Feb 27, 2024 6 min read

The third of three parts.

By Kent James

The Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attack changed the existing dynamic in Israel, where the Israeli government had been gradually eliminating the possibility of a Palestinian state.

The continuous construction of Israeli settlements on land that would theoretically be part of the Palestinian state, and the diplomatic isolation of the Palestinians through Israel’s improved relations with its Arab neighbors – a deal to normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia was being finalized just prior to Oct. 7 – inspired Hamas to attack. They knew they could not defeat Israel militarily, but fighting would enhance their standing among the oppressed Palestinians, and an Israeli counterattack would inevitably lead to more support for Hamas.

It should not be surprising that people who are oppressed and living in desperate circumstances resisted violently. Peaceful efforts, such as the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement have been demonized – 35 U.S. states have laws that target the BDS movement – or characterized as antisemitic, while physical protests have often been put down with violence.

Understanding why Hamas launched a violent attack does not justify it. Had they only struck military targets, perhaps their resistance would’ve been justified, but Hamas also targeted civilians, killing many Israelis who might’ve been sympathetic to their cause, such as young concertgoers and idealistic kibbutz residents. There are also reports of atrocities, such as rapes and the intentional killing of children, that remain part of the story.

Israelis, including armed civilians, fought back, often heroically. After repulsing the attackers, Israel then had a choice. They could have launched a targeted campaign against the leaders of Hamas, and retained almost universal support for their restraint. This is how India under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh responded to the 2008 attack by Pakistani jihadists in Mumbai that killed 160 people. Such restraint would have been very difficult, as our own experience with 9/11 would attest, but it would have isolated Hamas, and possibly even weakened them amongst Palestinians. Instead, Israel’s right-wing government chose a “strong” response of overwhelming military force that has leveled much of Gaza and killed over 25,000 Palestinians, including more than 10,000 children.

Israel has the destruction of Hamas as a goal, but that is essentially an impossible task – even optimistic Israeli claims only estimate the elimination of one-third of the original force. As recent history makes clear, using massive force to try to eliminate small groups of terrorists usually ends up creating more terrorists than it kills. Almost two-thirds of the Palestinian population in Gaza has lost a family member to the violence. That has created a lot of people who have legitimate reasons to see Israel as the enemy.

Palestinian terrorists often justify their attacks on Israeli civilians, because they see all Israelis as the enemy. Ironically, Israelis now justify the killing of Palestinian civilians by the same logic; Hamas won an election in Gaza in 2006, so all Gazans are now responsible for Hamas, though it should be noted that almost half the population wasn’t even born when the election took place.

Hamas has not been popular in Gaza. Just days before the attack, a poll was taken and the majority of Gazans surveyed did not support Hamas but did support a two-state solution. And one reason Hamas had power at all was because Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, clandestinely supported Hamas, because he saw them accurately as rivals to the Palestinian National Authority, and knew that by dividing the Palestinians, he could prevent the implementation of a two-state solution, a position he has just recently reiterated.

The primary reason Netanyahu has been in power for so long in Israel is he has promised he would keep the Israelis safe from Palestinian attacks. Sporadic attacks undermined Israelis who wanted to make peace, and enhanced the more aggressive approach of Netanyahu. The Oct. 7 attack demonstrated the folly of that approach. Unfortunately, because Netanyahu faces corruption charges that he can avoid while he remains prime minister, he benefits from a protracted war.

The U.S. has traditionally supported Israel, and while Biden is not a fan of Netanyahu, who has sought to undermine Democrats at every opportunity, in stark contrast to previous prime ministers who avoided taking sides in U.S. politics, President Biden chose to fully support Israel publicly. Although the White House claims the president is trying to restrain Israel’s military response, there is no evidence this has worked. As more Palestinians die from Israeli actions, America’s standing in the world is being undermined and the president is losing some domestic support – members of the Arab community in Michigan recently refused to meet with him.

This is a difficult issue. Both the Palestinians and the Israelis have legitimate, long-held claims to the same territory. Both have suffered oppression and violence. There are people on each side who want the other side removed from the area, by whatever means necessary. Israelis see the Hamas goal of the destruction of Israel as a call to genocide, and interpret the slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” as something that expresses that. Others around the world, however, see the massive physical destruction of Gaza and the horrendous numbers of Palestinian civilians killed as genocide. Controlled demolitions of non-military targets, such as mosques, universities and houses, suggest an effort to discourage the return of civilians.

There is an inherent tension between Israel as a democracy, and Israel as a Jewish state. If Israel allowed Palestinian refugees to return, and everyone had equal political rights, Jews would be in a minority, which would end its existence as a Jewish state. As Zionists like to point out, there are a lot of Muslim states, so one Jewish state should be acceptable. A two-state solution, by putting the vast majority of non-Jews in their own state, preserves a Jewish majority in Israel, while allowing Palestinians self-governance.It’s going to take a long time to build trust between Israelis and Palestinians, but the first step is to stop the fighting.

Israel should offer a permanent ceasefire in return for the return of hostages. The U.S. should propose a path to a Palestinian state, with an interim government that does not include Hamas, perhaps in return for a promise not to pursue Hamas, except for individuals who committed atrocities, and require that Israel abide by human rights restrictions we place on all other aid recipients.

While a more permanent solution is difficult and unclear, it needs to be worked out by the Palestinians and Israelis. What is clear is that continued military destruction of Gaza only makes the problem worse.

Kent James is a member of East Washington Borough Council.