Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel attributed responsibility for harm to civilians in the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian movement Hamas, and he did so in the context of a broader international debate sparked by critical remarks from French President Emmanuel Macron about the Israeli military operation in the Palestinian territories. The exchange occurred in a setting where world leaders were weighing the seriousness of civilian casualties against the stated aims of combat operations. The statement circulated through multiple news agencies, including TASS, and underscored the political fault lines shaping responses to the Gaza situation.
In his remarks, Netanyahu drew a provocative comparison by linking Hamas to the Islamic State, the internationally banned organization known for extreme violence. He argued that the two groups share a pattern of brutality and announced that the responsibility for civilian suffering in Gaza lies with Hamas-Islamic State, rather than with Israel. The prime minister asserted that Israel has consistently sought to minimize civilian harm and has urged residents to evacuate danger zones, while accusing Hamas-Islamic State of taking steps to prevent mass displacement and to weaponize civilians as shields.
Netanyahu contended that Hamas-Islamic State commits crimes against humanity through the detention of captives, including women, children and elderly individuals, and by turning schools, mosques and hospitals into operational bases for terrorist activity. He claimed these practices violate international norms and warned that the violence witnessed in Gaza could echo across major cities worldwide if unaddressed, suggesting a direct link between regional hostilities and global security concerns. The statement called on world leaders to condemn Hamas-Islamic State actions and to recognize a shared responsibility in protecting civilian lives in conflict zones. (attribution: TASS)
Supporters of Netanyahu’s position argued that the civilian toll in Gaza reflects the deliberate human-cost strategies of the militant group rather than the restraint of the Israeli military. Critics, however, emphasized the complexity of urban warfare, the difficulty of distinguishing combatants from civilians, and the urgent need for humanitarian corridors and credible protections for civilians. The exchange highlighted the broader diplomatic tension surrounding Israel’s right to defend itself while pursuing minimal civilian harm, a balancing act that has become a central focus of U.S., European Union, and United Nations diplomacy.
The political discourse occurred amid a spike in violence after thousands of Hamas fighters infiltrated Israel from the Gaza Strip on October 7, triggering a severe escalation. Reports indicated a large number of hostages had been captured, complicating rescue efforts and international negotiations. In response to the incursion, Hamas announced the initiation of Operation Al Aqsa Flood, while Israel declared a state of war. The Israeli Defense Forces described their operation, named Iron Swords, as aimed at disrupting Hamas capabilities and severing its command and control structures. Actions taken by Israel included extensive airstrikes targeting locations believed to be associated with Hamas, along with measures intended to disrupt supply lines and essential services in the Gaza Strip. (attribution: TASS)
The conflict also featured a decision by Israel’s national security leadership to restrict critical resources to the Gaza Strip, including water, food, electricity and fuel, in an effort to degrade Hamas’ operational capacity. This approach drew varying responses from international observers, who weighed the effectiveness of such tactics against potential humanitarian consequences. Analysts noted that the current cycle of violence has deep roots in decades of conflict and remains susceptible to changes in regional alignments and international diplomacy. In this broader context, One of the reasons the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has periodically intensified is the struggle over land, security, governance, and national identity—a nexus that continues to shape decisions on both sides of the question. (attribution: TASS)
Related posts:
Timeline of the Israel-Hamas conflict through late 2023 and early 2024 War Erupts Across Israel and Gaza: A Roundup of Events and Reactions revised article on the Gaza ceasefire and Operation Dawn Escalation in Gaza-Israel Conflict: Preemptive Strike, Retaliatory Attacks, and Regional Tensions One Year On: Israel and Gaza Revisit Unity, Division, and War Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and the Path to Gaza’s Future Palestinian Islamic Jihad: An overview of the second-largest militia in Gaza {“title”:”Rewritten Article on Palestinian-Israeli Security Developments and Detentions”} Hamas Seeks International Oversight and Aid for Gaza Crisis { Israeli Air Campaign Targets Hamas in Gaza Amid Reports of Civilian Impact Gideon Levy on Israel, Gaza, and the Limits of War