Understanding the Justification of Israeli Airstrikes on Gaza

The recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Gaza, particularly after the Sederet 10 attack on October 7, 2023, has led to significant debates about the justifiability of Israeli military actions. The attack by Hamas resulted in substantial civilian casualties, bombings of Israeli cities, and widespread destruction. This article explores the context, the actions taken, and the justifiability of such military interventions.

Contextual Background

For months, Hamas continuously attacked Israel using thousands of rockets and carried out terrorist activities. On October 7, 2023, Hamas intensified its operations by sending approximately 3,000 militants into Israel, resulting in the deaths of about 1,200 civilians and the kidnapping of 253 more. Thousands of rockets were fired into Israeli territories, causing significant damage and loss of life. The lack of global media coverage regarding these escalating conflicts has led to a general unawareness of the situation, even among pro-Israel allies.

The Sederet 10 Attack and Response

The Sederet 10 attack, which began on October 7, 2023, was a significant escalation in the conflict. With reports of over 1,200 civilians killed, including children and the elderly, and thousands more wounded, the Israeli government imposed a full military response to neutralize Hamas's capability to launch further attacks.

Arguably, the actions taken by the Israeli military are considered "assault" by some. However, for those who have lived through the constant threat of rocket attacks, the sentiment is quite different. The repeated attacks have forced civilians to seek shelter regularly, leading to significant distress and fear. The global media's lack of coverage exacerbates the issue, leading to a misperception of the scale and severity of the conflict.

Justifiability of Military Action

The question of whether the use of military force against Gaza can be justified arises from a context where Israel perceives itself under constant attack. The justification is often based on the principle of self-defense, a core tenet of international law. Here are some key points to consider:

The principle of proportionality: The military response should be proportional to the threat. The scale of the response must match the scale of the threat.

The rule of distinction: Civilians must be protected from harm, and military operations must be directed at legitimate combatants.

The prevention of further attacks: The military action aims to prevent further civilian and military casualties by neutralizing the enemy's capabilities.

Moreover, the actions taken by the Israeli government are part of a broader context of regional conflicts, where proxy wars and ideological battles complicate the situation. However, even within this context, the justifiability of military action remains a subject of intense debate.

Consequences and Implications

Currently, the Israeli government is focused on demonstrating strength and forcefulness in response to the Hamas attack. This is a strategic move aimed at winning back support from the Israeli public amid growing criticism and calls for restraint. The government seeks to create a narrative that portrays their actions as defensive and necessary to protect the state.

The consequences of the Israeli airstrikes on Gaza are far-reaching. They exacerbate the humanitarian crisis, leading to displacement, destruction of infrastructure, and ongoing vulnerability for civilians. The long-term implications include potential further escalation of the conflict, international sanctions, and ongoing diplomatic issues.

Conclusion

The justifiability of Israeli airstrikes on Gaza is rooted in the perception of self-defense against a persistent and violent threat. However, the actions have wider implications and consequences that need to be carefully considered. As the situation continues to evolve, the international community and the global media play crucial roles in ensuring that the voices of affected civilians are heard and that the principles of international law are upheld.

Keywords: Israeli airstrikes, Gaza conflict, humanitarian crisis, justifiable military action, proxy wars