In the chaos and heartbreak of human conflict, animals often become the forgotten victims. The recent Israel-Hamas war and a landmark legal battle in India have thrust the plight of animals—both domestic and stray—into the global spotlight, revealing stories of courage, compassion, and controversy that stretch far beyond the battlefield and the courtroom.
When Israel launched its military response to the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack, few anticipated the scope of its impact on the region’s animals. According to widespread media reports, countless animals fell victim to shelling and bombing, but amid the devastation, stories of extraordinary bravery emerged. Two Israeli citizens, Adam Benett and Yoav Ben David, became unlikely heroes after they rescued more than 600 animals, including 430 dogs, from war-ravaged areas. Their efforts, initially sparked by a simple Facebook post, quickly gathered momentum and led to the creation of Mechaltzim Ve’nehenim, a foundation dedicated to saving animals trapped by the conflict.
One of the most poignant tales involved Mia Leimberg, who, after enduring captivity by Hamas, emerged with her beloved dog Bella still by her side. As reported by France24, their survival story became a symbol of hope for families still awaiting news of loved ones, both human and animal, lost in the chaos.
The Israeli military’s elite canine unit, Oketz, also drew attention for its discipline and unwavering loyalty. Yet, the cost was high: some dogs were killed, while others suffered severe injuries such as lost limbs or blindness from shrapnel. The sacrifices of these animals underscored the often-overlooked toll of war on non-human lives, further reinforcing the saying: “Dogs are man’s most loyal friend.”
As the fighting continued, NGOs like Kelev Tov—meaning “Good Dog” in Hebrew—stepped in to rehome pet dogs that had lost their caretakers. Their efforts ensured that these animals found new families, even as the human cost of the conflict continued to mount.
While these stories unfolded in the Middle East, a different but equally contentious battle was brewing in India, where the fate of millions of stray dogs hung in the balance. On August 1, 2025, the Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognizance of the escalating stray dog issue in Delhi, citing a sharp rise in dog bite cases and rabies-related deaths. The Court’s initial directive was unequivocal: authorities were ordered to vaccinate, sterilize, and relocate all stray dogs in the Delhi-NCR region to shelter homes within eight weeks.
This sweeping order, delivered by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, was seen by many as both impractical and inhumane. It directly contradicted the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, which advocate for the Catch-Neuter-Vaccinate-Release (CNVR) model, a globally recognized method for managing stray dog populations while respecting animal welfare. The Supreme Court itself had previously emphasized the value of sterilization and vaccination, acknowledging the intrinsic worth of every sentient being.
The backlash was swift and widespread. Protests erupted across India, from Delhi’s Azad Maidan to Lucknow’s Eco Garden and Chennai’s public squares. Activists, animal feeders, celebrities, and progressive thinkers joined forces to oppose the Court’s directive, arguing that relocating millions of dogs to shelters was neither feasible nor compassionate. An interim plea was filed, urging the Court to reconsider or stay its order. However, a three-judge bench stood firm, stating: “Everyone who has filed intervention will have to own responsibility.”
Among the most vocal critics was Maneka Gandhi, former Member of Parliament, ex-Minister for Women and Child Development, and founder of People for Animals. In a Hindustan Times article, she called the decision “financially unviable” and “an insensible decision made in anger.” Gandhi pointed out the lack of government-run shelters in Delhi and drew a sobering historical parallel: “In the 1880s, Paris culled dogs and cats in an attempt to eliminate disease, only to face a devastating bubonic plague soon after.”
Despite the uproar, the legal landscape shifted again just days later. On August 11, 2025, the Supreme Court bench reiterated its earlier call for the creation of dog shelters, instructing authorities to start by building a facility for 5,000 dogs. The Court warned of the “strictest action” against anyone obstructing the exercise and demanded a progress report within eight weeks, as reported by PTI.
Yet, in a significant update, the Supreme Court modified its order, directing municipal authorities to return sterilized stray dogs to their original locations—except those afflicted with rabies. The Court stressed the importance of ongoing sterilization and vaccination programs, but added a new stipulation: dogs should not be fed on public streets. Instead, municipal bodies must designate specific feeding spots to ensure public safety and maintain hygiene.
This compromise aimed to balance public health concerns with animal welfare, attempting to reduce conflict between humans and stray animals while allowing effective management of the urban dog population. Municipal authorities across India were tasked with implementing these guidelines, including monitoring the health of stray dogs and establishing designated feeding zones.
Animal welfare organizations welcomed the revised order, noting that returning sterilized dogs to their familiar territories helps maintain their social structure and reduces stress. The approach also aligns with scientific consensus that removing dogs from their territories can lead to ecological imbalances and increased aggression among remaining or newly introduced animals.
The debate over stray dog management in India remains deeply polarized. Supporters of the original relocation order argue that public safety, especially in the face of rising rabies cases, must take precedence, and that unchecked dog populations pose an unacceptable risk. Critics counter that mass relocation or culling is not only inhumane but also ineffective, pointing to international best practices and past failures.
Meanwhile, the stories from Israel serve as a reminder of the resilience and loyalty of animals—and the profound bonds they share with humans, even in times of war. As India grapples with its own challenges, the global conversation about animal welfare, public health, and ethical responsibility continues to evolve. The recent legal developments underscore the complexity of the issue, highlighting the need for solutions that are both compassionate and practical.
For now, the fate of India’s stray dogs hangs in the balance, caught between competing visions of safety and compassion. But if the stories from conflict zones and courtrooms teach us anything, it’s that the struggle for animal welfare is as much about the human heart as it is about the law.
