The October 7th attack by Hamas was undeniably an act of war. It involved a large-scale, coordinated assault on Israeli civilians and military targets, which constitutes an armed attack under international law. Israel’s subsequent military response was a legitimate act of self-defense, not the initiation of war. Therefore, while the attack was the catalyst for the escalation, it was Hamas that initiated hostilities, and Israel’s actions were in defense of its people, not the starting point of the conflict.
No one forces you to answer
Ah but well, your quoting me so I feel obliged to be polite and respond! ill also respond to your earlier post now.
Your post is a gem, truly a gem! lets break it down:
1. While the October 7th attack by Hamas was certainly a large-scale, coordinated assault, calling it "an act of war" under international law requires some nuance. Under the UN definition, "war" typically refers to sustained conflict, often between states, and generally involves a declaration of war or a sustained military engagement. Hamas, a non-state actor, launched an attack that can clearly be classified as terrorism, but it doesn’t necessarily meet the formal, traditional criteria for "war" between states. The classification as a terrorist attack rather than an "act of war" is important because international law views terrorism and war differently, especially when one of the parties involved isn’t a recognized sovereign state.
2. Yes, it was a large-scale and coordinated attack, but describing it as an "armed attack" under international law is not the same as calling it an act of war. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, an armed attack against a member state allows for self-defense. However, this does not mean that the attack by Hamas immediately triggers the right for a state to wage war. Israel could respond with military force in self-defense, but this doesn’t mean the actions before were "war" in a formal sense.
3. Israel’s response is indeed framed as self-defense under international law, and Israel has the right to defend itself against attacks. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean the response didn’t escalate the conflict into a full-scale war. The fact that Israel’s military actions were in response to a terrorist attack doesn’t automatically make them a non-initiating act. The scale and intensity of the Israeli response were such that they transitioned the situation from an isolated attack into a broader and sustained military campaign, which can be viewed as the beginning of a new phase of war. The perspective here hinges on whether one sees the initial attack as a catalyst or the turning point where full-scale military operations on both sides defined the conflict as a war.
4. This argument hinges on the premise that the first act of aggression is always the starting point of war. While Hamas’s attack on October 7th initiated a new phase, the broader context of hostilities between Israel and Gaza has existed for years. The violence between both sides has escalated periodically, but Israel’s response has also involved large-scale military operations against Gaza, making it a continuous and evolving conflict. Arguing that Israel’s actions were purely defensive overlooks the fact that Israel’s military operations, such as airstrikes and ground offensives, are not simply reactive—they are often preemptive or part of a larger military strategy that has repeatedly escalated hostilities over the years.
Furthermore, the idea that Israel's actions were only in defense of its people becomes complicated when you consider that many of Israel’s military operations in Gaza have involved targeting Hamas and other militant groups over a range of years. This long history of military operations suggests that Israel’s actions are not purely reactive but part of an ongoing military engagement that has, in many ways, contributed to the current state of war.
5. While the October 7th attack was undeniably a horrific escalation of violence, categorizing it as the sole starting point of the conflict is too simplistic. The long-standing and multi-faceted nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, combined with Israel's own history of military actions in Gaza, means that the situation has always been on the edge of escalation. The attack was a catalyst, but Israel’s own actions, both before and after, contributed significantly to what we now see as a full-scale war. The framing of Israel's response as purely defensive ignores the broader context of sustained hostilities that preceded and followed the attack.
Israel has carried out 1000's of military incursions into Gaza over the last 10 years. these can be, by your loose definition, be construed as acts of war. your hopeless at arguing your point.
oh snap you dont recognize the UN, therefore the definition of war as described probably does not fit your world view. lets put it another way. You are now saying Oct 7th was not a terrorist attack. Your now saying that Gaza (which is not a country) attacked Israel and that this was an act of war. well, again, Israel attacked Gaza on Oct 6th. very hard to get around that. And the Map over the last few decades tells its own story of ethnic cleansing of the people of Palestine.
lets look at it another way :
1. “It involved a large-scale, coordinated assault on Israeli civilians and military targets, which constitutes an armed attack under international law.”
Refutation:
Sure, Hamas' attack on October 7th was a large-scale, coordinated assault on both civilian and military targets, but the same exact description can be applied to Israel's operations in Gaza. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have repeatedly carried out large-scale, coordinated military assaults on Gaza, including its civilian infrastructure, residential areas, hospitals, schools, and military targets. These operations often include airstrikes and artillery fire that do not discriminate between civilian and military targets, leading to high civilian casualties, destruction of vital infrastructure, and a disproportionate impact on Gaza’s population.
Israel’s military operations, such as “Operation Protective Edge” in 2014, and even more recent ones, have been large-scale attacks that can also be framed as “armed attacks” under international law—because they involve a coordinated assault on both military and civilian targets. When Israel targets Gaza’s population in such indiscriminate ways, it raises serious concerns about whether its actions violate international law, particularly the Geneva Conventions regarding proportionality and distinction in armed conflict.
2. Double Standard of "Armed Attack":
When Hamas does this, it's called an "armed attack," but when Israel does it, it's often framed as a "legitimate act of self-defense." This discrepancy in language is critical and reflects a double standard. Both sides have engaged in actions that have harmed civilians, so it’s crucial to hold both parties to the same standard. In fact, the international community often criticizes Israel for its disproportionate military response, as the scale of damage to civilians and infrastructure in Gaza vastly outweighs the threat posed by Hamas.
Key Point to Push Back:
If an assault on civilians is an "armed attack" when Hamas does it, why is it not considered similarly when Israel does it? The same logic should apply across the board: large-scale military actions that harm civilians are violations of international law, whether they're carried out by Hamas or the IDF.
3. Proportionality and Discrimination in Attacks:
Israel's military operations often face criticism for the disproportionate use of force. The idea of "discrimination" between military and civilian targets is one of the core principles of international humanitarian law, and Israel’s repeated bombing of civilian infrastructure in Gaza, such as hospitals, schools, and residential buildings, raises serious concerns about whether they are upholding that principle. This stands in stark contrast to how Hamas’ actions are described, even though both parties have engaged in attacks that harm civilians.
The key argument here:
If Hamas’ actions can be described as an armed attack on both civilian and military targets, then the same description should be applied to Israel's military operations, especially given their scale and the ongoing destruction they cause in Gaza. In the same breath that the international community condemns Hamas for its terrorist tactics, it should hold Israel accountable for actions that also violate international law regarding the protection of civilians.
4. Framing the Narrative:
By only focusing on Hamas’ actions and calling them "terrorist acts" or "armed attacks," we ignore the context of years of Israeli military operations in Gaza, which have, by many accounts, involved widespread violations of international law. The constant framing of Israel's military actions as "self-defense" while Hamas is categorized as an "aggressor" in every instance is not just biased—it overlooks the fact that both sides have engaged in sustained and significant military violence.
In essence, the argument you can make is that Israel’s military operations, especially given their repeated nature and massive scale, parallel the same definition of "armed attack" that Israel is using against Hamas. The international community needs to apply the same standards across the board, without selectively labeling certain actions based on the identity of the perpetrator.