Israel’s Use of Heavy Explosives in Gaza City: Context, Impact, and Global Response

The current conflict in Gaza has intensified debates over the methods used in urban warfare, including the deployment of repurposed armored carriers loaded with multiton explosives to demolish sections of Gaza City. In the weeks leading up to a ceasefire, these tactics—together with airstrikes and armored bulldozers—produced extensive destruction across neighborhoods such as Tel al-Hawa and Sabra. An examination of drone footage, satellite imagery, and on-the-ground reporting indicates that hundreds of buildings were razed in a relatively short period, reshaping the urban landscape and prompting wide-ranging domestic and international inquiries about civilian harm, military necessity, and compliance with humanitarian law.

Historical context and strategic rationale

Modern urban warfare has repeatedly confronted militaries with the dilemma of neutralizing hidden threats while protecting civilians. In Gaza, the dense urban fabric, intertwined with civilian residences, schools, hospitals, and commercial districts, complicates any effort to locate and neutralize booby-trapped infrastructure or tunnels used by militant groups. The tactic described involves M113 armored personnel carriers—vehicles originally procured by the United States after the 1973 Yom Kippur War and later mothballed due to limitations in protection—being repurposed to carry and detonate large explosive charges. The blasts, according to experts, were comparable to those from large conventional bombs, with fragment dispersal extending hundreds of meters and rubble distribution reaching up to a kilometer in some cases.

Proponents of this approach argue that it provides a means to neutralize booby-trapped structures and tunnel networks that complicate conventional clearance operations. By detonating explosives within building cores, the aim is to collapse potential fortifications and trap corridors that Hamas or allied fighters may have used for concealment or attack. From this perspective, the method is framed as a necessary measure to reduce danger to soldiers and to prevent booby-traps from remaining viable in the urban environment.

Critics, however, stress that such tactics risk widespread civilian harm and may erode the protections afforded to noncombatants under international humanitarian law. The destruction of civilian housing, schools, and public facilities raises questions about proportionality and distinction. International law requires military actions to discriminate between combatants and civilians and to be proportionate to the military objective. When heavy demolitions affect large blocks of a city, critics argue that even when used to clear booby-traps, the scale of destruction can outpace any concrete military necessity, potentially violating humanitarian norms.

Scale of destruction and regional patterns

Satellite analyses and field reporting indicate that a substantial portion of Gaza City’s built environment was damaged or destroyed in late summer and early fall. In a sample period from September 1 to October 11, reports suggest the destruction of hundreds of buildings within Tel al-Hawa and adjacent districts. In one six-block area of Tel al-Hawa, more than 60 buildings were razed. Broader imagery and civil defense data indicate that a significant majority of structures in the area faced some level of damage, contributing to a broader sense of dislocation across the enclave.

The effect was not isolated to Gaza City. Demolition and destruction tied to the same operational approach extended to other parts of Gaza, including Khan Yunis, Rafah, North Gaza, and Deir al-Balah, with broader assessments indicating that a substantial portion of Gaza’s housing stock had experienced damage or destruction since the onset of intensified operations. The scale of displacement was profound: tens to hundreds of thousands of residents sought shelter with relatives or in temporary camps as infrastructure, utilities, and social services grappled with disruption.

Human impact and personal narratives

Personal stories illuminate the human dimension behind the statistics. In Tel al-Hawa, residents described sudden, devastating destruction—homes and street blocks reduced to rubble within moments of detonations. Some families fled amid warnings and alarms, while others could not escape unscathed. One resident recounted watching multiple detonations in quick succession after evacuating with family members, later discovering extensive damage to neighboring structures and the lingering fear that future blasts could strike again. The psychological toll of repeated warnings, evacuations, and the shock of seeing familiar neighborhoods transformed into ruins is a central aspect of the broader humanitarian crisis unfolding in the region.

Displacement and infrastructure collapse have also disrupted commerce, education, and healthcare. Local businesses, schools, and mosques that previously served as community anchors have been disabled or destroyed, forcing residents to adjust to new routines and limited access to essential services. The collapse of urban infrastructure—water, electricity, sanitation, and transportation networks—compounds the immediate danger faced by civilians and increases the risk of long-term humanitarian consequences if services remain interrupted.

International legal and normative considerations

International observers, legal scholars, and human rights organizations have scrutinized the use of heavily amplified demolitions in dense urban settings. The central legal questions concern whether such methods comply with the principles of necessity, proportionality, and distinction. If a tactic is employed primarily for deterring or destroying booby traps rather than for immediate military advantage, questions arise about whether civilian harm is proportionate to the anticipated strategic gain. Additionally, the absence of transparent, verifiable evidence demonstrating military necessity or pinpoint targeting can complicate assessments about compliance with humanitarian norms.

Experts have emphasized that even in high-threat environments, the recourse to mass destruction of architecture bears a heightened risk of civilian harm and could, in some circumstances, constitute a violation of international law if civilian damage is excessive relative to the concrete and direct military objective. The United Nations and other human rights bodies have urged careful documentation of incidents, independent investigations when possible, and adherence to prohibitions on indiscriminate attacks.

Operational and tactical implications for future conflicts

The Gaza experience highlights several evolving dynamics in contemporary urban warfare. First, the use of repurposed armored vehicles for explosive demolition underscores how militaries may employ nontraditional means to address complex threats within cities. Second, the approach raises critical questions about the trade-offs between speed of clearance, accuracy of targeting, and civilian protection in heavily populated areas. Third, the interplay of airpower, ground maneuver, and improvised demolitions demonstrates the need for robust risk assessment frameworks that can adapt to rapidly changing tactical environments.

For policymakers and military planners, the key takeaway is the importance of clear rules of engagement that safeguard civilians while preserving the ability to neutralize threats. This includes ensuring rigorous oversight, transparent reporting of civilian casualties, and independent mechanisms for reviewing the proportionality and necessity of operations that cause widespread destruction. In addition, humanitarian actors stress the necessity of rapid humanitarian corridors, medical support, and long-term reconstruction planning to mitigate the enduring consequences of intense urban warfare.

Economic impact and regional comparisons

Beyond immediate humanitarian concerns, the economic ramifications of such destructive campaigns are substantial. Gaza’s economy, already constrained by blockade and infrastructural fragility, exhibits further contraction as housing stock deteriorates, utilities fail, and markets shrink. The destruction of commercial corridors, educational institutions, and healthcare facilities disrupts livelihoods, undermining recovery prospects and complicating reconstruction financing. The cost of rebuilding a city with interwoven family histories, cultural sites, and dense housing is immense, and the procurement of materials, labor, and security guarantees will shape the post-conflict economy for years.

Regional comparisons offer context for these dynamics. In other urban conflicts, such as those in parts of Syria or Iraq, the deliberate demolition of neighborhoods has been used as a counterinsurgency or stabilization measure, often drawing international condemnation and calls for accountability. The Gaza situation, with its own unique political determinants and humanitarian considerations, underscores a broader debate about how to conduct urban warfare in a manner consistent with international norms while addressing immediate security concerns.

Public reaction and media narratives

Public reaction to the reported demolitions has been intense, both within the region and globally. Civilians, refugees, and advocacy groups emphasize the urgency of safeguarding noncombatants and preserving essential civilian infrastructure. International audiences have called for independent investigations, access to affected areas for humanitarian relief, and transparent accounting of military operations. Media narratives around urban destruction tend to center on the human cost, the resilience of displaced communities, and the long-term implications for regional stability and the prospects for reconciliation.

Conclusion

The deployment of heavy demolitions within Gaza City, including the repurposed armored carriers carrying multi-ton explosive loads, marks a significant and controversial development in modern urban warfare. While military authorities frame the tactics as measures to counter booby traps and tunnels, the scale of destruction, the displacement of residents, and questions about humanitarian law compliance demand careful scrutiny. As the international community weighs accountability, legal norms, and the protection of civilians, the case underscores the enduring challenge of balancing military necessity with the imperative to preserve human life and infrastructure in one of the world’s most densely populated conflict zones. The path forward will depend on transparent reporting, rigorous legal analysis, and sustained humanitarian engagement aimed at safeguarding civilians while addressing legitimate security concerns.

Follow-up considerations

• Monitoring and verification: Independent assessments of battlefield operations, casualty figures, and structural damage are essential for an objective understanding of events.
• Reconstruction planning: Long-term rebuilding, including housing, schools, and hospitals, requires coordinated international support, financing, and governance to ensure durable recovery.
• Civilian protection frameworks: Ongoing emphasis on humanitarian access, safe corridors, and protection of critical civilian infrastructure will be central to future policy and operational choices.