JERUSALEM — In the immediate aftermath of the October 7, 2023 massacre—the deadliest antisemitic attack since the Holocaust—Israel found itself waging a war of survival imposed by Iranian-sponsored terror networks. The cross-border onslaught by Hamas, meticulously planned and executed with Iranian support, took the lives of more than 1,200 Israelis, primarily civilians. The world watched in horror as accounts and footage surfaced of mass murders, sexual violence, and the abduction of civilians, exposing the genocidal intent of Hamas and its Iranian sponsors.
Israel’s response, Operation Iron Swords, has focused on dismantling Hamas’s terror infrastructure in Gaza, rescuing the hostages, and protecting its borders against further threats from Iran’s regional proxies. The campaign is not only a counteroffensive against Hamas but a clear signal to Tehran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and other aligned groups—including the Houthis in Yemen, Shi’ite militias in Iraq and Syria, and Islamic Jihad—that the Jewish state will defend itself against aggression.
Iran’s Strategy and the Axis of Resistance
Since its 1979 revolution, Iran has consistently aimed to undermine and threaten Israel’s existence. Through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Quds Force, Iran has armed, trained, and funded militant groups tasked with harassing and ultimately destroying Israel. Hamas is just one node in what Iran refers to as the “Axis of Resistance,” a network that includes Hezbollah in Lebanon—armed with more than 150,000 missiles pointed at Israeli population centers—and militias in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.
This network has also used Gaza as a launching pad. Even as Gaza has received international support and humanitarian aid, Hamas and its affiliates have devoted much of these resources towards tunnels, rocket production facilities, and stockpiles of weapons. Intelligence reports and military briefings continually reveal evidence of Iranian funding, technical support, and shipments of advanced munitions that reach Gaza through complex smuggling routes.
The Gaza Campaign: War amid Civilians and Human Shields
Israel insists its conflict is not with Gaza’s civilian population but with the terror infrastructure that has entrenched itself within dense urban communities. Hamas’s battlefield strategy relies heavily on locating command posts, weapon caches, and tunnel networks beneath hospitals, schools, and residential centers, deliberately endangering civilians to maximize the public relations cost to Israel with each operation.
IDF protocols, developed with legal and military experts, dictate the use of precision weapons, warnings ahead of strikes, and extensive efforts to minimize civilian casualties. Nonetheless, the nature of the urban battle space and Hamas’s pervasive use of human shields complicate every operation. Israeli air and ground forces have discovered sprawling tunnel complexes used by Hamas to move fighters, store weapons, and conceal hostages, often directly beneath civilian infrastructure. Israeli officials and international observers have documented numerous cases of humanitarian aid diversion, with resources illicitly appropriated by Hamas operatives.
The Hostage Crisis and Its Moral Implications
The kidnapping and continued holding of Israeli and foreign civilians remain a central issue in the conflict. Hostage releases negotiated with Hamas have required Israel to release convicted terrorists—a morally and legally fraught tradeoff that underscores the difference between Israel’s standards and those of its adversaries. Freed hostages have described conditions of abuse and deprivation, and Israeli investigators have confirmed widespread and systematic use of violence by Hamas, including sexual assault and psychological torture.
Global Antisemitism and the War of Narratives
The war has triggered a surge in antisemitic incidents around the globe. Jewish communities have faced a dramatic increase in hate crimes, threats, and delegitimization campaigns, especially as anti-Israel sentiment has intensified in protests, on campuses, and across social media. Israel’s critics often echo casualty figures and narratives provided by Hamas, despite documented manipulation by the group and consistent use of disinformation.
Israeli leaders have called on the international community to maintain historical clarity: to equate Israel’s defensive operations with the terrorism of Hamas and its backers undermines not only the moral distinction in this conflict but also sets a dangerous precedent for democracies confronting terror worldwide.
American and International Support: Nuances and Dilemmas
The United States has provided strong support for Israel, including emergency military aid, diplomatic backing, and intelligence sharing, stating emphatically Israel’s right to self-defense. Yet the humanitarian toll in Gaza, along with vocal criticism from some European and American politicians, has led to increasing international pressure for ceasefires and humanitarian pauses.
Regional actors have played significant roles in mediating hostilities and the hostage crisis. Egypt and Qatar, leveraging their unique relationships, have helped broker temporary truces and facilitated humanitarian access, though the long-term solution to the enclave’s instability remains elusive. The Abraham Accords—a milestone of Israeli-Arab normalization—demonstrate shared security concerns about Iran’s ambitions, even as Israel’s new partnerships are tested by events in Gaza.
Missile Defense and Preparedness on the Home Front
Israeli society has responded to the war with remarkable resilience, relying on a multi-layered missile defense system including Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow 3. These systems, developed in cooperation with the United States, have protected civilian centers from rocket barrages and limited the loss of life, even as residents in the north and south live under the constant threat of attack.
Military and civil authorities have provided emergency support and psychological counseling for traumatized communities, while ongoing reserve mobilizations have kept Israel on a war footing. Government ministries and local governments have coordinated the delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza, maintaining a commitment to distinguish between civilians and combatants—even at personal and operational risk.
Legal and Historical Context: Distinguishing Combatants from Terrorists
International humanitarian law recognizes the inherent difficulty of fighting terrorist groups embedded in civilian populations. Israel maintains strict rules of engagement, and while civilian casualties are tragic and inevitable in such conflict, they are not analogous to the deliberate targeting and atrocities committed by Hamas. Israeli advocacy groups and officials continue to underline that each Israeli airstrike is informed by ethical, legal, and strategic calculations unavailable to a group whose founding charter openly advocates genocide.
Strategic Goals and the Search for Security
Israel’s declared aims remain clear: destroy Hamas’s war machine, rescue the hostages, and restore lasting security to its borders. Decision-makers and analysts are well aware of the dilemmas ahead: preventing a vacuum in Gaza that could destabilize Egypt’s Sinai and empower further Iranian proxies, while also controlling for regional escalation.
In the longer term, Israeli and international strategists emphasize that the broader war with Iran’s proxies will shape the region for decades. No democracy can tolerate relentless rocket fire, terror tunnels, or the threat of mass murder just beyond its border. Israel’s fight is thus not only about its own security, but about the willingness of the international community to draw and enforce red lines against the forces of terror and antisemitism.
Enduring Moral and Strategic Clarity
This war, born in atrocity, forces both Israel and its global allies to confront fundamental questions: how should a democracy defend itself against terror networks embedded among civilians and supported by hostile states? How can the international system uphold the distinction between lawful self-defense and the war crimes of terrorism? Israel’s challenge is existential, but its response is grounded in historical and legal precedent, professional conduct, and an unyielding commitment to the truth.
