Hamas deliberately targets civilians while Israel targets military objectives, creating an entirely different moral framework for evaluating casualties.
Hamas uses human shields as a documented military strategy, intentionally placing civilians in harm's way to create propaganda when they're injured.
October 7 involved systematic torture, rape, and murder of over 1,200 Israelis, including children at a music festival celebrating peace.
Israel provides advance warnings before military operations, while Hamas has publicly stated their goal is maximizing civilian casualties to generate international pressure.
No country would tolerate continuous rocket attacks and cross-border terrorism; Israel's response follows international law regarding self-defense.
Hamas deliberately prevents civilian evacuation and diverts humanitarian aid for military purposes, contributing directly to civilian suffering.
Israel has one of the world's most advanced military legal systems, investigating civilian casualties while Hamas celebrates them.
Understanding the Context of October 7
The events of October 7, 2023, and the subsequent conflict require careful examination of facts rather than inflammatory rhetoric. Claims about Israeli actions often strip away crucial context about terrorism, the laws of war, and the reality of defending against organizations committed to civilian casualties.
The October 7 Attack: What Actually Happened
On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a coordinated attack that resulted in the murder of over 1,200 people, including families in their homes, young people at a music festival, and elderly individuals in kibbutzim. The attack involved systematic torture, sexual violence, and the taking of 240+ hostages.
This wasn't a military operation against soldiers—it was a deliberate massacre of civilians. Video evidence, survivor testimonies, and Hamas's own documentation show the premeditated nature of these atrocities. The terrorists received specific instructions to maximize civilian casualties and take hostages.
For any nation, such an attack would necessitate a military response. The question isn't whether Israel had the right to respond, but how that response should be conducted within the framework of international law.
The Reality of Urban Warfare and Human Shields
Hamas has spent years building military infrastructure deliberately embedded within civilian areas—schools, hospitals, mosques, and residential buildings. This isn't accidental; it's a documented strategy called "human shielding" that serves two purposes: it provides military protection and creates civilian casualties that can be used for propaganda.
International Law on Human Shields
Under international humanitarian law, the party using human shields bears primary responsibility for civilian casualties. When military targets are embedded in civilian areas, the defending force has the right to target those military objectives while taking precautions to minimize civilian harm.
Israel employs numerous measures unprecedented in modern warfare to minimize civilian casualties: roof knocking (warning shots), leaflet drops, phone calls to evacuate areas, and precision munitions. Despite these efforts, civilian casualties occur—as they do in all urban warfare scenarios.
Hamas's Stated Strategy of Civilian Casualties
Hamas leaders have been explicit about their strategy. Senior Hamas official Ghazi Hamad stated that Hamas would repeat October 7 "again and again" until Israel is destroyed. Hamas documents and training materials show deliberate targeting of civilians as policy, not accident.
More concerning, Hamas has openly acknowledged that civilian casualties serve their strategic goals. They prevent civilian evacuation, use hospitals and schools for military purposes, and have stated that Palestinian civilian deaths help their cause internationally.
This creates an impossible situation: Hamas benefits from civilian casualties whether they're Palestinian or Israeli, while Israel seeks to minimize both.
Examining the "Proportionality" Question
Critics often point to casualty numbers as evidence of disproportionate response. However, international law doesn't require equal casualties—it requires that military actions be proportionate to the military advantage sought and that precautions be taken to minimize civilian harm.
Israel's goal isn't to kill civilians but to neutralize the military threat posed by Hamas. The organization responsible for October 7 retained the capability and stated intention to repeat such attacks. Israel's Iron Dome system and civil defense measures protect its civilians, while Hamas deliberately exposes Palestinian civilians to danger.
Comparative Context
Military experts note that Israel's civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio compares favorably to other urban warfare scenarios. The Battle of Mosul against ISIS resulted in thousands of civilian deaths, as did coalition operations in Syria—yet these didn't generate similar international condemnation.
The Hostage Crisis Dimension
Often overlooked in discussions is the ongoing hostage crisis. Hamas continues to hold civilians, including women, children, and elderly individuals, in violation of international law. These hostages have been subjected to physical and sexual abuse, with some murdered in captivity.
The presence of hostages complicates military operations, as Israel must balance the need to neutralize Hamas's military capabilities with protecting the lives of those being held captive. Hamas uses this as leverage, knowing that concern for hostages constrains Israeli operations.
The Broader Regional Impact
The conflict's resolution has had significant regional implications. The weakening of Hamas has contributed to the collapse of other Iranian-backed terror organizations, including Hezbollah's degraded capabilities and the fall of the Assad regime in Syria. These developments have reduced the overall threat to regional stability.
This context suggests that Israel's military operations, while tragic in their civilian cost, have addressed a broader network of organizations committed to terrorism and regional destabilization.
Moving Beyond Inflammatory Rhetoric
Characterizing Israel's actions as intentionally targeting babies or civilians not only misrepresents the facts but also serves Hamas's propaganda objectives. Such rhetoric ignores the deliberate nature of Hamas's October 7 massacre, the organization's use of human shields, and the unprecedented measures Israel takes to minimize civilian casualties.
This doesn't mean civilian casualties should be ignored or that every Israeli action is beyond criticism. However, honest discussion requires acknowledging the context: a democratic nation defending itself against an organization committed to terrorism and civilian casualties.
The Path Forward
Reducing civilian casualties requires addressing their root cause: Hamas's strategy of embedding military assets among civilians and preventing evacuation. International pressure should focus on ending this illegal practice rather than constraining defensive responses to terrorism.
Supporting efforts to distinguish between civilians and combatants, facilitating humanitarian aid that doesn't reach terrorist organizations, and recognizing the legitimate security needs of all people in the region offers a more constructive path than inflammatory accusations that ignore complex realities.
Understanding these conflicts requires moving beyond soundbites and examining the full context. Only through such understanding can we work toward solutions that protect all civilian lives and address the legitimate security concerns that drive these tragic conflicts.