Remembering October 7
In the heat of the current political season, it is important that October 7, 2023, should be remembered for what happened that day. Three years ago, Iran backed, Hamas-led attackers crossed into Israel, killed about 1,200 people, and took roughly 250 hostages including babies. Yet public discussion of the anniversary often shifts quickly from the victims and perpetrators to sweeping accusations against Israel.
An assault of that magnitude gave Israel a compelling reason to defend its population and seek the hostages return. The harder questions concern the necessity, scale, proportionality, and legality of particular military actions. Critics describe Israel’s campaign in Gaza as genocide. Israel and its defenders characterize it as a defensive war against Hamas, an armed organization operating in a densely populated civilian area. Genocide is a specific legal charge requiring proof of an intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a protected group. Civilian deaths are therefore central to the moral and legal debate, but their number alone does not resolve questions of intent, proportionality, or precautions.
Assessing the campaign also requires careful treatment of casualty figures. Gaza’s reported death toll does not consistently distinguish civilians from combatants and estimates of how many combatants were killed are said to be 25,000. Those uncertainties matter when evaluating the campaign, but they do not diminish the need to account for civilian suffering.
The conditions of the fighting further complicate the analysis. Israel and independent observers have reported that Hamas operated from or near hospitals, schools, mosques, and residential neighborhoods and built an extensive tunnel network beneath Gaza’s cities. Such conduct does not remove Israel’s obligations toward civilians, but it makes urban combat more dangerous and complicates claims that casualty totals alone establish genocidal intent.
Palestinian civilians have suffered under both the war and Hamas’ authoritarian rule. A credible account must acknowledge that suffering is Hamas’ responsibility for initiating the conflict, locating military infrastructure among civilians. The debate over the campaign however should only be one part of the concern. The anniversary itself has become a struggle over public memory.
The dispute extends beyond the conduct of the war to the meaning of the anniversary. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani marked October 7 by briefly acknowledging the Hamas attack before emphasizing accusations of genocide, apartheid, war crimes, and an inadequate ceasefire. His statement that “the suffering did not begin nor end that day” placed the massacre within a broader history. Critics contend that emphasizing that context on the anniversary shifts attention away from Hamas’ responsibility for the attack. He has been roundly condemned by prominent Democrats as a result of his insensitive remarks.
A related pattern appeared in demonstrations. Groups including the Democratic Socialists of America’s youth wing and Students for Justice in Palestine used slogans praising “resistance” while denouncing Israel as the aggressor. At Columbia and UCLA, marchers reportedly chanted that resistance is justified under occupation. In London, protesters called for an “intifada” outside the offices of a major British Jewish organization. These examples matter because language that celebrates undefined “resistance” on the anniversary can reasonably be understood as legitimizing the violence committed that day.
Such rhetoric blurs an important distinction between advocating for Palestinian rights and endorsing violence against civilians. When an anniversary protest praises “martyrs,” celebrates “resistance,” or portrays the massacre as a historic victory, it risks turning remembrance into justification. That concern also places a responsibility on elected officials and political organizations to speak with precision.
The wider political debate is entangled with arguments about Iran, American foreign policy, and media coverage. Those disputes deserve scrutiny, but they should not obscure several core points: Hamas initiated the October 7 attack. Iran has long supported armed groups hostile to Israel. Public officials should distinguish criticism of Israeli policy from language that appears to excuse terrorism or target Jews collectively. When that distinction collapses, political rhetoric can contribute to a climate of intimidation.
The controversy surrounding October 7 has unfolded alongside reports of antisemitic intimidation in academic and political life. A university professor was accused of stalking and threatening a Jewish colleague. This illustrates how political hostility can cross into personal harassment. Florida Democrats Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Jarod Moskowitz, Jewish members of Congress, have been very vocal in the condemnation of the latest wave of antisemitism.
Criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic. Celebrating attacks on Jewish civilians, threatening Jewish individuals, or dismissing antisemitism as merely a political distraction, crosses a different line. Universities, political organizations, and public officials have a responsibility to preserve that distinction.
The ideological conflict exposed by October 7 remains unresolved. Honest remembrance requires holding several truths together. Hamas deliberately attacked civilians. Palestinian civilians have endured immense suffering. Israel’s conduct may be debated without excusing terrorism. Antisemitism must be confronted wherever it appears.
The purpose of remembrance is not to simplify every dispute, but to preserve moral clarity about the deliberate murder and abduction of civilians. Public debate should be unequivocal in rejecting rhetoric that legitimizes the crimes of October 7.