Content warning: This article contains descriptions of violence and mentions of anti-Semitism.

Origins
This is the second article published in The Monitor about the Israel-Hamas war (2023-present). The first was written by Alee Dickey and is available on The Hilltop Monitor’s website or in last semester’s Issue 7 print edition. Dickey does an excellent job of explaining Israel’s rise to statehood. It does not, however, address the rise of Hamas – the other main agent in this conflict. This article will examine the rise of Hamas and its involvement in Palestine.

Maps are critical to understanding this conflict, and this article would not be complete without one. The Monitor has created such a map for this article. For the cartography connoisseurs who are not satisfied with just one map, here are multiple other maps from other news outlets on the subject.

Jewish involvement in Palestine dates from between eighty to three thousand years ago. We have to start somewhere, though, so the scope of this article begins in 1967  with UN Security Council Resolution 242. The resolution came out of the Six-Day War between Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The details of the Six-Day War are beyond the scope of this article. In practice, the resolution demanded “termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”. In part, if this resolution had been adopted, each state in the region would have maintained its recognized borders at that time. UNSCR 242 did not include a specific list of states, but the UN’s website implies that Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Israel would have been included.

This resolution was not legally binding, however. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), then the recognized government of Palestine, initially rejected Resolution 242. According to the PLO, Resolution 242 implied Israel’s “sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence,” which the PLO would not accept.

Later, though, the PLO became more open to input from the international community. In 1988, the PLO began talks with the US government shortly after the start of the First Intifada. Intifada is an Arabic word that literally means “shaking off [Israeli invasion],” although the term can also be used to generally refer to revolutions or revolts. Around this time a group now known by an acronym, Hamas (short for Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-Islāmiyyah, which translates to English as “Islamic Resistance Movement), split from the PLO. In 1993, the PLO signed the Oslo Accords, which, among other things, called for a two-state solution via “arrangements for a smooth and peaceful transfer of authority from the Israeli military government and its Civil Administration to the [PLO].” 

Overthrow
Hamas is not solely a military organization, as it has political aims and represents “one of the Palestinian territories’ two major political parties.” Given its Islamist origins, Hamas rejected the PLO’s vision of a secular state, claiming in its original manifesto that “we are unable to exchange the present or future Islamic Palestine with the secular idea.” Hamas called for the destruction of Israel as a state: “Our struggle against the Jews [will continue],” reads their 1988 manifesto, “until the enemy is vanquished and Allah’s victory is realised.” This anti-Semitic slant has caused multiple countries and regional entities to designate Hamas as a terrorist organization, including the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union.

Hamas updated its manifesto in 2017, stating that “its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine.” Hamas does not define Zionism in this manifesto, however.

In 2006, Hamas won a majority of seats in parliamentary elections. On June 15, 2007, Hamas took complete control of Gaza with violence and by force. Hamas representatives announced via radio that “the past era has ended and will not return… The era of justice and Islamic rule have arrived.” Hamas has ruled in the Gaza Strip and West Bank ever since. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, “Palestinians have not voted for a legislature since 2006, nor a president since 2008.” For comparison, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was elected to the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, in 2009. He has been the Prime Minister from 2009-2021, and then again from 2022-present.

As of the time of writing, Israel has only declared war on Hamas. However, another entity must be understood for a full picture of the conflict: Lebanon-based Hezbollah, which backs Hamas.

Hezbollah claims direct involvement in the conflict: its leader, Syed Hassan Nasrallah, claimed in a Nov. 3, 2023 speech that “[t]he Islamic resistance in Lebanon started operation the very next day” after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel. Nasrallah further described the Oct. 7 attack as “a big event to shake this oppressive … occupying, usurping Zionist regime and its supporters in Washington and London.” Hamas has not explicitly accepted or rejected this labeling, though.

Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Israeli government represent the major players in this conflict.

Goals
Each side of the conflict has stated goals, which are briefly explained here.

Hamas, according to its 2017 manifesto, “believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea.” It is willing to consider the 1967 borders as a possibility, though it rejects Israel as a state. Its stated goals involve destruction of the state of Israel, which it labels as “the Zionist project” and thus as an occupying power.

Israel’s goals are threefold. Israeli ministers have spoken about the war as a three-stage operation. The first stage – invading Gaza – has been ongoing since the Hamas attack on Israel in Oct. 2023 that killed approximately 1,200 people. According to AP reporting and the Gaza Health Ministry, as of Feb. 5, 2024, the Palestinian death toll as a result of the ongoing war is 27,478 people. 

Israel’s second stage, according to Netanyahu, is “to destroy Hamas’s governing and military capabilities and to bring the hostages home,” referring to the more than 200 hostages Hamas took in its initial attacks. More information about the hostages Hamas took will be published in part two of this series.

Israel also seeks to maintain security in Gaza. According to Yoav Gallant, Israel’s defense minister, “The third step [of the invasion] will be the creation of a new security regime in the Gaza Strip, the removal of Israel’s responsibility for day-to-day life in the Gaza Strip, and the creation of a new security reality for the citizens of Israel and the residents of the [area surrounding Gaza].” Gallant did not provide further details as to what this “security reality” meant.

Iran-backed Hezbollah supports Hamas. Its role in this conflict would likely be as a spoiler. Hezbollah has little involvement in this war so far, but its strategic location – to Israel’s north – would force Israel to fight on two fronts if Hezbollah were to invade.

This article serves as background for the Israel-Hamas war. In this series of articles, I will address the initial attacks, war crimes committed by both parties and the path to a sustainable peace. 

If there is something in this conflict you believe needs featuring or would like Mr. Naber to write about, please contact the Hilltop Monitor’s email address. He will respond to comments as he is able.

As global outrage grew, many expressed unwavering support for Israel. However, it’s crucial to recognize that history is not confined to our attention span. Before making judgments, we must understand that the complexity of this situation requires a consideration of the historical context spanning at least the last two centuries.

History of Israel and Palestine 

Beginning in the 1840s, the British viewed Palestine as a strategic Middle Eastern foothold, formalizing their interest during World War I through the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which called for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. Tensions escalated between Arabs and Jews in the following decades as a growing number of Jewish people sought refuge in Palestine following the Holocaust. Driven by a need for safety after centuries of persecution, Jewish individuals desired their own state. Simultaneously, Palestinians witnessed their own homes being forcibly taken and their land colonized, deepening the conflict. The conflict grew so large that the UK turned the issue over to the United Nations in 1947.  After looking at alternatives, the UN proposed the separation of Palestine into two independent states, one Palestinian-Arab and the other Jewish. The Jewish state proclaimed its independence as Israel. In the 1948 war involving neighboring Arab States, Israel’s new army expanded its territory, leading to the expulsion or flight of about 700,000 Palestinians, constituting approximately 85% of the indigenous Arab population in the captured area, who were never permitted to return.

Over the past 50 years, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has persisted with Israel constructing settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, where more than 700,000 Jews now reside, despite international law deeming these settlements illegal. Israel’s policies, particularly concerning the Gaza Strip, have faced global criticism. Since 2007 Gaza has been under a stringent blockade, tightly controlled by Israel, encompassed by concrete walls and barbed wire fences.

Palestinians in Gaza endure severe restrictions, with limited access to trade, water and electricity due to the blockade. They are prohibited from entering or leaving the territory except in extremely rare cases such as urgent, life-threatening medical conditions. This situation has been described by human rights groups as akin to living in the world’s largest open-air prison.

Israel’s Response to the Attack  

In response to the recent attack on Oct. 7, Israel has taken significant military actions, which have sparked widespread international concern. Reports have emerged detailing alleged war crimes committed by Israel, including the bombing of hospitals and deliberate cutoffs of essential services such as electricity and water supply in Gaza. 

According to the Secretary General of Amnesty International, Agnès Callamard: “In their stated intent to use all means to destroy Hamas, Israeli forces have shown a shocking disregard for civilian lives. They have pulverized street after street of residential buildings killing civilians on a mass scale and destroying essential infrastructure, while new restrictions mean Gaza is fast running out of water, medicine, fuel and electricity. Testimonies from eyewitnesses and survivors highlighted, again and again, how Israeli attacks decimated Palestinian families, causing such destruction that surviving relatives have little but rubble to remember their loved ones by.” 

American Involvement 

The United States, among other countries, has been a long-standing supporter of Israel, providing substantial financial aid and military assistance. This support has generated debates and criticism, raising questions about the indirect endorsement of Israel’s military actions in the region.

The US is currently continuing its extensive financial support to Israel, having provided the country with $158 billion since World War II, surpassing aid given to any other nation. Although US officials have thus far refrained from sending troops, they actively support the Israeli military and security forces. In response to the recent Hamas attack, the US is sending guided-missile carriers, F-35 fighters and other equipment

On Oct. 13, The American public seemed to agree with the support of Israel. 44% of the 1,313 adult  Americans polled said that Israel’s response to Hamas attacks has been about right, while about 25% said it has actually been too little.  An article published on Oct. 23 showed how these numbers have changed over the last week. It found 7 in 10 Americans — support providing aid to Israel. When asked for opinions on Israel’s response to Hamas’ attack, 35% of registered voters said Israel’s retaliation has been “about right” while one-quarter said Israel’s response has been “not harsh enough.”  Those numbers may seem like a relatively small change, but it does show that opinions are changing slowly but surely. This may be due to the increasing number of young people who are speaking out against Israel’s action.

Should America be Supporting Israel

The significant financial aid and military assistance provided by the United States endorse Israel’s actions. This only leads to more human rights violations and exacerbates tensions in the region. There needs to be a more balanced approach that promotes diplomacy, dialogue and a just resolution to the conflict. Americans should advocate for a reconsideration of the substantial aid provided and urge the US to leverage its influence to encourage both parties to engage in peaceful negotiations and respect for international law instead of unequivocally supporting the Israeli government.

By promoting initiatives that encourage mutual understanding and respect, the focus can shift from military aid to diplomatic solutions. The goal should be to create a more peaceful coexistence. It’s vital for policymakers and leaders to carefully consider the implications of their support and work towards a future where both Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and security.

Conclusion

The ethics of the Israel-Hamas conflict is very nuanced and this article can only act as a brief overview. Nevertheless, it is important to consider not only the tragedies that Israel and its citizens have gone through but also the continuous and systemic tragedies that the Palestinian people have faced. To be as informed and humane as possible we must pay close attention to both sides of the issue. Unequivocally supporting a single side is how we allow injustice to happen.

While discussing these issues, it’s essential to emphasize that criticism of the Israeli government’s policies should not translate into hatred or prejudice against Jewish people. Not all Jewish individuals support the Israeli government’s actions, just as not all Palestinians support the actions of Hamas. Navigating this topic demands careful consideration that aims to promote understanding and empathy while condemning violence and injustice.