. Charlesworth introduces the idea of intersectional discrimination by acknowledging that political affiliation, gender, and race are not the only axes along which prejudice occurs. Because of this awareness, unfortunately, in case an armed conflict ever takes place, international humanitarian law must develop a body of jurisprudence protecting women that takes into account the additional suffering that women in conflict endure. Such a step would uphold the principle of proportionality where civilian suffering is minimal. Considering that the violence Palestinian women experience is a purposeful convergence of gendered and ethnic oppression rather than just a byproduct of war is important.

The Legal Framework of Protection under IHL

The legal framework under international humanitarian law provides an additional layer of protection to women  (“especially protected”) during an armed conflict apart from qualifying as “protected persons” under Article 4 of Geneva Convention IV. This additional layer of protection extends to all forms of sexual violence (war crimes such as rape, forced prostitution, and any other form of indecent assault), care of expectant mothers and mothers of young children. Considering the Israel-Palestine conflict classifies as an armed conflict where Palestinian land is under occupation of Israel, the said laws are still applicable, obligating States to protect the status of women.

Israel is a party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and is bound to uphold GC IV protections for Palestinian civilians in occupied territory. Article 27 of Geneva Convention IV provides “Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.” This prohibits sexual violence and degrading treatment as grave breaches of international humanitarian law. Similarly, women are accorded special ‘respect’ and protection under Article 76 (1), Additional Protocol I, particularly against rape, forced prostitution and other forms of indecent assault.

Although Israel has not ratified Additional Protocol I, its military and courts often acknowledge customary international humanitarian law. For instance, Israeli laws prohibit soldiers from committing rape or indecent assault. These acts are punishable under Israel’s Penal Code and Military Justice law.

Moreover, expectant mothers and young children shall be provided granted additional care, food and medical supplies (Art. 16, 17 and 23 of Geneva Convention IV). Most importantly, Art. 28 of Geneva Convention IV prohibits using any protected person as a “human shield” against military targets. In 2005, Chief Justice Aharon Barak of the Israel High Court stated that it is illegal  for the army to Palestinian civilians as human shields, even if it was seemingly “voluntary”.

Israel has also ratified human rights treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which obligate it to protect women’s rights. The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3318 (XXIX) states that in accordance with these human right treaties, women and children living in “occupied territories shall not be deprived of shelter, food, medical aid or other inalienable right”.

Even for States not party to the Additional Protocols, Israel’s legal obligations are reflective of Rule 93 of Customary International Humanitarian Law (CIHL) which states that “rape and other forms of sexual violence are prohibited” in both international and non-international conflicts.

Conclusion

These examples underscore that conflict harms women will be overlooked unless policymakers and courts adopt an explicitly gender- and intersection-sensitive lens. Analysts warn that mainstream approaches often “lack consideration of intersectionality” and default to a “white, hetero-normative, able-bodied” perspective. While IHL forbids discrimination and sexual violence, its protections only work when grounded in women’s lived realities. An ICRC analysis notes that IHL’s obligations are “best realized when parties…consider the daily reality of men, women, boys and girls being affected differently”. Justice Charlesworth similarly highlights the “multiple and intersectional discrimination” that occupation policies impose on women. Embedding such an intersectional perspective into the Geneva Conventions and related treaties is essential if the law’s promise of protection is to become a reality for women in war- ensuring that rights from protection against sexual violence to support for caregivers reach those who need them most.

---

Tasneem Fatma and Krishangee Parikh are final-year law students at the National Law University, Jodhpur, India.

---

Picture Credit: History/Getty Images