Fact Check: Israel was only defending itself since October 7th

Fact Check: "Israel was only defending itself since October 7th"

What We Know

The claim that "Israel was only defending itself since October 7th" refers to the military actions taken by Israel in response to attacks from Hamas, which began on that date. Following the October 7 attacks, Israel declared a "state of war alert" and initiated military operations aimed at eliminating Hamas's capabilities in the Gaza Strip, citing its right to self-defense under international law (source-8). Many nations initially supported Israel's right to self-defense in light of the attacks, which included significant loss of life and damage to property in Israel (source-5).

However, the situation is complex. Israel's military actions have been criticized for their scale and impact on civilians in Gaza, raising questions about the proportionality and necessity of its response. Critics argue that while Israel's initial response may have been justified, the ongoing military operations have led to significant civilian casualties and humanitarian crises, which complicate the narrative of purely defensive actions (source-6).

Analysis

The assertion that Israel was "only defending itself" since October 7 can be seen as partially true. The immediate military response was indeed framed as self-defense against an armed attack, which is a recognized principle under international law (source-8). However, the ongoing military operations have raised ethical and legal questions about the extent of Israel's actions and their justification.

Initial Justification: Israel's response was largely supported internationally after the attacks, with many viewing it as a legitimate act of self-defense. The right to self-defense is enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, which allows for defensive measures in response to an armed attack (source-8).
Ongoing Operations: As time has progressed, the nature of Israel's military actions has drawn scrutiny. Critics argue that the scale of the military response, which has resulted in high civilian casualties and destruction in Gaza, raises questions about whether these actions can still be classified as self-defense or if they have become punitive in nature (source-6).
Legal and Ethical Considerations: The concept of proportionality in self-defense requires that the response to an armed attack must not exceed what is necessary to repel the attack. This principle has been debated in the context of Israel's ongoing military operations, particularly concerning the humanitarian impact on civilians in Gaza (source-8).

Overall, while the initial military response can be justified as self-defense, the continued military actions raise significant legal and ethical questions that complicate the narrative of purely defensive operations.

Conclusion

The claim that "Israel was only defending itself since October 7th" is Partially True. The initial military response to the Hamas attacks was framed as a legitimate act of self-defense and received international support. However, the ongoing military operations and their humanitarian impact complicate the assertion that Israel's actions have remained solely defensive in nature. The situation reflects a complex interplay of self-defense, proportionality, and humanitarian considerations.