The Historical Background of the Israel-Palestine Conflict: Origins and Key Events

The Israel-Palestine conflict, which has been going on for a very long time in history, has seen numerous escalations and has claimed the lives of thousands of people on both sides due to frequent armed conflicts.

Before the Second World War, there was no country called Israel on the world map. The roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be traced back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries when both Jewish and Arab nationalist movements aimed to establish sovereignty in the Middle East. The conflict intensified with the issuance of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, which supported the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine and led to an influx of Jewish immigrants to the region.

Following World War II and the Holocaust, international pressure increased for the establishment of a Jewish state, leading to the creation of Israel in 1948. This establishment resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, who became refugees, sparking a long-lasting conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people.

The history of Israel's formation involves a complex set of historical events, including the involvement of various international powers. It's important to note that this is a historical overview and that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a complex and sensitive issue with differing perspectives on its history and current status. 

Hamas has been officially classified as a terrorist organization by multiple countries and international entities, such as the United States, the European Union, and Israel.

The organization's charter includes language that calls for the destruction of Israel, which has contributed to this designation. However, it's important to note that the issue of designating an organization as a terrorist group can be a matter of political contention, and not all countries or entities agree on this classification.

First, To begin, there is a lack of moral clarity in airstrikes on educational institutions, even if they are being utilized to store rockets. Applying the same logic, why not employ a comprehensive bombing strategy across the entire Gaza strip to completely eliminate Hamas's rocket capabilities? Secondly, while Israel certainly has no desire to lose its soldiers, the issue remains that rockets could continue to be smuggled through newly constructed tunnels, potentially by fresh recruits driven by the desire for retaliation due to the loss of their loved ones.

Thirdly, the Hamas charter has significantly contributed to fostering the belief that extreme measures are warranted in the pursuit of eliminating what they consider to be 'terror,' even though Hamas lacks the capacity to obliterate Israel, similar to how Al-Qaeda cannot dismantle the United States. It is pointed out that despite the absence of a genuine existential threat to Israel, the conflict has resulted in a substantial loss of Palestinian lives, including pregnant women and children. This underscores the tragic reality of the situation.

These thoughts come from a person with a deep affection for Israel. I celebrated my Bar Mitzvah in Jerusalem, and I've had the opportunity to explore various parts of Israel while working as a counselor in a youth program. Over the course of my life, I've made five journeys to Israel. I hold a genuine appreciation for its people, which includes Arabs, and have a strong affection for Israeli culture, cuisine, and the rich Jewish history woven into the land. Nevertheless, it is emphasized that Israel, as a nation founded on just principles, should uphold its principles by avoiding actions that mirror those of its adversaries. In contrast to the viewpoints of individuals like Mr. Krauthammer and those who find value in analogies, attempting to rationalize the targeting of innocent civilians to prevent suicide attacks against other civilians is seen as devoid of moral justification.

Israel can uphold higher standards than its current military involvement in Gaza. A respected democracy should maintain a clear distinction between engaging with adversaries and causing harm to women and children, which terrorists themselves don't adhere to when attacking buses or cafes. As articulated by Yuli Novak, a former Israeli Air Force officer, in her recent article for The Guardian, there is a pressing need for a strong, unequivocal message denouncing the immorality of bombing houses with civilians inside. The ineffectiveness of targeting weapon caches concealed beneath hospitals and schools, particularly when such actions only result in future military strikes of similar nature and neglect the underlying causes of the conflict, underscores the ethical failure of using Palestinian civilians as pawns for short-term tactical gains. Extremists who perpetrate attacks in cafes and buses can never be justified, but neither can the deliberate targeting of civilian populations as a means to prevent future acts of terror against civilians.

As of today, Israeli airstrikes in Gaza have led to the deaths of approximately 1,700 Palestinians. Tragically, these casualties include individuals in places such as schools, hospitals, residential buildings, and mosques. It is a fundamental principle in warfare that combat should be conducted among military forces, and even in cases where organizations like Hamas store rockets in civilian areas, Israel has both the option and the moral duty to avoid targeting locations where women and children are at risk. The key point is that a democracy should never adopt the methods employed by terrorist groups. Justifying civilian casualties for short-term tactical gains or attempting to rationalize the loss of 25 members from one family and 18 from another is morally challenging.

The morality of an action is never legitimized by saying a less moral individual would do the same or worse. Hamas will build more tunnels, smuggle in more rockets, and find creative ways to elicit more military interventions from Israel in the future. There have already been Israeli military operations in 2008 and 2012, with the most recent war being the third time and undoubtedly not the last time the two sides will clash. Until the tough issues of a two state solution, Jewish settlements, Hamas's charter, and serious concessions on both sides are addressed, no long term security needs will be solved through bombing Palestinian civilians.

Perhaps nothing encapsulates the rationale for Israel to cease its airstrikes on Palestinian civilians (under the pretext of neutralizing rockets and weapons) better than a recent opinion piece by Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post

Rarely in international politics is there a moment of such clear moral significance. Yet, we frequently encounter descriptions of the Israel-Gaza conflict as a morally equivalent "cycle of violence." This characterization is highly questionable. Why would Israel have any interest in engaging in cross-border conflict? It is common knowledge that Hamas initiated this latest round of hostilities, and their self-proclaimed objective is the elimination of Israel and its Jewish population.