Absolutely, the situation in Gaza and the broader Israel-Palestine conflict indeed brings into sharp relief the challenges of not just following international laws but understanding and applying the underlying principles and intentions of these laws. Here's how this connects:

Purpose of International Law: International law, particularly international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights law, is designed to protect civilians, ensure humane treatment in conflicts, and maintain some semblance of order and justice in international relations. The rules exist to prevent unnecessary suffering, protect non-combatants, and provide mechanisms for accountability.

Understanding vs. Compliance: Mere compliance with the letter of the law without understanding its spirit often leads to actions that, while technically legal, are against the moral or humanitarian intent of the law:

Proportionality and Distinction: Laws of war require parties to distinguish between combatants and civilians, to use force proportionally, and to minimize civilian harm. However, in practice, the application of these principles can be contentious. For instance, the use of force in densely populated areas like Gaza raises questions about whether the actions truly adhere to these principles, not just in legal terms but in their humanitarian impact.

Occupation and Blockade: The legal status of Gaza (whether it's occupied or not) impacts obligations under international law. Understanding these obligations means recognizing the need for humanitarian access, protection of civilian infrastructure, and the rights of the occupied population, beyond just the presence or absence of troops.

Accountability and Enforcement: International law's effectiveness often hinges on enforcement, which requires states to not only follow rules but to understand why they should support mechanisms like the International Criminal Court (ICC) or UN resolutions. The selective application or lack of enforcement in some conflicts can undermine the very principles the laws are meant to uphold.

The Gaza Context:

Human Suffering: The humanitarian impact in Gaza, with significant civilian casualties, destruction of infrastructure, and blockades affecting access to essentials, suggests a disconnect between the application of law and its intended outcomes.

Political Dimensions: The conflict's political dimensions often overshadow legal considerations, leading to interpretations of law that serve political ends rather than humanitarian ones. This includes debates over self-defense, the legality of responses, and the classification of military actions.

Moral Responsibility: There's a moral imperative to look beyond legal technicalities to the human cost of conflict. Understanding why laws exist should compel all parties, including those with influence like major powers, to push for peace, accountability, and protection of human rights.

Global Implications: This situation in Gaza serves as a case study for the international community on the need for a deeper engagement with international law:

Reform and Dialogue: It highlights the need for ongoing dialogue about how laws are interpreted, the need for reform where laws are outdated or ineffective, and the importance of education in international law for all actors.

Cultural and Historical Context: Understanding why laws were created often involves understanding historical injustices, cultural nuances, and the need for laws to evolve with changing global dynamics.

Ultimately, the Gaza conflict underscores that simply adhering to the text of international law without a commitment to its underlying principles of humanity, justice, and peace can lead to outcomes far from what was intended. It's a reminder of the importance of not only knowing the law but understanding its purpose in service of human dignity and rights.