Savage Restraint and the Gaza Catastrophe: Revisiting Lessons from the First Intifada

In 2000, I published an article in Social Problems titled Savage Restraint: Israel, Palestine and the Dialectics of Legal Repression. It examined how Israel combined law and violence during the first Palestinian Intifada, showing how legality both restrained and legitimized repression.

Today, as the war in Gaza unfolds, those lessons feel disturbingly relevant.

Law as Restraint, Law as Violence

In my original analysis, I argued that Israel’s legal system was never simply an instrument of justice. Instead, it worked as a paradoxical framework:

• Constraining violence by defining rules of engagement, limits on force, and judicial oversight.

• Legitimizing violence by assuring soldiers, allies, and critics that repression was lawful and measured.

This “dialectic of legal repression” meant Palestinians were rarely subjected to total lawlessness. Yet, they were never shielded from suffering. Legal rules allowed Israel to sustain harsh policies—mass arrests, house demolitions, administrative detentions—while avoiding the appearance of unrestrained brutality.

When Restraint Enabled Repression

During the first Intifada, Israel did not resort to widespread, indiscriminate killing. Instead, military lawyers and judges codified how violence should occur, giving the impression of order and accountability.

Ironically, these rules often strengthened repression. Soldiers, reassured by a legal framework, acted more confidently, using violence that stopped short of causing death. International allies, reassured by Israel’s courts and regulations, accepted the state’s arguments of proportionality and restraint.

In short, law was not a barrier—it was a scaffolding for prolonged control.

Gaza 2023–2025: A Shift Toward Unrestrained Savagery

The Gaza war shows what happens when this balance weakens. Following Hamas’s horrific October 7, 2023, attack, Israeli leaders have spoken less of restraint and more of vengeance. Civilian infrastructure, hospitals, and refugee camps have been struck with unprecedented ferocity.

Legality, however, has not vanished. Military lawyers continue to frame each strike as necessary, citing proportionality and humanitarian law. U.S. and European officials repeatedly point to these justifications when defending Israel. Once again, law functions as cover—even as violence escalates beyond earlier precedents.

Why Law Still Matters

It may be tempting to dismiss law as irrelevant. Yet, Palestinians have long engaged with legal systems: filing petitions, documenting violations, and appealing to international courts. Law has always been both a weapon of the oppressor and a tool of resistance.

Even today, Gaza’s doctors, lawyers, and activists labor to document potential war crimes. International courts remain a symbolic, if limited, battleground.

From the First Intifada to Gaza: A Throughline

The parallels are stark:

• First Intifada: Israel used legal rules to sustain “restrained” repression.

• Gaza today: Rules remain, but the violence has shifted closer to the unrestrained frontier practices I once described in Frontiers and Ghettos: State Violence in Serbia and Israel (2003).

What has changed is the scale and intensity. Gaza has become the place where law is stretched thin and where savagery predominates under legal cover.

Three Lessons

1. Law alone cannot stop violence. Rules can be bent to justify repression.

2. But the law cannot be ignored entirely. Israel still seeks legitimacy through legal discourse. This remains a key arena for international pressure.

3. The paradox persists. For Palestinians and their allies, law remains both a weapon and a shield—never sufficient, yet impossible to abandon.

Conclusion

In Savage Restraint (2000), I described how Israel’s mixture of legality and brutality enabled prolonged repression without total diplomatic isolation. The Gaza catastrophe shows what happens when restraint collapses and savagery takes the upper hand.

Law still matters—but mostly as justification, not protection.

Read More

For a fuller discussion of how these ideas connect to today’s Gaza war, see my Medium essay:

About the Author

James Ron is an author and social scientist. He has taught at Johns Hopkins, McGill (Canada Research Chair), Carleton, and the University of Minnesota (Endowed Chair). His books include Frontiers and Ghettos: State Violence in Serbia and Israel (University of California Press) and Taking Root: Human Rights and Public Opinion in the Global South (Oxford University Press). He now writes at jamesron.org and jamesron.net. To learn more about his writing and scholarship, visit his Google Scholar page or ResearchGate profile.