When the right to exist becomes a test to be passed
From the October 27 elections to the Gaza conflict: the international double standard, political responsibility, and a people’s right to its own security.
The international climate in which these elections took place was anything but favorable.
What stood out was not only the intensity of the reactions sparked by the vote, but above all the meaning that part of the Western political and media debate ultimately attached to it.
Newspaper headlines, commentary, and statements by political figures helped turn a democratic election into something that seemed to go far beyond an assessment of political platforms, alliances, and the government’s responsibilities: a sort of moral examination to which the entire Israeli population was being subjected.
Israeli voters did not seem to be asked merely to account for their political preferences, but almost to prove, through their vote, that they deserved recognition from the international community.
As though an electoral choice, however questionable it might appear to those observing it from the outside, were enough to put not only a government, but an entire society and, ultimately, the country in which it lives, on trial.
Naturally, in a democracy, government decisions are legitimately subject to criticism, just as those of any other state are.
But there is a substantial difference between challenging a policy and turning a judgment on that policy into a collective condemnation; between demanding accountability from those who wield power and assigning an undifferentiated sense of guilt to an entire people; between criticizing Israel for its decisions and continually calling into question the legitimacy of its very existence.
It is precisely in this shift that the problem becomes apparent. In Israel’s case, the boundary between political criticism and judgment based on identity often seems particularly fragile.
Government decisions end up becoming, in public discourse, a lens through which Israelis as a whole are interpreted; and political responsibility, which should be individual and specific, risks turning into collective responsibility.
This is a mechanism that deserves careful scrutiny, especially when applied to a state whose existence continues to be challenged in ways that do not take the same form or reach the same intensity elsewhere.
From this perspective, the uproar surrounding the elections is not just about Israel. It raises a broader and more painful question: how Jewish identity continues to be perceived around the world.
A condition that, all too often, seems to come with an obligation to provide explanations, justifications, and proof of legitimacy that other peoples are not asked to provide with the same insistence.
The result is the impression that Jews, and Israelis in particular, are being subjected to an additional burden: not merely the common obligation of every citizen and every society to answer for their choices, but also the obligation to continually prove that they are morally worthy of recognition by others.
As though the right to belong to a national community, defend its interests, and aspire to security were not a right to be exercised in accordance with common rules, but rather a precarious privilege, subject to relentless external judgment.
But what response should Israel have given?
There is one aspect of this situation that deserves to be brought back to the center of the debate, because it too often seems to disappear behind the portrayal of Israel’s subsequent military operations: what happened on the Israeli front after October 7, 2023.
The Hamas attack did not end on the morning of that tragic day. Alongside the massacre, the incursions into residential communities, the abductions, and the taking of hostages, there was a continuous missile offensive against Israel.
In the first hours of October 7, according to estimates by the Israeli military cited by the American Congressional Research Service, between 2,500 and 3,000 rockets were launched.
In the first three days, according to statements by the Israel Defense Forces reported by CBS News, the number exceeded 4,500.
But what is particularly important to remember is that the launches did not stop in the days that followed. They continued throughout the weeks between October 7 and the beginning of Israel’s large-scale ground offensive, which began during the night of October 26 – 27.
A document from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, updated on November 2, 2023, reported that more than 9,000 rockets and projectiles had been launched toward Israel since the beginning of hostilities.
Let us then ask ourselves a question that should be elementary in any balanced discussion: what response should Israel have given?
Should it have limited itself to intercepting the rockets, continuing to devote enormous financial and technological resources to protecting its population while the armed organizations in Gaza maintained their ability to strike Israeli cities?
Should it have accepted that millions of citizens live under the constant threat of air-raid sirens and are forced to seek shelter?
Or should it have refrained from any attempt to neutralize the military infrastructure and operational capabilities of those who had just demonstrated their willingness to invade its territory, massacre civilians, and take hostages?
The Iron Dome system has represented an extraordinary defensive asset, but not a definitive solution. Every interception requires technology, personnel, resources, and investment.
Above all, the ability to intercept a rocket does not eliminate a state’s right and duty to protect its citizens from the threat that rocket represents.
There is also another factor: the particular geography of the Gaza Strip and the use of military infrastructure and positions in a densely populated territory.
The presence of military targets close to civilian populations creates enormous problems, not only operationally, but also morally and legally.
Indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israeli cities constitute a violation of international humanitarian law; using the presence of civilians to shield military installations constitutes a violation as well.
The Palestinian population cannot be held responsible for Hamas’s decisions, just as the Israeli population cannot automatically be held responsible for the decisions of its government.
Naturally, recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself does not mean granting its armed forces an unlimited license. Israel, too, is required to comply with international humanitarian law: distinguish military targets from civilians, take all precautions that are practically possible, and refrain from carrying out attacks that are disproportionate to the anticipated military advantage.
The legitimacy of self-defense and the legality of individual military operations are separate questions and must be assessed independently.
But this is precisely where the international debate should demonstrate greater balance. Before judging Israel’s military response, it would be necessary to remember the situation that response was intended to bring to an end and the threat that continued to hang over the Israeli population even in the weeks following October 7.
Instead, in part of public discourse, attention seems to have focused almost exclusively on the consequences of Israeli operations, while the security reasons that preceded and accompanied them have gradually disappeared from the overall picture.
The question, then, is not whether Israel should be exempt from complying with international rules: no state can be. The question is whether the right to self-defense, recognized for every country, can also be recognized for Israel without that recognition being interpreted as a preemptive justification for every action it takes.
This is a fundamental distinction. Condemning potential violations of international law is a duty; demanding that a state give up defending its population while it continues to come under armed attack is an entirely different matter.
The Cost of Defense and the Reality of the Attacks
There is another factor that deserves consideration and often remains in the background: the cost Israel has borne to protect its population.
The Iron Dome system, developed to intercept rockets heading toward populated areas and sensitive infrastructure, has been a fundamental component of Israel’s defense.
Not all rockets are intercepted: the system evaluates their trajectories and focuses its interventions on projectiles that actually threaten residential areas or strategic targets.
Every interception entails financial, technological, and organizational costs. There are batteries that must be kept operational, specialized personnel, radar systems, interceptor missiles, and a complex infrastructure that must be ready to function at any moment.
This represents a considerable financial commitment, undertaken to protect citizens from attacks that, in many cases, make no distinction between military and civilian targets.
The financial aspect, however, is not the most important one. The fundamental issue is that a population cannot be forced to regard the daily risk of being hit by rockets as normal.
The protection provided by a missile-defense shield cannot turn into an expectation that the state should abandon any initiative aimed at eliminating the threat.
This does not mean that every military intervention is automatically justified. It means that the context of the attacks must be an integral part of any assessment.
The Question of Double Standards
At this point, the issue broadens and brings us back to the subject with which we began: the way Israel is judged in the international debate.
In the Western world, discussion about the legitimacy of the Jewish state frequently arises even in contexts where one would expect the debate to focus on a government’s decisions, its responsibilities, and the consequences of its actions.
In the United Kingdom, Green Party leader Zack Polanski stated in October 2026 that he did not recognize a right of states to exist, in response to a direct question about Israel.
In the United States, Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed challenged, during a CNN interview, the fact that he was being asked whether Israel had the right to exist, observing that he had never been asked a comparable question about Palestine.
These are different episodes and should not be conflated. Polanski extended his position to all states, while El-Sayed primarily challenged the asymmetry of the question. But both illustrate how much space the question of Israel’s legitimacy occupies in Western political debate.
The question that follows is unavoidable: why is the legitimacy of the State of Israel so frequently turned into an explicit issue in public debate? Why does the Jewish people’s right to self-determination so often seem to require additional proof?
This is not about shielding Israel from criticism, nor about denying the complexity of the political and moral responsibilities that accompany the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On the contrary, it is about asserting a universal principle: the same standards of judgment must apply to everyone.
If a government’s responsibilities cannot automatically be attributed to every citizen, that principle cannot cease to apply when the country in question is Israel.
And if the right to existence and security is a fundamental prerequisite for every people, then in the Jewish case it cannot become an issue to be reconsidered with every crisis, every war, and every election.
An Issue That Also Concerns the Jewish Experience
From this perspective, the uproar surrounding the elections is not just about Israel. It raises a broader and more painful question: how Jewish identity continues to be perceived around the world.
A condition that, all too often, seems to come with an obligation to provide explanations, justifications, and proof of legitimacy that other peoples are not asked to provide with the same insistence.
The result is the impression that Jews, and Israelis in particular, are being subjected to an additional burden: not merely the obligation, common to every citizen and every society, to answer for their choices, but also the obligation to continually prove that they are morally worthy of recognition by others.
As though the right to belong to a national community, defend its interests, and aspire to security were not a right to be exercised in accordance with common rules, but rather a precarious privilege, subject to relentless external judgment.
The problem is not criticism, but its possible transformation into a judgment based on identity. It is not the demand for accountability, but the assignment of collective responsibility.
It is not scrutiny of a government’s actions, but the risk that such scrutiny may turn into a challenge to the very existence of the state.
It is precisely this boundary that deserves careful attention.
The Right to Defend Oneself and the Right to Exist
The international debate surrounding the October 27, 2026 Israeli elections therefore offers an opportunity for reflection that goes far beyond the election results and the fate of the government.
This is not about asking for immunity for Israel, nor about arguing that every decision it makes is necessarily correct. It is about asking that the country be judged according to universal standards, taking into account the entire sequence of events and the responsibilities of all the actors involved.
Israel’s right to defend itself does not erase the rights of the Palestinians. The Palestinians’ right to self-determination does not erase Israelis’ right to security.
Condemning attacks against Israeli civilians must not prevent us from examining the consequences of Israeli military operations for Palestinian civilians. And denouncing potential violations committed by Israel cannot become a justification for denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination.
These are principles that should be inseparable.
Ultimately, this is the central issue that the international debate surrounding the Israeli vote invites us to examine: not Israel’s immunity from judgment, but the universality of the standards by which that judgment is made.
Because when a population is called upon to answer not only for its choices, but implicitly for its very legitimacy, political criticism risks turning into something else.
And the most disturbing question then becomes unavoidable: why does the right of Jews to exist still seem to require proof?
We have discussed this and much more in the accompanying bilingual essay entitled “Israel, the Palestinian Question, and the International Double Standard: Security, Responsibility, and Selective Memory”.
Documentary References for the Historical and Political Sections
1. Congressional Research Service – Account of the October 7 attack and the initial rocket barrages: Rapporto CRS sul conflitto israelo-palestinese
2. CBS News – How the Iron Dome system works and its capabilities: How Israel’s Iron Dome intercepts rockets.
3. Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Timeline and official data on the attacks: Hamas-Israel Conflict 2023: Key Legal Aspects
4. The Guardian – Zack Polanski’s statements on Zionism and the right of states to exist: Article published October 18, 2026.
5. CNN, as reported by RealClearPolitics – Interview with Abdul El-Sayed on the disparity between questions asked about Israel and Palestine: Intervista del 3 luglio 2026.
Attached
Israel, the Palestinian Question, and the International Double Standard
