Toofan Al-Aqsa Operation " al - aqsa storm " as one of the prominent examples of contemporary asymmetric conflicts, presents new dimensions regarding the legitimacy of the use of force in international law and Islamic jurisprudence. This article, employing a descriptive-analytical approach and a comparative method, examines the legitimacy of this operation within the framework of "self-defense" in public international law and "defensive jihad" in Islamic political jurisprudence. The central research question is whether Toofan Al-Aqsa Operation, considering the ongoing occupation and aggression, meets the criteria for self-defense stipulated in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. The research findings indicate that, given the continuation of armed attack, the violation of the right to self-determination, and the absence of effective non-violent solutions, invoking self-defense in this case is arguable in terms of the criteria of necessity and proportionality. Additionally, an examination of the jurisprudential foundations governing defensive jihad—such as the prohibition of oppression, the defense of Islamic territory, and the protection of the oppressed—demonstrates that armed resistance against sustained occupation is considered legitimate within the framework of Islamic jurisprudence. So Toofan Al-Aqsa Operation can be analyzed as a case of interaction and overlap between the rules of international law and the jurisprudence of defensive jihad in the context of asymmetric warfare.