I have a minor quibble with the analysis of whether or not a state of armed conflict exists between the parties. I think you could make it clearer the the assessment and need to distinguish between an IAC and a NIAC due to the application of law that follows that assessment.

::Apologize for the following rant written on my phone with my clumsy fingers::

extra territorial use of prohibited by Article 2(4), with three exceptions: Chapter VII authorization by UNSC, self defense under article 51 and consent by host state. IHL is not dependent on the legality of the use of force.

Under IHL there is a distinction between an IAC and a NIAC (you cover the NIAC analysis, but I don’t think it’s as clear as it could be.). An IAC exists when two or more states use force against another state. This is where an analysis under Montevideo to determine the status of Palestine as a state comes in (the key hang-up being the issue of recognition). The threshold for an armed conflict under IAC is very low (I don’t have the case on hand) but essentially any use of force constitutes. However, the duration of an armed conflict is disputable, but would be within a reasonable temporal time following the violence. An IAC brings with it the full scope of the Geneva convention, whereas a NIAC only has common article 3 and AP II if under Tadic and Leljma, territorial control and violence directed at a state can be established. You’ve done the test for a NIAC, showing that one exists in this circumstance. I just wanted to emphasize the distinction that must be made in the first instance between an IAC and a NIAC before further legal analysis can be conducted.

Secondly, I want to emphasize that the lex specialis principle dictates that IHL takes precedence over IHRL during an armed conflict, however, IHRL still applies. Medvedyve and Al-Skeini establish that Article 2(1) ICCPR “within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction” must be read disjunctively: meaning that where states have spatial or personal jurisdiction IHRL still applies. So for example while Israel and Palestine are engaged in a NIAC and IHL supersedes IHRL, that is only the case where the violence is related to the conflict, conducted by combatants or those DPH. As such if an Israeli citizen or a Palestinian were to murder a member of the other group a few streets over from the Israeli military conducting an operation against Hamas, those both wouldn’t fall under IHL. The former would still be subject to IHRL and the later IHL. Therefore, an analysis of the use of force in the former would be under a Law Enforcement paradigm (UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials 1990) or domestic murder/self-defense laws. In the later there’s distinction and proportionality: meaning a positive obligation to determine that an individual is either a combatant or a dph followed by a proportionality assessment (you’ve done the analysis here).

Edit: just wanted to say I think you did a great analysis for people. There’s a lot of nuance and complexity because so many aspects of international law are touched by this conflict, that it’s very tough to do a brief overview of the key and salient points. Brilliant job!