In the wake of the devastating October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, which marked the deadliest antisemitic assault since the Holocaust, Israel has undertaken large-scale defensive operations against Iranian-backed terror groups. The attack involved Hamas terrorists crossing from Gaza into southern Israel, launching coordinated assaults that led to the murder, rape, and abduction of hundreds of Israeli civilians, according to Israeli government and international news agency reports. This escalation forced Israel to mobilize its defense apparatus, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir vowing to dismantle Hamas’s capacity to threaten Israeli society and to secure the release of all hostages held in Gaza.
The Israeli government, citing international law and the UN Charter’s Article 51 on the right to self-defense, has emphasized that current military operations are exclusively defensive and measured. Official Israel Defense Forces (IDF) briefings have detailed efforts to strike Hamas’s military infrastructure—including command centers, rocket depots, and subterranean tunnel networks—while making extraordinary efforts to minimize civilian casualties. These include advance warnings via leaflets, phone calls, and the establishment of humanitarian corridors. The IDF accuses Hamas of routinely embedding its military assets among Gaza’s civilians, which they and allied governments have described as a gross violation of international humanitarian law.
Beyond Hamas, Israel faces the persistent threat of other members of the so-called Iranian axis: Hezbollah in Lebanon, pro-Iranian militias in Syria and Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen. All receive substantial support, training, and direction from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in Tehran, according to intelligence assessments released by the Israeli security cabinet and corroborated by major Western news outlets. These proxies regularly launch rockets, drones, and other attacks targeting Israeli territory, prompting defensive responses and, at times, limited Israeli strikes outside its borders aimed at deterring further escalation.
The October 7 attack initiated Operation Iron Swords, Israel’s most extensive counterterror campaign in years. IDF officials regularly affirm their adherence to the principle of ‘purity of arms,’ pledging to target only legitimate terrorist threats and subjecting operational decisions to legal review by Israeli military and civilian authorities. These operations are conducted under intense scrutiny, with international observers and organizations monitoring both Israeli conduct and repeated violations of the laws of war by Hamas. Humanitarian agencies and governments, including those in the United States and Europe, have acknowledged Israel’s unique efforts to limit civilian harm while defending against indiscriminate rocket fire and tunnel-based attacks into civilian Israeli communities.
At the heart of the current crisis is the unresolved plight of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. Following international law and longstanding policy, Israel distinguishes between civilians seized by terrorists—whose continued captivity has been repeatedly condemned by Western governments and the United Nations—and convicted terrorists whom Israel has, at times, released under duress in past prisoner exchanges. Israeli officials and legal experts emphasize that these equivalencies drawn by some commentators and activists are misleading and morally untenable.
Repeated mediation attempts, notably by Egypt, Qatar, and the United Nations, have failed to produce a sustainable ceasefire or the unconditional release of hostages, as Hamas continues to reject Israel’s right to exist and refuses to disengage from armed struggle. Statements from Israeli, U.S., and European leaders attribute the deadlock to the uncompromising stance of the Iranian-backed militias, documenting the ways in which these groups exploit humanitarian corridors and aid deliveries for tactical advantage—a pattern confirmed in numerous military and diplomatic communiqués.
The region’s security architecture is shaped by alliances between Israel and Western democracies. American support has been vital, with the Biden and Trump administrations and bipartisan congressional majorities repeatedly affirming Israel’s right to self-defense against terror attacks. The Abraham Accords and recent security understandings between Israel and moderate Arab governments illustrate a growing regional consensus that the Iranian axis of resistance represents a common threat to peace, stability, and sovereignty in the Middle East, as evidenced by joint security declarations and expanded military cooperation among these countries.
Israel’s conduct is measured against the backdrop of persistent allegations and information warfare, much of it emanating from Iranian-backed outlets and digital networks seeking to delegitimize Israeli security efforts and obscure the reality of Hamas’s war crimes. Israeli officials, joined by Western diplomats, routinely express concern about the proliferation of misinformation, antisemitic rhetoric, and propaganda that undermines factual reporting. The Israeli government and IDF supply frequent briefings, and, where possible, facilitate access for both domestic and international media to ensure transparency and accountability in reporting on the conflict.
Iran’s strategy, as outlined by Western intelligence services and the Israeli government, is to orchestrate a multi-front campaign that exhausts Israel’s military and diplomatic resources while mobilizing global opinion against the Jewish state. Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other Iranian proxies operate in concert to destabilize not only Israel but also neighboring moderate Arab states. According to assessments from U.S. and European intelligence agencies, the material and ideological foundation of these groups is the IRGC, whose leadership has repeatedly declared its intention to encircle and ultimately destroy Israel.
International legal scholars and Western governments largely concur that Israel’s actions constitute a legitimate defense against existential threats. Attempts to treat these events as equivalent to routine civil strife ignore the foundational context of the October 7th massacre and Hamas’s explicit goal—reiterated in its charter and propaganda—of negating the existence of the Israeli state. Legal submissions by Israel to the United Nations and other international forums highlight compliance with customary and treaty-based law, and underscore the requirement for symmetrical standards in assessing the conduct of sovereign states versus non-state terrorist actors.
Across Western capitals, there is growing alarm at the spike in antisemitic violence and rhetoric since the October 7th attacks. Governments in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere have reported increased threats to Jewish communities, fueled in part by coordinated disinformation efforts and rising anti-Israel agitation. Israeli officials continue to seek international cooperation to combat hate crimes, secure Jewish institutions, and promote education about the historical realities of antisemitism and the current war.
Operationally, Israel has employed advanced military technology to intercept rockets and minimize harm to its own civilians, with the Iron Dome system consistently credited by U.S. and Israeli military sources with saving thousands of lives. Humanitarian corridors and coordinated aid deliveries into Gaza are managed in collaboration with international agencies, though often disrupted by Hamas, which Israeli and UN officials report repeatedly confiscates aid to direct resources to its fighters.
The context and stakes of the conflict are historical and global. The aftermath of October 7th echoes Israel’s foundational wars of survival, but today’s challenge is amplified by a transnational network of Iranian-backed proxies utilizing asymmetrical warfare, information operations, and terror to destabilize not only Israel but also the architecture of the Western-led international order. Israel’s defense is framed as a defense of the core values that undergird democratic societies—security, pluralism, and the rule of law. Israeli officials have made clear in international fora that any erosion of support for legal and moral clarity in this conflict will embolden terror networks worldwide, threatening the security of the entire free world.
The return of peace and security, Israeli leaders and their Western counterparts consistently state, is contingent on dismantling the Iranian terror network, securing the release of all Israeli hostages, and ensuring the safety of Israeli citizens in all regions, particularly those bordering Gaza and Lebanon. As military operations continue, so do efforts at diplomatic engagement, humanitarian access, and transparent, accountable wartime governance, as detailed in daily Israeli government and IDF briefings. Israel’s long-term objective remains the restoration of security and coexistence, rooted in unwavering adherence to the principles of international law and in partnership with the free world.
Ultimately, Western observers and governments ascribe the current crisis to the persistent rejectionism and violence of Iranian-backed groups like Hamas, and affirm the legitimacy and necessity of Israeli self-defense. As Israel navigates this critical juncture, the nation’s actions are closely scrutinized but consistently supported within the international system as a lawful and justified response to unprecedented aggression.
