war – The Hilltop Monitor

The Rise of Hamas: Origins and Overthrow

Ethan Naber — Fri, 09 Feb 2024 15:00:00 +0000

Author’s note: This is the first in a series of articles that address the war between Israel and Hamas, which started in 2023 and continues at the time of publication. War is a tragic event, causing significant harm to all parties affected by it. This war is no exception. Accurate journalism requires engaging with messy topics. As such, this series will contain descriptions – some graphic – of death, sexual assault and violence, including such acts against children. Reader discretion is strongly advised.

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.

A map of Israel and adjacent territories by NordNordWest on Wikimedia Commons labeled by The Monitor with current information from the U.S. Department of State and the United Nations Office of Human Rites; created on Feb. 8, 2024. (The Hilltop Monitor)

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.

America, Israel and Palestine: How Should America Respond to the Israel-Hamas War?

Alee Dickey — Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:49:50 +0000

On the morning of Oct. 7, around 2,200 rockets raced towards southern and central Israel. The rockets targeted sites like The Nova Music Festival where attendees were forcibly taken as hostages; later, at least 260 bodies were discovered. These attacks, orchestrated by the Islamist militant group Hamas, led the Israeli government to declare war and approve “significant military steps” in response to the unexpected assault.

Photo by British Library on Unsplash.

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.

Tensions Mounting with North Korea

Christina Kirk — Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:00:58 +0000

Tension between the United States and North Korea continues to mount. The groundbreaking revelation of North Korea’s missile capabilities earlier this year inspired fear. President Donald Trump met the threat with a firm hand, pledging to “[meet North Korea] with fire and fury like the world has never seen” should the nation continue its threats against the U.S. U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley corroborated this statement, saying “If North Korea keeps on with this reckless behavior, if the United States has to defend itself or defend its allies in any way, North Korea will be destroyed.”

The President tweeted Oct. 7 that diplomacy with North Korea in the past 25 years “hasn’t worked,” keeping in line with his aggressive and non-amicable statements concerning the nation over the past few months.

In contrast, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson asserted that diplomacy be attempted with North Korea “until the first bomb drops,” and claimed that the President agreed that this is the best course of action despite his public statements.

However, there has been much controversy surrounding Tillerson’s standing in the White House, especially concerning Tillerson’s relationship to Trump. Allegations of Tillerson calling Trump a “moron” and Trump’s public stance on North Korea demonstrate a rift between the two, one that could cause trouble for the nation’s affairs. It is rumored that Tillerson’s termination is forthcoming and that he is likely to be replaced by either Haley or CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

The ambiguous governmental responses to North Korea confuse what a diplomatic or more aggressive road may mean. A path of diplomacy would undoubtedly entail negotiations between the two countries, but neither has taken significant steps to create a dialogue. Moreover, Trump’s frequent inflammatory remarks about the situation, such as his referral to North Korean supreme leader Kim Jong Un as “Little Rocket Man,” undercut Tillerson and other officials’ efforts to foster a diplomatic link to the rogue nation.

In a recent statement to CNN, North Korean officials said that the state was not interested in diplomacy with the U.S. until they develop an intercontinental ballistic missile that can reach the U.S. east coast. It is important to note that North Korea is not eliminating diplomacy with the U.S. from their agenda. Rather, according to North Korean officials, the country wants to affirm its nuclear potency and establish “a reliable defensive and offensive capability to counter any aggression from the United States.”

Photo Courtesy of CNN.

Is War on the Horizon?

Clare Kimmis — Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:00:23 +0000

North Korea claims to have developed a hydrogen bomb that can be loaded into an intercontinental ballistic missile. According to CNN, North Korea had a dire message for the world Sept. 3, which they provided through their state-run news agency. The message itself showed pictures of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un inspecting a bomb. This message to the world was meant to intimidate their hated rival: the United States.

There has been tensions between the United States and North Korea since the Korean War from 1950 to 1953. The United States has been involved in many wars at this point, and the Korean War is one war that is barely mentioned in high school history classes. To North Korea, this war is still very relevant.

The Korean War began when North Korea crossed the 38th parallel, which separates Democratic South Korea from North Korea. This military movement sparked the Cold War, which soon had United States soldiers rushing to South Korea’s aid, while Soviet soldiers rushed to back the North. In 1953, the United States helped South Korea win the war. The Korean War came to a brutal end with five million casualties and a country that is still divided today.

The tension between the United States and North Korea has been prevalent for a long time, but it has slowly been rising since Donald Trump was elected. In the months since, North Korea has performed 14 nuclear tests and fired a total of 21 missiles, according to CNN. On July 4, North Korea launched its first intercontinental ballistic missile test, which it claimed could reach anywhere in the world. Before Trump became president, he spoke of a preventative war, which would endanger millions of civilians. This is why it has been avoided by all past presidents.

The most dire question to be addressed is if these missiles can actually reach the United States. According to the New York Times, intelligence claims that they definitely figured out how to miniaturize a bomb, but it is still under debate if the bombs can reach the United States. According to the New Yorker, the intercontinental ballistic missile North Korea tested July 4 can definitely reach the mainland. In response to this news, Hawaii said it would revive the Cold War era sirens to warn the public of a nuclear strike.

How are we as a country trying to avoid war? According to the New York Times, the United Nations Security Council imposed new sanctions on North Korea for disregarding the ban on nuclear weapons testing. Despite years of sanctions, North Korea has illegally been financing their weapons program in a surprisingly well-off economy. According to the New Yorker, Aug. 5, the U.N. Security Council elected some of the strongest sanctions against any country in decades, blocking the sale of coal and iron, which represent a third of North Korea’s exports. In response to this punishment, North Korea threatened to fire four missiles that would land in the Pacific Ocean near Guam.

Trump claims that if the rogue nation “acts unwisely,” the United States will respond with military force or in his words “fire and fury.” On Aug. 11, Trump tweeted, “Military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded, should North Korea act unwisely. Hopefully Kim Jong Un will find another path!” Trump also claims that past presidents did not do enough to deal with the threat of North Korea, even though the threat has never been worse than it is right now.

Photo courtesy of The Atlantic.