Israel Acts Because It Has No Choice

Ask ordinary people why conflict persists in the Middle East, and the answer is almost automatic. Israel is blamed. Israel is labeled the aggressor. Israel is said to have started it. If you suggest instead that Israel is a nation worn down by decades of unrelenting terrorism, the reaction is disbelief. Many assume you are repeating a talking point rather than stating reality. That reaction is not grounded in facts. It is the product of repetition and narrative. And it falls apart the moment evidence is taken seriously.

Let us begin with what is too often ignored.

Since 1980, there have been thousands of non-suicide terrorist attacks targeting Jews. This excludes approximately 150 to 200 suicide bombings carried out since the late 1980s. It also excludes more than 40,000 rockets launched from Gaza toward Israeli population centers since 2001. These are not sporadic outbreaks of violence. They represent a continuous and deliberate campaign aimed at civilians. The purpose has never been ambiguous. The targets are Jews living in their own state.

Yet the label of aggressor continues to be assigned to Israel.

In 2005, Israel made a significant and painful decision. It withdrew from Gaza unilaterally. Jewish towns were dismantled. Territory was handed over with the hope that it might create space for peace or at least stability. What followed was neither. Armed groups seized control and transformed Gaza into a base for attacks. Rockets replaced diplomacy. Tunnels replaced infrastructure. Civilians in Israel became routine targets. To describe this reality as resistance or self defense is not an honest interpretation. It is a distortion that erases responsibility for deliberate violence against innocents.

Now that Israel responds, the tone of international discourse shifts dramatically — but no sovereign state would accept what Israel has endured. Not over years. Not over decades.

Consider also the narrative that dominated global conversation prior to October 2023. Gaza was widely described as an open air prison. The phrase was repeated so frequently that it became accepted as fact. Yet the data tells a far more complicated story.

In 2022 alone, more than 74,000 truckloads of goods entered Gaza from Israel. These shipments included food, medical supplies, and materials necessary for daily life. Large quantities of industrial diesel were supplied to support electricity production. Tens of thousands of tons of cooking gas were delivered. At the same time, Gaza exported goods outward, with thousands of truckloads leaving the territory, most through Israeli crossings.

Even during periods when rockets were being launched at Israeli cities, these supply routes remained active. Humanitarian aid continued to flow.

This does not resemble the simplistic image of isolation that has been promoted globally. It reflects a far more complex and uncomfortable reality, one that does not fit neatly into slogans.

Media outlets often repeated claims without adequate scrutiny. Advocacy groups amplified selective narratives. International institutions adopted language that obscured rather than clarified. The result was an environment in which violence against Israel was contextualized, while Israel’s responses were condemned.

Over time, this created a predictable pattern. Armed groups learned that initiating attacks would not necessarily lead to universal condemnation. Instead, attention would shift quickly to Israel’s reaction. Civilian areas would be used as shields, knowing that the consequences would generate international pressure on Israel rather than on those who initiated the violence.

The events of October 7 exposed the consequences of this dynamic in the starkest possible terms. Civilians were murdered. Families were taken hostage. Atrocities were carried out with brutality that should have unified global opinion. Yet even in that moment, many voices chose to explain rather than condemn, to rationalize rather than confront.

That instinct reveals a deeper issue within international discourse.

Israel today is engaged in actions that any state would consider necessary under similar circumstances. It is defending its population. It is targeting organizations committed to its destruction. It is confronting networks that extend beyond its immediate borders. Groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah operate with support from actors who seek broader regional destabilization.

This is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of obligation.

History provides a useful comparison. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the international community broadly supported decisive action against those responsible. There was recognition that no government could allow such attacks to go unanswered.

The question then arises as to why this principle is applied inconsistently.

One explanation lies in a persistent double standard. When some nations act in self defense, it is understood as necessary. When Israel does the same, it becomes a subject of dispute. This inconsistency has shaped perceptions for years and has influenced policy, media coverage, and public opinion.

Israel is not seeking approval to exist or to defend its citizens. It is exercising a fundamental responsibility shared by all states. The expectation that it should behave differently, or accept conditions no other nation would tolerate, is neither reasonable nor sustainable.

The essential question remains straightforward. If faced with sustained attacks on its civilians, what would any government do? Would it refrain from action? Would it rely solely on appeals for restraint?

The answer is evident.

Israel’s actions are not exceptional. They are consistent with the basic principle that a country must protect its people.

And that is precisely what Israel is doing.

Sabine Sterk is the CEO of Time To Stand Up For Israel.