Is Israel war rightfull?
Executive summary
Israel invoked self‑defence after Hamas’s October 7 attacks and many domestic and international supporters view its military campaign as a justified response to terrorism and hostage-taking [1] [2]. Opponents — including leading human rights organisations, some states, and legal scholars — argue the scale, duration, and methods of the campaign raise serious questions under jus ad bellum and jus in bello and have led critics to accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing, war crimes, or even genocide [3] [4] [5].
1. The central claim: self‑defence and rescuing hostages
The Israeli government framed the war as an exercise of the inherent right of self‑defence to destroy Hamas and retrieve hostages taken on October 7, and many Israelis and international publics initially supported a robust military response for those reasons [1] [2] [6]. Prominent Israeli and allied commentators insist such steps are necessary for deterrence, preventing further mass-casualty attacks, and securing kidnapped civilians — arguments echoed in pro‑Israel analyses and public polling showing substantial sympathy for Israel’s response [1] [2].
2. The legal and moral counters: proportionality, dual‑use and civilian harm
Legal experts and academics question whether the scale and conduct of operations remain lawful under international humanitarian law, particularly over time, when thousands of Palestinian civilians have died and critical civilian infrastructure has been destroyed; they emphasize that claims about “dual‑use” sites (hospitals, schools) increase civilian risk and complicate proportionality assessments [4] [7]. Some scholars argue that while self‑defence may justify immediate responses, the prolonged scale of operations aimed at eliminating Hamas raises the risk that actions no longer fit self‑defence and could amount to aggression [5].
3. Accusations from human rights organisations and alternative narratives
Human rights groups and some states have publicly characterised aspects of the campaign as ethnic cleansing or even genocidal in scope, a charge Israel and its leaders vehemently deny while insisting their campaign targets Hamas, not the Palestinian people [3] [8]. Critics such as the Arab Center and others argue Israel has failed to provide a legitimate security rationale for many actions and suggest more sinister motives, a position underpinned by documentation of large-scale civilian death, displacement and reiterated by scholars revisiting punitive‑war rationales [9] [10].
4. Domestic and international politics shaping judgments
Assessments of whether the war is “rightful” are heavily shaped by political vantage points: within Israel there are deep divisions between those who see the campaign as morally and strategically necessary and those who view it as excessive or transformative of Israeli politics [6] [11]. Internationally, allies like the United States publicly supported Israel’s early resupply while also urging adherence to the laws of war and at times pressing for ceasefires to protect civilians and facilitate hostage returns [12].
5. Legal ambiguity and the burden of proof
International law offers criteria — legitimate authority, just cause, necessity, proportionality and distinction — but applying them in real time to urban, asymmetric warfare is contested; commentators note that claims of self‑defence and counter‑terrorism do not automatically validate all methods used, and where independent verification of targets and proportionality is impossible, legal and moral disputes intensify [4] [5]. Some observers assert that absent a clear, continuing connection between actions and immediate security needs, the justification weakens and allegations of unlawful conduct gain traction [5].
Conclusion: contested rightfulness, not a settled verdict
Whether Israel’s war is “rightful” cannot be settled as an absolute factual conclusion from the available reporting: there is a clear, widely recognised legal claim to self‑defence and a powerful moral case about responding to mass atrocity and hostage‑taking [1] [2], but there is equally strong evidence and authoritative critique questioning proportionality, civilian impact, and the legality of sustained large‑scale operations — critiques that have prompted accusations of ethnic cleansing and calls for accountability [4] [3] [9]. Ultimately, the question remains contested in law, politics and public opinion, and resolution will depend on impartial investigations into conduct, clearer demonstration that measures are necessary and proportionate, and sustained diplomatic and legal scrutiny [4] [12] [5].