On the Immunity of Hospitals in Gaza: A Reply to Lederman

Abstract

Zohar Lederman critically assesses the special protections afforded to hospitals under international humanitarian law, arguing that the conditions for revoking immunity are overly permissive and fail to safeguard medical facilities. Framing his argument within a conventionalist approach—where legal norms reflect historically refined moral principles—he neglects a central requirement of conventionalist ethics: explaining how such laws and conventions acquire normative authority. This omission produces internal inconsistencies that render his conclusions unpersuasive and risk making strategically significant military operations morally impermissible. Furthermore, a restrictive interpretation of civilian immunity may create perverse incentives, encouraging rogue actors to exploit civilian infrastructure and exposing the very patients that these protections aim to shield to greater harm.