I heard a discussion around that last night on NPR
This is not what i heard, but covers similar ground.
Listen to: What does international law say about Israel-Hamas war -
Hamas violating the laws of war (indisputable) does not give Israel the right to do so in response. There are disputes as to whether Israel has yet violated these laws, but it seems likely.
Hamas did not exist in 1967 [but whatever happened in 1967 or earlier is hardly breaking news]. In any case, it is not supposed to matter who is “more at fault” or “who started it” when it comes to protecting people not taking part in the hostilities.
The argument isn’t based on tit for tat “you violated laws of war so we get to” revenge logic. The argument is that a building with civilians in it is not protected by the laws of war if used by Hamas for combat operations; in fact engaging in military operations out of a protected location such as a hospital is in and of itself a war crime, and so Israel is not guilty of war crimes if they bomb a building from which Hamas’s actions removed protection.
I think the bottom line is that the rules or law were not designed to make it impossible to win a war - if they were, nobody would have signed them. They were intended to temper the excesses of war, not to affect the outcome.
The encirclement is the easy part. IDF forces have been moving through mostly open terrain with armored vehicles and have not yet entered urban areas to any great extent. Urban areas will be a great leveller and the terrain that best suits the irregular forces of the Hamas fighters. It remains to be seen to what extent IDF forces will attempt to enter Gaza City or whether they will instead lay siege to it.
Not concrete news per se, but the Israeli government has announced that the latest round of ceasefire negotiations has failed. Also, that the IDF is preparing to clear Rafah [of enemy forces and organized resistance] next.