Israel is the only country expected to show 'maximum restraint.'

When children die in Gaza, the world becomes a collective Palestinian parent. But when children are killed in Israel, folks tend to respond with a strange mix of justification and silence.

IDF Chief Herzi Halevi meets with residents of Majdal Shams, a Druze village in northern Israel that is grieving a deadly Hezbollah rocket attack. (photo: IDF/X)

Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.

---

In the wake of a deadly Hezbollah rocket attack that left at least 12 children dead in a northern Israeli town on Saturday, Israel is being advised to show “maximum restraint.”

When children die in Gaza, the world becomes a collective Palestinian parent. But when children are killed in Israel, folks tend to respond with a strange mix of justification and silence.

If only they know that Israel’s enemies deliberately target civilians, including children, whereas Israel goes out of its way to ensure civilian casualties (no less children) are greatly minimized.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres condemned the lethal rocket fire from Lebanon, without mentioning the terror group Hezbollah, calling on all parties to “exercise maximum restraint.”

Never mind that this was Hezbollah’s deadliest attack in Israel since it began fighting the Jewish state on October 8th in what it said was a “show of support” for Hamas and Gaza following the October 7th pogroms in southern Israel.

Anyone who has any knowledge of Middle Eastern geopolitics knows that Hezbollah’s participation in the war started by Hamas was planned ahead of time by their chief sponsor, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Since Israel became a major military power circa 1967, it is more often than not advised to “show restraint” in the face of inhumane attacks (typically terrorism) against it. No other country that has dignity and respect for its borders and people would listen to this advice, for the simple reason that it is self-defeating.

Can you imagine the Americans and Europeans encouraging Ukraine to “show maximum restraint” after being invaded by Russia?

Yet such was the case in the immediate aftermath of October 7th, when U.S. generals flew to Israel to warn the IDF against a ground incursion into Gaza. They tried to scare Israel by “predicting” that it would lose some 20 soldiers per day. The actual number is less than two.

Deceptively, politicians boast that Israel has a “right to defend itself.” What they really mean is: The Israelis can shelter themselves via mechanisms like predictive intelligence and the Iron Dome, but they have far less of a leash to retaliate or attack preemptively — again, advice that no other country would follow.

Indeed, following Saturday’s deadly event, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, “We stand by Israel’s right to defend its citizens from terrorist attacks.” He then stressed that a ceasefire in Gaza was the best way to end the fighting in the north against Hezbollah.

In other words, the pressure is on Israel to agree to a ceasefire that would keep both Hamas and Hezbollah intact in their given positions, which is one of the reasons why these terrorist attacks keep happening. The terrorists have near-impunity, and the onus is on Israel to bear the terrorism. In some circles, they might call this “victim-blaming.”

In these circles, some people do not even refer to Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Iranian proxies as terrorists. They call them “freedom fighters.” The irony is that they cannot possibly be fighting for “freedom” because Islamists are authoritarians to a tee; hence only seven percent of the 49 Muslim-majority countries are classified as “free.”¹

---

The double standard of “restraint” imposed on Israel can be traced back to its history and the geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East.

One of its earliest instances occurred in the aftermath of the Six-Day War in 1967. Israel’s preemptive strike against its neighbors, who were mobilizing for an attack, led to a swift and decisive victory. However, the international community’s response was mixed, with some praising the Jewish state’s military prowess and others criticizing its aggressive tactics.

The 1973 Yom Kippur War further highlighted this double standard. Despite being attacked by Egypt and Syria on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, Israel was still pressured to show restraint in its response.

International organizations like the United Nations also play a significant role in perpetuating this double standard against Israel. Resolutions and statements from the UN often call for both sides to exercise restraint, even when the provocations and aggressions are clearly one-sided. This approach fails to address the root causes of the conflict and instead places an undue burden on Israel to de-escalate.

Media coverage, too, plays a crucial role in shaping public perception and influencing international responses. The portrayal of Israel as an aggressor and its enemies as victims is a common narrative in many media outlets. The media’s focus on the consequences of Israel’s military actions rather than the provocations and threats it faces distorts the reality of the conflict.

Unsurprisingly, Reuters referred to the area of Saturday’s Hezbollah attack as “the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights” and the Associated Press called it “the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights.”

Both characterizations imply that the attack was justified because, in these media outlets’ eyes, Israel does not have legitimacy over the Golan Heights, which it seized following the 1967 Six-Day War. Even though this is exactly what countries do when they win wars. If you don’t want to lose land, don’t start wars. The arithmetic is pretty straightforward here.

---

For Israel, the decision to exercise restraint or take decisive military action involves a complex strategic calculus.

Restraint may be seen as a way to maintain international support and avoid further escalation. However, it also risks emboldening terrorist groups and allowing them to regroup and rearm. A strong military response can deter future attacks, even if it leads to international condemnation and isolation. Any country’s top priority is to keep its citizens safe, not to ensure a pristine “international brand.”

The concept of deterrence has been central to Israel’s security doctrine. By demonstrating the willingness and capability to respond forcefully to attacks, Israel aims to prevent future aggressions. However, this deterrence is undermined when the international community pressures Israel to show restraint, effectively tying its hands in the face of ongoing threats.

One of the most contentious issues in the debate over restraint is the ethical dilemma of civilian casualties. Military actions in densely populated areas like Gaza inevitably lead to civilian casualties, which are used by terrorist groups as propaganda tools. Israel’s efforts to minimize civilian harm, such as warning residents before strikes, are often overshadowed by the images of destruction and loss of life.

This ethical dilemma is compounded by the tactics of terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, which deliberately place civilians in harm’s way to gain a propaganda advantage. The use of human shields and the placement of military infrastructure in residential areas make it difficult for Israel to target combatants without causing collateral damage.

The international community’s calls for restraint often fail to acknowledge this reality, placing an unfair burden on Israel to avoid civilian casualties while ignoring the culpability of the terrorists.

The double standard applied to Israel has broader implications for international relations and the global fight against terrorism. It sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the principles of self-defense and sovereignty. If terrorist groups believe they can provoke a response without facing significant consequences, they are more likely to continue their attacks.

Moreover, the double standard erodes the credibility of international institutions and norms. When the same standards are not applied universally, it creates a sense of injustice and fuels resentment.

For Israelis, the double standard reinforces a sense of isolation and the belief that we must rely on our own strength for security. It also reminds us of former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir’s now-famous quote:

“If we have to have a choice between being dead and pitied, and being alive with a bad image, we’d rather be alive and have the bad image.”

---

1. “Why Some Muslim Countries Are Democracies and Some Are Not.” Bridgewater State University.