Honoring Yoni’s Sacred Promise
The situation confronting Israel in Gaza today represents a convergence of legal precedent, moral obligation, and strategic necessity, each reinforcing the need for comprehensive and decisive action. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s consultations with security officials concerning intensified operations in Gaza reflect not merely tactical deliberations but raise fundamental questions of state responsibility under international law, alongside the imperative to protect citizens from systematic starvation and imminent death. This crisis transcends traditional military analysis; it also encompasses debates regarding the legal status of Gaza, the doctrine of self-defense, and the urgent medical emergencies facing hostages whose lives remain at risk with each passing day.
The implications of this crisis extend far beyond the borders of Gaza. Terrorist organizations globally observe carefully, assessing whether Hamas’s explicit strategy of systematic starvation and torture of hostages will be allowed to succeed—and, if so, whether that might serve as a model for future terror operations.
Central to understanding Israel’s current position is the recognition that Gaza does not constitute a sovereign state under international law. The applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to occupation is predicated on the presence of foreign forces in the territory of “a High Contracting Party”—a term that assumes statehood. Article 42 of the Hague Regulations defines occupation as taking place when territory is “actually placed under the authority of the hostile army,” but this requirement specifically pertains to the territory of another state. Gaza’s unique legal status—having never achieved recognized sovereignty or the essential attributes of statehood—places it outside the usual framework of occupation law. This legal distinction significantly impacts Israel’s obligations and its range of permissible actions. The International Court of Justice has reiterated that occupation depends on effective control over the territory of another sovereign entity. Since Gaza does not possess sovereign status, Israel’s activities in Gaza cannot be characterized as the occupation of foreign state territory in the conventional sense.
Instead, Israel’s actions constitute the exercise of security responsibilities in a territory from which coordinated attacks have been launched against Israeli civilians and where hostages are being held under circumstances that medical experts have described as deliberate torture intended to result in death. Israel’s legal position rests not just on technicalities, but on the foundational principles of state responsibility and the right to self-defense. Customary international law recognizes a state’s right—and indeed obligation—to protect its nationals from immediate threats, including those originating in territories that lack recognized sovereign governance. This principle, often known as the doctrine of protection of nationals abroad, is well established in international practice and served as the legal rationale for the Entebbe operation in 1976.
The urgency behind Israel’s evolving strategy is underscored by irrefutable medical evidence regarding the condition of hostages held by Hamas. Recent reports show that hostages Evyatar David and Rom Braslavski each have lost approximately 50% of their body weight, with medical professionals warning of an “immediate risk of death due to deliberate starvation.” An expert report by the Hostages and Missing Families Forum employs stark, unprecedented language, stating that the starvation experienced by these hostages is “reminiscent of the Holocaust”—with some survivors’ body fat percentages having plummeted below the minimum threshold vital for physiological survival.
Dr. Amir Blumenfeld, former head of the trauma division of the Israeli Medical Corps, has emphasized that extended tunnel captivity creates “substantial physical and psychological effects,” damaging all body systems, including cardiovascular, respiratory, digestive, skeletal, and metabolic functions. The medical consensus is consistent and clear: absent immediate intervention, these hostages risk death from the cumulative effects of severe malnutrition, dehydration, and cascading organ failure. Professor Hagai Levine, a senior public health specialist, has declared that “the medical evidence is unequivocal. The hostages in Gaza are experiencing acute, systematic starvation and face a clear and imminent risk of death due to deliberate deprivation. The predictable outcome is the irreversible deterioration of body and mind, culminating in collapse.”
Testimony from former hostage Tal Shoham, who was held with Evyatar David in the same tunnel system, exposes the deliberate nature of the deprivation. While hostages were systematically starved, Hamas guards enjoyed access to air conditioning, cable television, and plentiful food—often appropriated from humanitarian aid shipments originating from Israel. Shoham observed that, while he lost 30 kilograms, the captors’ weight remained stable, providing conclusive evidence that the starvation policy stemmed from deliberate intent, rather than any shortage of resources. This reality significantly alters the moral and legal calculus for Israel’s response.
The time sensitivity of the crisis cannot be overstated. Medical experts and newly released footage both confirm that the hostages’ physical decline is now measured in days, not weeks. Conditions such as the so-called “starved brain”—with dramatically impaired memory, judgment, and impulse control—along with a heightened risk of potentially fatal encephalopathy due to vitamin deficiencies, mean that any further delays will almost certainly lead to irreversible damage or death. Under these circumstances, Israel’s moral and legal obligations to act can no longer be subordinated to diplomatic delay, particularly when Hamas’s track record shows that negotiations will not save lives.
The international ramifications are similarly serious. Torture and starvation of hostages, if left unchecked, could establish a dangerous precedent for global terrorism. Groups such as Boko Haram, ISIS, and Al-Shabaab habitually study successful methods pioneered elsewhere. The use of starvation as a weapon, cumulatively with psychological warfare through propaganda, could become a persistent feature of terrorism worldwide if Hamas is allowed to succeed. The documented adoption of similar tactics by affiliates in Iran’s “Axis of Resistance,” and by groups such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad, illustrates the danger of precedent.
Furthermore, international doctrine underscores the right—and sometimes necessity—of states to act under the principle of self-defense. Article 51 of the UN Charter enshrines an inherent right of individual or collective self-defense, echoing and incorporating earlier customary international law, which recognizes the defense and rescue of nationals abroad as legitimate state actions. In the present case, three critical requirements for such an operation—necessity, proportionality, and immediacy—are manifestly met. The necessity for action is shown by medical evidence of impending death, combined with the proven failure of diplomatic alternatives. Proportionality is satisfied when the use of force is limited to what is strictly required to rescue hostages and prevent further terrorist attacks. The requirement of immediacy is established by the hostages’ medical timeline, where delay risks irreversible harm.
Israel’s obligations, however, extend beyond legal doctrine. The willful starvation and torture of hostages amounts to a form of cruelty universally prohibited by international law, and for which no legitimate justification exists. Only decisive action—aimed both at ending current suffering and at eliminating the infrastructure underpinning such crimes—can meet the moral standards to which Israel, as a democratic state, is committed. Moreover, comprehensive control over Gaza would allow for more effective humanitarian aid distribution, helping civilians while preventing Hamas from misappropriating supplies for military ends.
Taken together, these legal, moral, and strategic considerations form a compelling argument for assuming comprehensive control over Gaza. Continued negotiations while hostages die would amount to a repudiation of state responsibility that neither law nor morality can excuse. More broadly, allowing Hamas’s methodologies to succeed risks sparking their systematic adoption by terrorist groups elsewhere—transforming hostage-taking into a codified, global strategy of prolonged torture. Under these circumstances, assertive action is not merely justified, but necessary.
Honoring Yoni’s Promise: The Moral Continuity
The contemplation of decisive operations in Gaza is not only a matter of strategy or law but also of historical duty. Nearly five decades ago, Lieutenant Colonel Yonatan Netanyahu fell during the Entebbe operation, an audacious and successful hostage rescue that defined Israel’s commitment to its citizens. This established an unbreakable principle: Israel will never abandon its citizens in the face of terror, no matter the cost. Today, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces a comparable test, with the fate of hostages in Gaza echoing the dangers faced at Entebbe.
The parallels are clear. At Entebbe, terrorists sought to undermine Israeli resolve by subjecting hostages to psychological and physical torment, relying on distance and diplomatic obstacles to shield themselves from reprisal. Hamas today operates on similar assumptions in Gaza, betting that the international community’s aversion to military intervention will permit the slow-motion murder of Israeli hostages. In both cases, the fundamental question is whether the state will risk criticism and casualties to fulfill its most basic promise—to safeguard its people.
Operations now being discussed—potentially codenamed “Operation Last Thunder”—thus carry both historic significance and existential weight. Comprehensive action is essential: not only to rescue current hostages and prevent further atrocities, but also to end an ongoing era of vulnerability. Just as “Operation Thunderbolt” proved that Israeli citizens could rely on their state for protection anywhere, lasting security in Gaza would ensure the prevention of future mass hostage crises and terrorist attacks.
The broader importance is as evident today as it was in 1976. Failure to act decisively signals to the world that systematic torture, starvation, and hostage-taking are viable strategies for terrorist movements, bolstering their adoption elsewhere. Conversely, action that breaks this cycle offers a model for moral leadership—demonstrating that free societies will not capitulate to barbarity.
The responsibility Israel faces now is not rooted only in precedent, legal obligation, or humanitarian principles—it is inextricably linked to the legacy forged by Yoni Netanyahu’s sacrifice. The comprehensive operation required to rescue Evyatar David and halt the global spread of Hamas’s torture methodology fulfills a sacred trust. As Operation Thunderbolt showed, Israel will not let complexity or risk excuse the abandonment of citizens to terrorism. In upholding that promise today, Israel affirms the ultimate value upon which all democratic societies are built: the sanctity of innocent life and the unyielding responsibility to defend it—even when such duty demands immense sacrifice.
