The long conflict between Israelis, Palestinians, Hamas and in the broader region has both modern and deep historical roots.
Hilary Falb Kalisman, an assistant professor of history and endowed professor of Israel/Palestine studies at CU Boulder, explains some of this background and what's different about the latest war.
Conflict between Israel and Palestine is not a new issue. How did we get to this point?
There are some pretty immediate causes and some more long term ones. I'll break down both here.
Current causes-on politics, protests and Hamas
Let's think about what Hamas was trying to accomplish and what the Israeli government didn't anticipate. Hamas has been somewhat sidelined by the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and a number of Middle Eastern countries without changing the situation of Palestinians. Saudi Arabia was up next.
The question of what happens to Palestinians living under Israeli control in the West Bank and Gaza has been continually put off, and their day-to-day living conditions have deteriorated. Hamas, to some degree, tried being a government after it was elected in Gaza in 2006. It tried to get enough legitimacy to yield tangible benefits for Palestinians and itself, but it didn't. More peaceful Palestinian techniques of protest didn't get results either.
Meanwhile, the most recent Israeli governing coalition has been more sympathetic to settlers in the West Bank, meaning the Israeli army had a greater presence there than it has before. There's also been massive Israeli protests due to the judicial overhaul. All this means politicians were focused elsewhere, as it seems the Israeli military and intelligence were as well.
Hilary Falb Kalisman
Long-term causes-on wars and peace plans
I think the main long-term cause is trying to create and maintain a Jewish majority in an area where there wasn't one. Regardless of whether one considers this the Jewish homeland, or a necessary refuge for Jews worldwide, in modern history it wasn't a Jewish majority area until after 1948.
After 1948 (Israel's War of Independence and Palestinians' Nakba or catastrophe), you have an Israeli state with a Jewish majority, a triumph for Israelis, but much of Palestinians' property is confiscated and they become stateless.
Then, after the 1967 war, you have the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the annexation of Jerusalem. This means you have a population under Israeli control, which if all of them became Israeli citizens, would put the majority-Jewish nature of the state in doubt.
Also, Israel's elected officials are often very worried about the next election: it would be unpopular to make any concessions. This means the question of Palestinians, their citizenship and whether they should get their own country is always punted to the next administration, or swept under the rug. Oslo was never going to be a viable plan for peace, Palestinians had very little to bargain with. Also Israel's government, particularly under Benjamin Netanyahu but also more generally, has had no interest in having good Palestinian leaders. It's much easier to pacify bad ones, and again that gives Israeli leaders a reason not to change the status quo.
How does this differ from previous conflicts the world has seen in the Middle East?
That's a difficult one. Some things may not be that different, particularly if you're in Gaza, although this time it seems much, much worse. There's a lot of misinformation. The terrorist attack on Israelis of this generation is a seminal moment. The number of hostages Hamas has taken, civilian and military, is different. It was interesting that there were calls to define Israelis held in Gaza as prisoners of war. I think this is very unlikely because Israel has no desire to do the same for Palestinians, including members of Hamas held in Israel, as then they would be given certain rights. Another thing that's different, although there's a lot of stress on the possible role Iran played, this is about Israel and Hamas, a political party and terrorist organization but not a state actor.
How might diplomatic policy change moving forward-for Israel, for Gaza and for the United States?
There's a question about the Saudi/Israel peace plan: Can it go forward or not? I also think right now, the U.S. is going to be unwilling to deal with Hamas and is just sort of supporting Israel. It might undermine the Abraham Accords because you have populations within those countries that are frustrated with Israel's retaliation in Gaza. I also think you will have more of a role for other countries, such as Qatar and Turkey, in trying to bring about the release of hostages.
Whose lead will other world leaders follow?
This is a difficult question. The U.S. has come out unequivocally for Israel, as have many world leaders. I think it's likely most will follow the United States' lead. That said, there are a lot of other geopolitics involved: Russia has been more ambivalent.
