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.

Apparently, the U.S. has no problem launching another attack on Syria in case another chemical attack takes place.

“I spoke to the president this morning, and he said, ‘If the Syrian regime uses this poisonous gas again, the United States is locked and loaded,’ ” said Nikki Haley, United States Ambassador to the United Nations.

Although I am completely against the chemical attack, and any similar attacks, and I think that Assad’s government is corrupt, I don’t believe increased violence was the best way to deal with the situation. Here’s why I think the missile attack was a bad idea.

First, the attack was not approved by Congress. This is a potential violation of the Constitution and of international law. Unless responding to an imminent attack on the U.S., the President is required to get congressional approval in order to involve the U.S. army in another country.

Second, it is uncertain whether or not Assad and his associates are actually responsible for the alleged chemical attacks. There is a possibility the chemical attack was carried out by other terrorist or rebellious groups in order to provoke the U.S. and other western countries. Also, Assad has no incentive to provoke the U.S., especially because Trump previously launched missile attacks on Syria to oppose Assad’s violence.

Third, attacking Syria poses the risk of empowering Syria’s current, most powerful terrorist organization, Jabhat Fatah al-Sham. Foreign military involvement radicalizes locals and breeds violence. For example, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 led to the creation and empowerment of ISIS. Additionally, the creation of Hezbollah terrorist group in southern Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip supports the claim that such foreign involvement breeds terrorism.

Fourth, the missile attack will deteriorate the already unstable ties between the U.S. and Russia. Whether Russia decides to involve its military in the Syrian dilemma or not, the icy tensions between Russia and the West will worsen. No one needs another world war.

Finally, I question the intentions that spurred the missile attack. Trump claimed the missile attack was a moral imperative in response to the unacceptable chemical attacks on Syrian citizens. The claim highly contradicts his policy that does not allow Syrian refugees into the U.S. and the passing of new laws that make it harder for immigrants and refugees to survive within the States. If he truly wanted to help Syrian civilians living in dangerous conditions, there are several other ways he could give aid without launching dangerous missiles.

I am not a political analyst and I am unsure of an ideal solution, but fighting violence with violence in order to stop violence is, in my opinion, a vicious cycle that will only worsen matters. Peace has never and will never stem from violence.

Photo courtesy of Hassan Ammar/AP. 

Conflict in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, has caused millions of Syrian citizens to flee their home country in search of refuge in European countries and in the United States. Since 2011, over 250,000 Syrians have been killed in the clash between those who support President Bashar al-Assad, those who want to see him leave his position and jihadist groups including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

Nationwide protests beginning in 2011 in support of ousting President Assad became violent when the government began using force in order to suppress the uprising. The violence escalated until the country was engulfed in a civil war. The United Nations estimated that by June 2013, approximately 90,000 people had been killed in the conflict, with that number rising to 141,000 less than a year later.

Further complicating matters is the fact of the UN finding that both sides have been using tactics that fall under the description of war crimes and human rights violations. However, the UN also cites that the government has specifically targeted civilian gatherings. In 2013, the nerve gas sarin was used. The tumultuous course of the country’s civil war attracted other groups to become engaged. The UN has accused ISIL of war crimes, including public executions and amputations of those who refuse to conform to their beliefs. The use of a sulfur mustard gas in northern Syria has also been linked to ISIL.

Over 12 million Syrians have fled their country due to the civil war, with only four million of those Syrians having received refugee status. They have mainly fled northward towards the countries in the European Union (EU) and including Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The sudden number of Syrians seeking refuge in European countries has caused the refugees to create camps in these cities. The camps usually lack any form of sanitation and food is scarce. Many citizens of Lebanon, a country with one the greatest numbers of Syrian refugees, have voiced concerns about how the refugees might be driving down wages and increasing housing prices, prompting many EU countries to consider imposing restrictions on the refugees. These countries have attempted to halt the influx of refugees into the country, even going so far as to implement a cap on how many migrants can enter the country per day.

“One in four people in Lebanon now is a refugee. The infrastructure to deal with this influx is now pushed to its breaking point,” said Brian Hansford, the UN’s high commissioner for refugees (UNHCR) office in Washington D.C.

Hansford reiterated in his interview with National Public Radio that the Syrian refugee crisis is not relegated to the surrounding countries; this is a “global problem.” The UN has specific protocols that impose legal obligations on countries to accept Syrian refugees. The 1951 UN Refugee Convention outlined what the term refugee means to the UN and created rules determining which individuals do and do not qualify for asylum in countries that adopted the treaty. The Convention and subsequently the UNHCR states that countries which accept refugees are not to violate the refugees’ rights to housing, education, religion and public assistance and states and that the countries are not to punish those refugees who enter the country through illegal channels. Each country can define the pathway through which refugees can gain residence. However, it is against the regulations of the Convention for countries and states to refuse refugees, causing them to return to their countries of origin, which they fled in the first place.

Politicians in the United States have attempted to limit the number of Syrians entering the country and create a more rigorous screening process for refugees. The governors of 27 states have voiced strong opposition to their states accepting any Syrian refugees at all. Many of these lawmakers state the reasons for their state’s restrictions as taking a brief period of pause because of the recent terror attacks by ISIL in Paris, France while also stating that this is the better option in order to maintain safety within the US.

Many have raised problems with this logic, citing that the process for applying for refugee status in the U.S. can take up to two years and many background checks of applicants and their friends and family in their home countries. Three democratic contenders for the presidency, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley have all openly supported the U.S. accepting of Syrian refugees. Sanders said in a campaign speech that the U.S. needs to accept its responsibilities by helping the refugees. These politicians and others that support Syrian refugees having asylum in the U.S. say that refusing these refugees may be exactly what organizations such as ISIL wants. ISIL has released videos and statements urging the world’s Muslims to come to ISIL-controlled areas. By refusing Syrian refugees, as supporters argue, the US enables ISIL to control more of Syria’s population, potentially allowing the organization to grow stronger and oppress more and more citizens.

The U.S. is the largest contributor of funds to the Syrian crisis, with over $4 billion in humanitarian aid since the crisis began and over $1 billion in this year alone. However, President Barack Obama has openly said he would refuse and subsequently veto any bill that passed through Congress that limited or restricted Syrian refugees’ ability to come into the U.S.