Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Israel faces an existential security challenge from militant actors in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran who have explicitly rejected its right to exist and have launched direct attacks—most notably the October 2023 Hamas assault that killed over 1,200 Israelis and took hostages. Proponents of Israeli military action argue that dismantling these threats is a legitimate exercise of self-defence under international law and that military operations deliberately target combatants and militant infrastructure, not civilians. They contend that Israel, like any sovereign nation, has the right to pursue operations against groups engaged in terrorism and must work to recover hostages and prevent future attacks.

The case against

The scale of civilian casualties in Gaza—over 73,000 deaths according to health authorities—raises fundamental concerns about proportionality and compliance with international humanitarian law, which requires that military response be proportionate to the threat faced and that civilian lives be protected. Critics argue that collective punishment through siege conditions, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and mass displacement cannot be justified by security concerns and that these methods violate the laws of war. They further contend that Israeli settlement expansion and occupation policies undermine the possibility of Palestinian statehood and self-determination, perpetuating a cycle of conflict rather than addressing its root causes.