The application of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in relation to the situation in Gaza has been subject to significant debate and criticism.

Pillar I Failure: Israel, as the occupying power, is generally considered to have a primary responsibility to protect the population in Gaza under international law. Critics argue that Israel has not fulfilled this duty, particularly in light of the blockade, military operations, and the impact on civilian life, which some describe as collective punishment or even war crimes. Palestinian authorities, including Hamas, also bear responsibility for civilian protection, but their capacity has been severely limited by the political and economic situation.

Pillar II Ineffectiveness: The international community's role in assisting states to protect their populations has been notably weak in the case of Gaza. There has been a lack of effective international pressure or aid to empower local governance structures to protect civilians. Assistance has often been politicized, with aid blockades, restrictions on movement, and economic sanctions all impacting the ability to build capacity for protection.

Pillar III Non-Application: The most significant critique regarding R2P in Gaza is the failure or reluctance of the international community, particularly the UN Security Council, to invoke collective action for protection. Despite widespread documentation of civilian casualties, destruction, and humanitarian crises, decisive collective action has not been taken. The geopolitical interests of major powers, including vetoes by permanent members of the Security Council, have historically blocked resolutions aimed at enforcing R2P in this context.