However valid the claims of oppression, Apartheid, etc., against the Palestinian people, Hamas’s October 7th attack, in which 1,163 Israeli civilians were killed and 252 taken hostage, some of whom, it is alleged, may have been sexually assaulted, do constitute war crimes. As such, the Jus Ad Bellum criteria – International and Moral Laws–governing when States may resort to armed conflict in national defense have been satisfied. That being said, the crimes of October 7th do not provide Israel with blanket justification for its use of any and every means at its disposal even as a response to what it may interpret as an existential threat. There is a profound moral and legal distinction between national defense and national preservation.
However valid the claims of oppression, Apartheid, etc., against the Palestinian people, Hamas’s October 7th attack, in which 1,163 Israelis were killed, many of whom were civilians, and 252 taken hostage, do constitute war crimes. As such, the Jus Ad Bellum criteria – International and Moral Laws–governing when States may resort to armed conflict in national defense have been satisfied. That being said, the crimes of October 7th do not provide Israel with blanket justification for its use of any and every means at its disposal even as a response to what it may interpret as an existential threat. There is a profound moral and legal distinction between national defense and national preservation.
Nor does International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Laws of Armed Conflict, and the International Law of Human Rights (ILHR), sanction acts of revenge or reprisals against civilians and civilian objects. These include “medical or religious personnel, units, transports, or material; prisoners of war; civilian persons or civilian objects; cultural property or places of worship; objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.”