When Russia invaded Ukraine, the world largely rallied around Kyiv, recognizing Ukraine’s sovereign right to resist aggression and defend its people. Yet when Israel faces unprovoked and brutal attacks from Hamas—an organization that openly calls for its destruction—many of the same voices who champion Ukraine’s self-defense suddenly demand that Israel exercise restraint or accept its vulnerability. This double standard is not only unjust, but it undermines the very principle of national sovereignty.
The Nature of the Threat
Hamas is not a legitimate governing authority seeking peace; it is a militant group that thrives on terror. Its strategy is not to negotiate or coexist but to maximize civilian suffering—both Israeli and Palestinian—for political leverage. Hamas deliberately launches rockets from densely populated neighborhoods, stores weapons in schools and hospitals, and uses civilians as human shields. The October attacks on Israeli towns were not accidents of war; they were deliberate massacres, targeting families in their homes.
For any nation, the obligation to protect its people is non-negotiable. To argue that Israel must absorb such attacks without response is to deny it the basic right of self-defense that every sovereign nation possesses.
Hypocrisy on the World Stage
When Ukraine arms itself against Russian missiles and tanks, the world applauds. Sanctions are imposed on Moscow, weapons are sent to Kyiv, and countries affirm that standing firm against aggression is a moral duty. Yet when Israel does the same against Hamas’s rockets, tunnels, and kidnappings, countries like China, along with several others, suddenly become “mediators” preaching restraint.
Why? The reasons are often political rather than principled. Some nations see Israel as an extension of Western influence in the Middle East, and so criticizing Israel becomes a way of opposing the United States. Others align with the Palestinian cause for geopolitical or economic gain, ignoring Hamas’s role in perpetuating the suffering of its own people.
But cloaking these political calculations in the language of “humanitarian concern” is deeply misleading. True humanitarianism requires recognizing who initiated violence and who seeks to end it. Condemning Israel while turning a blind eye to Hamas’s crimes is not neutrality—it is enabling terrorism.
The Moral Imperative of Defense
Israel’s military response is not an act of vengeance; it is a necessity for survival. Without decisive action, Hamas will only grow bolder, repeating its atrocities and holding both Israelis and Palestinians hostage to endless cycles of bloodshed.
To demand that Israel stand down while its civilians face rocket fire is to demand that Israel abandon its most basic duty as a state: to protect its people. No responsible government would accept such a demand. Just as Ukraine is justified in repelling Russian forces to preserve its independence, Israel is justified in dismantling Hamas to ensure its security.
Conclusion
A consistent principle must apply to all nations: the right to self-defense is universal. Selectively applying it erodes international law and emboldens aggressors. If Ukraine has the right to defend itself from Russian invasion, then Israel has the right—indeed, the obligation—to defend itself from Hamas.
Countries that deny Israel this right are not champions of peace; they are bystanders enabling violence. True peace will come not from pressuring Israel to yield, but from confronting and dismantling the forces—like Hamas—that thrive on war.
No comments:
Post a Comment