Isabella Park ’27
For almost a century, Israel and Palestine have been embroiled in a violent conflict. Although the 2023 Israel-Hamas war may seem unprecedented, the conflict reflects past unsuccessful efforts for peace and control. Hamas is a militant group and US-deemed terrorist organization that was elected in 2006, forcing Fatah, the incumbent ruling party, to turn over control of Gaza. As the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) and Hamas declare their willingness to continue fighting, a definite victory seems unlikely as the war passes 100 days.
On October 7, 2023, Hamas invaded an Israeli festival, murdering approximately 1,200 Israelis and sparking a conflict that would devastate civilians on both sides. Caught in the crossfire of IDF operations, nearly all 2.2 million Palestinian civilians now face a humanitarian crisis due to food insecurity. After a truce from November 24, 2023, to November 30, 2023, airstrikes and combat operations rapidly resumed. Although the UN passed a resolution “deploring” terrorism, creating conditions for a ceasefire, appointing an aid coordinator, and calling for the release of hostages, negotiations have obscured the resolution, and both sides have criticized it.
Radical politics on each side have prevented peace efforts. The far-right and military-based Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Netanyahu, seeks to exterminate Hamas and resume its previous military occupation of Gaza. The Israeli government fails to acknowledge any Palestinian governing bodies, including the UN-appointed Palestinian Authority. Equally as stubborn, Hamas only agrees to negotiate if granted self-control and representation in discussions. The organization demands multiple concessions: trading Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners, Palestinian statehood, and the freeing of Gaza from the Israeli-Egyptian blockade. Evidently, the Israeli government and Hamas have opposing interests, and neither side is likely to give up any of their demands.
Meanwhile, the US calls for one Palestinian governing body to acknowledge Israel and continue past peace processes. Although this strikes a middle ground to a certain extent, the Palestinian governing body would have to recognize Israel and vice-versa, making it highly unlikely that the US solution will be successful. Adding to these complications is the lack of a unified government in Palestine. Although many foreign countries recognize the Palestinian Authority as the official government of Palestine, the organization’s inability to prevent the Israeli government’s oppression of and control in Gaza and the West Bank shifted popular support to Hamas. Not only will negotiations have to force the two sides to sacrifice some objectives, but they will also have to overcome the bureaucratic inefficiencies of Palestinian politics.
The most ideal but unlikely scenario is a two-state system, creating two separate Israeli and Palestinian states. As this was the original solution proposed in 1947 by the UN, a historical precedent already exists for its inability to create a permanent truce. Uncertain borders would prolong negotiations even if both sides agreed to concessions, as seen in the past with Jerusalem, an area initially proposed to be internationally governed but now effectively under Israeli control. There would have to be a solution to the large numbers of Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Palestinians who wish to return to their old territories lost in 1948 during the “Nakba,” when numerous Palestinians were displaced. Furthermore, both Netanyahu’s conservative platform and Hamas’ radicalism would hamper negotiations and disregard borders as a show of opposition and territorial ambitions.
A decisive victory is unlikely for either side. Even if the current Hamas structure is significantly dismantled, the younger generation (almost half of Gazans are under 18, according to the World Health Organization) would likely form a new, similar militant group. Hamas is aware of Israel’s military power, as the Center for Strategic and International Studies stated their initial objective was to “[k]ill as many people and take as many hostages as possible,” not to obtain a conventional victory.
The most likely scenario is a disorganized return to the current dynamics. Hezbollah, a Lebanese terrorist group, could unintentionally become directly involved in the conflict as well. Hezbollah has already engaged in limited fire exchange with Israeli troops on the border as a show of support for Hamas. Domestically, religious and secular politicians have already polarized Israeli politics, but right-wing politicians during the Netanyahu presidency worsened those divisions. Far-right extremists may gain more support from Israelis afraid of another invasion, granting legitimacy to the fearmongering of Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox politicians, which would increase violence. The same phenomenon may happen on the Palestinian side as insurgents become increasingly more radical and gain more support. If the region returned to the preexisting divisions, international actors would step in to rebuild Palestine before the conflict probably resumes on a smaller scale.
With the stark differences in demands from all sides of the Israel-Hamas war, a diplomatic resolution to the conflict will be challenging to achieve. As violence continues into 2024, millions of civilians will continue to suffer for the territorial ambitions of a terrorist organization and the political platform of an oppressive government.
Sources:
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-44124396
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/08/israel-hamas-gaza-palestinian-territories
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/09/why-israel-palestine-conflict-history
https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-12-22-23/index.html
https://www.csis.org/analysis/why-hamas-attacked-when-it-did
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/01/01/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-palestine/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/07/israel-palestine-two-state-solution-explained/
Leave a Reply