Calling these attacks defense distorts the meaning of the word. Defense implies an immediate threat, a last resort, a response to danger that cannot be avoided. What happened instead was a deliberate choice to strike while negotiations were underway. It was a choice that killed people who believed the fighting had paused. It was a choice that destabilized the talks and pushed the region closer to renewed conflict. No honest definition of defense includes launching new offensives during a declared ceasefire.
These actions also undermine the credibility of the diplomatic process itself. When one side negotiates while simultaneously expanding military operations, it signals that the talks are not sincere. It signals that the goal is not peace, but pressure. It signals that the ceasefire is being used as a tool rather than respected as a commitment. This damages trust, weakens the possibility of compromise, and increases the likelihood of retaliation.
The attacks should be blamed because they were unnecessary, destabilizing, and morally unacceptable. They did not protect civilians. They did not preserve peace. They did not strengthen diplomacy. They shattered the fragile pause that negotiations required and replaced it with fear and anger. Calling this defense is not only inaccurate. It is an insult to the people who paid the price.