Recent reporting indicates that Washington has urged Israel to adjust its targeting approach in the Gaza Strip and to consider using less powerful munitions to reduce civilian casualties. The New York Times cites conversations with American officials about these concerns.
Several U.S. officials advocate for alternatives to heavy ordinances, suggesting that bombs in the 250-pound class, guided by satellites, could be employed instead of weapons weighing between 1,000 and 2,000 pounds. The aim, as described by those briefed, is to minimize harm to noncombatants while still targeting militant infrastructure and capabilities in Gaza.
According to discussions relayed by the New York Times, officials emphasize that Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza has been identified as a critical focal point by some members of the Israeli Defense Forces. The IDF has previously asserted that factions associated with Hamas operate from tunnels beneath civilian structures such as schools, hospitals, and homes. A senior U.S. official warned that an assault on Al-Shifa could produce high civilian casualties, potentially affecting hundreds or thousands of residents in the immediate area.
The Times notes that several current and former U.S. military personnel have questioned whether civilian safety remains a central priority in the Israeli campaign. This skepticism reflects broader debates about proportionality, collateral damage, and the international norms governing urban warfare in a densely populated region.
Meanwhile, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has articulated what he sees as Israel’s strategic objectives in the ongoing war against Hamas, framing the conflict in terms of national security and security guarantees for Israeli citizens. These statements come amid intense international scrutiny over civilian harm, humanitarian access, and the pace of military operations in Gaza.
Observers describe a high-stakes policy conversation in Washington and allied capitals about how to balance military objectives with civilian protections, and how to communicate those choices to international audiences.The core tension centers on the tension between operational effectiveness against militant networks and the legal and ethical obligations to prevent unnecessary civilian suffering in a densely populated urban area. The discourse also reflects ongoing policymaker concerns about the potential repercussions of different targeting decisions on regional stability, international support, and humanitarian access for the people of Gaza. In this context, officials stress the importance of evidence-based assessments, adherence to international humanitarian law, and continuous risk mitigation when planning or adjusting military actions in a highly complex environment.