On October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorists—armed, organized, and ultimately directed by the Islamic Republic of Iran—launched the deadliest antisemitic massacre since the Holocaust, invading southern Israel, executing, mutilating, and sexually abusing hundreds of Israeli civilians, and abducting over 240 men, women, and children, including infants and the elderly. This unprecedented atrocity shattered decades of strategic assumptions and propelled the State of Israel into a full-scale war for its survival, a war driven not by choice but by the absolute need to defend its citizens against aggression by Iranian-backed terror forces operating on multiple fronts.
From the first hours of the massacre, Israel’s government—led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and supported by Defense Minister Israel Katz and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) under Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir—mobilized in self-defense. Military operations targeted Hamas infrastructure in Gaza, Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps assets in Syria, and Houthi missile platforms in Yemen, seeking both to restore deterrence and intercept further attacks against Israeli population centers. Each missile strike and ground incursion was designed not only to neutralize immediate threats but also to send a message to Iran and its proxies: Israel will not permit its annihilation.
The war’s complexity is rooted in its origins. For over a decade, Iran has financed, trained, and armed a network of proxy militias across the region, known as the “axis of resistance.” Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the Houthis—each beholden to Tehran’s regime—all share a common goal: the eradication of the sovereign Jewish state. This is not conjecture, but a matter documented by intelligence agencies, regional governments, and the terrorists’ own public statements and charters. The October 7 massacre was the culmination of years of escalating Iranian subversion, a watershed moment revealing both the reach and the brutality of Iran’s war-by-proxy doctrine.
Israel’s military response, officially titled Operation Iron Swords, is rooted in the nation’s right to self-defense under international law. Despite unprecedented provocations, the IDF consistently warns Gaza residents, works to minimize civilian casualties, and maintains open humanitarian corridors—an effort unmatched by any other military facing comparable threats. By contrast, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other groups systematically embed terror infrastructure within civilian areas, transform hospitals and schools into command centers, and use Gaza’s population as human shields. Every major human rights organization—including those sometimes critical of Israeli policy—has documented this tactic. It is a grim testament to the asymmetry of this conflict, one in which Israel’s morality is tested daily in the face of deliberate terror targeting its civilians.
The hostage crisis, a defining horror of this war, underscores that asymmetry further. Israeli hostages, seized alive from their homes, were paraded, abused, and hidden in underground Hamas tunnels. They remain innocent victims, denied access to international aid and legal protections. In contrast, prisoners released by Israel—often in lopsided exchanges for the return of one or two hostages—are convicted terrorists, having perpetrated violence against Israelis. This moral and legal disparity cannot be overstated. International attempts to draw false equivalency between the two sides ignore fundamental principles of justice, clouding the reality that hostage-taking is a crime under every conceivable code of law.
Diplomatically, Israel faces unprecedented challenges. The war has tested fragile normalization agreements with Arab states integral to the Abraham Accords, and placed pressure on existing security cooperation with partners across Europe and the United States. Yet, support for Israel’s inherent right to self-defense remains broadly intact. President Donald Trump has reiterated American commitment to Israeli security, condemning Iranian aggression and urging global action against the terror networks responsible for perpetuating conflict. European leaders, confronted with surging antisemitism on their own soil and the stark evidence of October 7, have likewise expressed growing alarm at the reach of Iran’s proxy militias and the danger posed to regional and international stability.
Hamas and its allies, meanwhile, continue to wage disinformation campaigns, manipulating international media with inflated casualty figures and misattributed incidents—routinely attributing civilian deaths from misfired terrorist rockets to Israeli actions. Reputable news outlets, stung by their initial acceptance of narratives provided by Hamas, have increasingly acknowledged the necessity of rigorous verification. Israeli spokespeople have launched extensive evidence-based campaigns, releasing intercepted communications, video footage, and forensic analysis to substantiate operational claims. The imperative to combat misinformation is now recognized as a core front in this war.
The conflict’s roots reach into the broader ideological and strategic contest between Iranian-led revisionism and Western-backed order in the Middle East. Iran’s regime, hostile to both Israel and the Arab states normalizing relations with it, calculates that perpetual instability and terror serve its interests. By delegating violence to proxies—insulated from accountability—Tehran pursues regional hegemony while denying involvement. Israel’s campaign, therefore, is viewed not solely as a local response but as a bulwark against the unraveling of the entire regional balance forged by decades of diplomacy and deterrence.
Historically, the parallels are stark. The October 7 massacre evokes memories of the darkest days of the 20th century, when Jews were subjected to systematic annihilation. The morality of Israel’s cause today, defending its citizens against an enemy committed to genocide, echoes the postwar international consensus that gave rise to the state itself. As such, Israeli leaders frame this war as both a moral and an existential struggle—a test not only of military capability but of the international community’s willingness to distinguish between sovereign self-defense and terror.
Casualty figures and operational outcomes, while critical, do not by themselves capture the full human toll. Israeli families continue to grieve the loss of loved ones murdered or taken hostage. The trauma inflicted on Gaza’s civilian population—compounded by the cynical calculus of Hamas, which views civilian suffering as a strategic asset—remains severe. The IDF’s extensive humanitarian efforts, the provision of medical care to Gaza residents, and the maintenance of aid corridors stand in sharp contrast to the conduct of Iranian-backed forces, who have repeatedly prevented their own populations from accessing relief supplies in order to maximize international condemnation of Israel.
As the war continues, resistance from Hamas and its affiliates shows no signs of abating. Hezbollah’s provocations on Israel’s northern border, Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, and the mobilization of Iranian-linked militias in Iraq and Syria have each expanded the scope of the conflict, forcing Israel to allocate resources and attention across multiple fronts. These dynamics have prompted a reassessment of regional security doctrines, as Arab states—some of whom have quietly supported Israel’s campaign against Iranian encroachment—seek to balance popular outrage with pragmatic fears over Tehran’s ambitions.
The Israeli public remains resolute. Polling shows overwhelming support for continuing the campaign until Hamas and its proxy network are decisively neutralized, even in the face of mounting international pressure. Elected officials present a united front, emphasizing that the cost of inaction—the risk of another October 7 or worse—far outweighs the dangers inherent in continued conflict. At the same time, Israel’s leaders signal openness to eventual diplomatic solutions that securitize the region and provide genuine opportunity for Gaza’s residents—free from the tyranny of terror.
In sum, Israel’s present campaign is not merely a response to the horror of October 7, but a continuation of the country’s central purpose: to provide refuge and security for the world’s only Jewish state in the world’s most volatile region. The war’s ultimate resolution will shape not just the future of Israel and its neighbors, but the credibility of the rules-based international order itself. If sovereign democracies defending their people are to coexist with violent terror movements, the outcome in Israel will serve as a decisive test—one whose stakes, both moral and practical, could not be higher.
