Fact check: Is Israel only going after Palestine to defend themselves against Hamas

1. New Gaza Plans Suggest Goals Beyond Immediate Self-Defense, and What That Implies

Sky News and follow-ups report Israel is backing four anti-Hamas militias inside Gaza with an explicit aim of removing Hamas from power and creating a different governing arrangement, which signals a proactive strategy beyond immediate retaliation ^{[1] [2]}. These reports, published in late October 2025, describe organized efforts to install alternative security actors and suggest Israeli involvement in shaping Gaza’s post-Hamas order. Such actions complicate a strictly self-defense narrative because international law permits force for defense but places limits on occupation, proxy governance and long-term change of control, meaning the backing of militias to effect regime change expands the scope of objectives beyond repelling attacks ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Legal Debate: Necessity, Proportionality and Allegations of Excessive Force

International legal analysts and reports argue that Israel’s conduct in Gaza may violate principles of necessity and proportionality, with allegations of excessive civilian harm and infrastructure destruction that could render some operations unlawful ^{[3] [5]}. Israeli authorities reject extreme allegations and assert legitimate self-defense against Hamas’ attacks, including at the International Court level ^[4]. The legal debate turns on whether continued large-scale operations are strictly necessary to stop imminent threats and whether civilian harm is proportionate to military advantage; published analyses from mid-2025 underline that those criteria are contested and remain central to evaluating whether actions remain within the self-defense umbrella ^{[3] [4]}.

3. Humanitarian Reality: Civilian Harm and the Limits of Military Objectives

Humanitarian reporting shows severe civilian distress in Gaza, with at least 1.5 million people needing emergency assistance and ongoing damage to homes and services, framing a humanitarian cost that critics argue cannot be ignored when judging Israel’s stated defensive rationale ^[6]. The condition of civilians and infrastructure raises questions about whether military operations sufficiently differentiate combatants and noncombatants, and whether the pursuit of tactical goals—like degrading Hamas—has produced disproportionate collateral damage. These facts intensify scrutiny of whether actions aimed at long-term political outcomes are justified under immediate self-defense claims ^{[6] [5]}.

4. Ceasefire Dynamics and the Role of External Actors in Shaping Motives

A fragile ceasefire in October 2025 and active US diplomatic engagement, including Vice-President JD Vance’s visit, illustrate that international pressure and mediation shape both immediate operations and post-conflict plans; the United States has stakes in preserving the truce while warning of consequences if Hamas violates terms ^{[7] [8]}. This external involvement suggests Israeli choices occur within a broader geopolitical context where allies influence tactics and objectives. The involvement of external mediators makes it harder to treat Israel’s actions as isolated defensive acts, as outcomes increasingly reflect diplomatic bargaining and international priorities alongside military aims ^{[7] [8]}.

5. Hamas’ Continued Presence and the Limits of Military Solutions

Analysts in October 2025 note Hamas is weakened but not defeated, retaining control in parts of Gaza not occupied by Israeli forces, indicating that military campaigns alone have limits in entirely eliminating organized groups embedded in civilian areas ^[9]. This reality undercuts a simple narrative that military escalation will conclusively eliminate the threat; it also implies that Israel’s backing of militias and prolonged operations may reflect a strategy that combines force with political restructuring to achieve longer-term security objectives, complicating claims that actions are strictly emergency self-defense rather than part of a broader plan ^[9].

6. Conflicting Narratives and Apparent Agendas Across Actors

Public statements and legal defenses by Israel emphasize self-defense, while media investigations, legal scholars and humanitarian agencies highlight possible agendas—regime change, territorial control, or long-term security architectures—influencing operations ^{[4] [1] [5]}. Different actors advance narratives that align with their interests: Israeli and allied officials stress immediate security needs; rights groups focus on civilian protection and legal limits; regional partners and the US emphasize stability and ceasefire durability. These competing framings should be treated as partially motivated positions that affect how evidence and actions are interpreted ^{[8] [5]}.

7. Bottom Line: Defense Alone Does Not Fully Explain All Reported Actions

Recent, diverse reporting and legal analysis show that while Israel frames operations as self-defense against Hamas, several developments—support for anti-Hamas militias, sustained operations that raise proportionality concerns, significant civilian harm, and political aims for Gaza’s future—point to objectives extending beyond immediate defense. Evaluating whether actions are lawful self-defense requires ongoing legal scrutiny, humanitarian monitoring, and transparency about long-term plans; the available evidence through October 2025 demonstrates a mixed picture that cannot be reduced to a single defensive motive ^{[1] [3] [6]}.