Taking a Broad View of the Israel-Hamas Conflict

As many are aware, the conflict between Israel and Hamas has reignited once again. I’ve delved into research and analysis on this critical issue. Today, my aim is to discuss these matters. We’ll navigate through the complexities, aiming for a clear and balanced perspective.

Alright, let’s delve into the intricate history of the Palestine-Israel relationship. It’s a subject that demands our attention and consideration.

History of Israel-Palestine Relations: A Swift Overview

The relationship between Israel and Palestine is a complex historical narrative. It begins with ancient Hebrew settlements around 1300 BCE, followed by various empires’ rule, including the Ottomans from the 16th century to World War I. After WWI, British control was established, leading to complications.

Zionism, a movement for a Jewish homeland, gained traction in the late 19th century, backed by the Balfour Declaration in 1917. The UN proposed a partition plan in 1947, resulting in Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948 and a subsequent war.

The conflict led to the Nakba, displacing many Palestinians. The aftermath of this war continues to influence the region’s politics. The Six-Day War in 1967 further complicated matters, leading to Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem.

Though there have been attempts at peace, such as the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, finding a lasting solution remains challenging due to deep-rooted historical, religious, and political differences. Understanding this complex history is crucial for meaningful discussions about the region’s present and future.

A Deeper Dive into the Israel-Palestine Conflict

1. Israeli Side

Support for Israel is prevalent, particularly in the United States. The majority of the American government has historically aligned itself with Israel. However, it’s worth noting that many young Americans, especially teenagers, might not possess in-depth knowledge about the intricacies of the conflict. Often, they rely on what they’ve been taught or what they hear in passing.

Interestingly, within this pro-Israel camp, there are cases of Palestinians who also lend their support to Israel and advocate for its cause. One notable example is Ali Wahap, an Arab Muslim who has publicly expressed this viewpoint. Let’s look the text Ali Wahab said:

As we embark on this journey of comprehension, let’s start with a concise overview. In the forthcoming blogs, we’ll plunge into the intricacies. One term that sparks curiosity in Ali Wahab’s discourse is “apartheid.” It raises an important question: can Israel be labeled as an apartheid state? To tackle this, we’ll dissect diverse viewpoints and meticulously assess each stance.

Envisioned opinion

Those who have experienced Israel firsthand, whether through residency or visits, often contest the label of “apartheid state” attributed to it. They argue that Israel, as a nation, upholds a policy of equal rights for all its citizens, irrespective of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. This perspective insists that any notion of Israel as an apartheid state is a gross mischaracterization.

Critics, however, interpret these claims differently. They assert that anti-Israel sentiments are rooted in a desire for the dismantling of Israel itself. To them, branding Israel as an apartheid state signifies the separation between Israelis and Palestinians, and is seen as a strategic move toward eradicating Israel in favor of a unified Palestine. This would entail the return of descendants of refugees and a shift in the demographic majority towards Muslims.

Within Israel, there exists a significant Arab population who hold citizenship, affording them equal rights. Notably, these Arab citizens are not subject to compulsory military service. It is important to note that, due to the absence of a civil marriage law, individuals of different religions cannot legally marry within Israel. Instead, marriage laws are rooted in the Ottoman era. However, marriages conducted abroad under civil law are recognized within the country.

Waking up from an envisioned opinion (fable)

That really depends on how you want to define apartheid.

The frustrating thing about the apartheid debate is that the two sides argue completely different points.

Those who want to paint Israel as the oppressor point to the West Bank. Those who want to point to Israel as “the only democracy in the Middle East” point to Palestinian citizens of Israel.

It’s true that Palestinian Israelis can, and do, serve as lawyers, doctors, teachers, policemen, politicians and judges. This is not to say that there is no discrimination in Israel, because of course there is, but to call this apartheid is just silly. Discrimination is not apartheid.

So, the more relevant issue is that of the West Bank.

The West Bank is split into 3 (non-contiguous) areas, A, B and C, set out in the Oslo Accords.

Area A is under complete Palestinian administration, and comprises the major Palestinian urban centres. It makes up about 18% of the West Bank in area.

Area B is under Palestinian civil authority and Israeli military authority, and makes up about 22% of the West Bank.

Neither area A nor area B have Jewish residents, and therefore we cannot really talk about apartheid there.

Area C is where the issue really lies. Some 60% of the West Bank, populated both by Israeli Jews and by Palestinians. This area is under full Israeli control.

There is no arguing the fact that Israeli and Palestinian residents of Area C are not equal.

Israeli Jews are full and equal Israeli citizens, beholden to, and served by, the legal systems of Israel.

Palestinians are not Israeli citizens, and are beholden to Israeli military courts. They do not generally have recourse to the Israeli civil courts (and indeed, just this week a law was passed that further restricts Palestinian access to the High Court in land disputes). They are policed by the IDF, rather than by police forces, which in general means that they do not benefit from police protection, but are only restricted by it.

This is the basis of claims of apartheid — you have Jews and Arabs living side by side, under different legal jurisdictions.

Is this apartheid? As I said, it depends on how you want to define apartheid. You can definitely define it broadly, in a way which seems to include this situation — there is indeed a legal distinction between two populations, which plays out along racial/ethnic lines.

The counter argument to this is, of course, that it is not a racial or ethnic distinction, it is a perfectly normal distinction between citizens and non citizens. All non-citizens are not equal to citizens, in every country. Palestinian citizens who go to area C are still full citizens.

The counter-counter-argument could claim that this is something of a facetious claim, in that citizenship was never granted to the Palestinian residents of the West Bank, whereas the Jewish residents have citizenship based on their ethnicity, and indeed any Jew in the entire world could come tomorrow and receive citizenship. If citizenship is ethnically biased, then a distinction based on citizenship is ethnically biased too.

And there are counter-counter-counter arguments, and counter-counter-counter-counter arguments. It goes on for ever.

(If you’re keen on delving deeper into this topic, I highly recommend watching this video. It provides valuable insights and a nuanced perspective on the matter.)

2. Hamas Side

What is Hamas? Alright, so, Hamas is a Palestinian political and military organization. They’ve been a significant player in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for quite some time now. They emerged in the late 1980s and have since gained considerable support, especially in the Gaza Strip.

Now, when it comes to their actions against Israel, things get pretty intense. Hamas has been involved in a number of conflicts and acts of violence. They’ve launched rockets and carried out suicide bombings, which have resulted in both civilian and military casualties on the Israeli side.

These actions have led to a lot of tension and responses from Israel, including military operations in the Gaza Strip. It’s safe to say that Hamas and Israel have a long history of conflict, and their interactions continue to shape the dynamics of the region.

What is Hamas’ authority in Gaza? Hamas isn’t a political party, it’s not running a state and it’s not a religious cult either. Hamas is an organized crime ring, anchored in Islamic fundamentalism, that is also performing the duties of a state in Gaza. In other words, it is an unholy alliance between mafia and religious wackos. As such it has complete control over the distribution of goods in Gaza. Those who do not work for Hamas live in abject squalor, being a member is basically a prerequesite to hold a job, with very few exceptions. Those who oppose Hamas die a violent death. The result is most people either work for or with Hamas and no one is willing to oppose them, it’s too dangerous and spies are everywhere.

Conclusion

The human toll in this conflict is immense, with lives lost on both sides. What’s even more disheartening is the passive stance taken by many powerful nations, who either watch this tragedy unfold or make hollow and insensitive statements. It’s a painful truth that nothing in this world is as precious as the smile of a child, and yet, the innocence of many is being ruthlessly extinguished. This is neither a matter for negotiation nor a case for defense.

Our hearts ache for the countless innocent lives lost in this conflict, and we yearn for a sense of peace and reprieve for all those affected, regardless of their background or affiliation.

In my forthcoming blogs, I’ll delve deeper into the political complexities of this conflict, examining the various perspectives and avenues for resolution. I remain open to all responses and negotiations, and I fervently wish for a swift end to this ongoing struggle. Until then, take care.

Now, here’s where it gets interesting. Within the Palestinian community, there were some who, surprisingly, supported Israel and advocated for its cause. Take, for example, Ali Wahap, an Arab Muslim who made his stance clear. This just goes to show that even in the midst of a heated conflict, there were individuals who saw things from a different perspective.