The Israel-Gaza War, a history. Written by a truth seeker

My name is Meir Cloud. Today is November 1st, 2023. I live in Efrat, Israel (part of Judea). This area is considered “occupied territory” in the state of Israel. The world is currently in a state of flux as a direct result of the heinous attacks carried out by the terrorist leaders of Gaza, Hamas, on October 7th, 2023. I was born an American Jew and moved to Israel at the age of 31 (about 5 years ago). I brought with me my wife and 3 sons (currently ages 9, 7.5 and 4.5). It was suggested by my wife, Chessie, to write down some of my thoughts pertaining to this escalating conflict. To give some context, I grew up “Jew-ish” in a mostly secular home. I didn’t really tap into my identity as a Jew until the age of 23. From then, I became obsessed with understanding how both Israel and Judaism came to be what they are today. I got my bachelors degree in Sociology and Jewish Studies and then spent time briefly in a liberal rabbinic masters program before leaving due to overwhelming disappointment once I understood the extent to which liberal Judaism (at least in the US) was being used as a launchpad to deploy alternative social justice campaigns. At the age of 30, my family and I took a turn towards deeper engagement in our Jewish practice. Today, 6 years later, we live in a modern-orthodox community. I consider myself Kosher although I don’t wait a strictly prescribed time between eating meat and milk (especially chicken). I consider myself Shomer Shabbat (keeping Shabbat) although I carry and use some electricity on Shabbat.

As for my politics, I will dive deeper into that in this document. For now, I will say that my politics have changed since I moved to Israel and experienced the conflict first-hand. Then they changed again after my first year in Efrat. Now that the intro is out of the way, let’s get started.

Firstly, the pretenses under which this land was granted to Holocaust survivors are important to understand. Let us run through a short history of the land prior to delving into my thoughts around the Swords of Iron/Al Aqsa Flood war.

Between 1300-1200 BCE, the Children of Israel (who the Jews were before they were Jews) settled the land currently understood as Israel. Although there were wars and skirmishes and a lot of politics, for the most part, the Israelites controlled the land until the year 70 CE when the Romans ousted them from the land and destroyed their holy temple. This exile would last more than 1870 years. During this period, the Israelites were Israelites no longer and became known as the Jewish people. They were scattered throughout the world (mostly in Europe). Adaptations within the scope of their religious rituals and laws permitted the Jews to remain connected to their national, ethno-religious, identity by means of the development of standardized folkways which have shaped Jewish religious practice today.

Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism, was a secular Jewish journalist in the late 19th century who reported on “the Dreyfus Affair” of 1894. The Dreyfus Affair was an ordeal in which a French-Jewish Captain was wrongfully accused and sentenced to life imprisonment for charges of sharing French intelligence with Germans. This case exemplified the long overlooked antisemitism that was rampant in European society and served as the catalyst which drove Herzl to publish a prolific and meaningful pamphlet that came up with an answer to what he called “Der Judenstaat” or “The Jewish Question”.

“Der Judenstaat” was response to the period coined “European Enlightenment”, when the world was realizing that government need not be run by religious law (especially when there were significant populations of religious diversity found within its borders). This came after both Christianity and Islam took turns conquering large parts of Europe, Africa and the Middle East and forcibly converted those who differed in religious ideology under penalty of death.

Despite being labeled as second class citizens, Jewish culture continued to grow in the periods before European Enlightenment. Jewish “Shtetls” (ghettos) existed in pockets all over Eastern Europe. Herzl found that even in a post-Enlightenment society, Jews’ white collar skills were not welcomed by the secular business community. The Jewish people remained subjects of a passive but bluntly apparent European antisemitism. This caused Herzl to attempt a solution to the Jewish question: “What are we going to do with the valuable Jewish skill sets that are unwelcome in secular society?”.

Even though Herzl, himself, was a secular Jew, he recognized that the greater Jewish population sought to preserve their religious practices while simultaneously exemplifying their patriotism for their country of residence (even despite still being perceived as strangers in the land). The late Chief Rabbi of England, Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks (of Blessed Memory), used to say that it is a lot easier to hate your neighbor who is different from you than to try to get to know him. This is exactly what late 19th century antisemitism was about.

Herzl’s pamphlet was aimed at petitioning the civilized world to grant land for the purpose of creating a state where the Jewish may live together, both religious and secular, and exemplify bilateral pride for their country. This “Zionist” proposition cited 2 possible locations for the Jewish State. Argentina and Palestine. Both were experiencing significant political unrest with unstable governments and poor economies at the time.

Herzl argued that the Jewish Passion for the land of Palestine would aid in creating a civilized territory sympathetic to the agenda of modern westernization and rid the land of its current state of “barbarism”. Plus, its biblical and historical significance would attract Jews from all over the world. Herzl argued that every Jewish man carried with him a portion of their “Promised Land” in his head, arms, and in his acquired possessions. This Jewish State was Herzl’s solution to the societal unrest resulting from a previously caged and persecuted people’s attempt to live and thrive in the free world.

During this time, Ottoman Palestine was receiving a massive influx of Jewish immigrants. By 1905, most of the population of Jerusalem was Jewish. In 1908, the Ottoman Empire was subject to revolution enabling Arab Palestinians to speak up against both the massive immigration of Jews as well as the oppressive measures of the Ottoman Empire. This was a precursor to WWI in 1914 which led to the Sykes Picot Agreement of 1916 thus transferring control and jurisdiction of Palestine to the British. The Brits took over on April 19th, 1917, and vowed to provide aid and assist with establishing some semblance of Palestinian autonomy in the region.

The British, who were sympathetic to the Zionist agenda had been meeting with Herzl and his partner, Max Nordau, to discuss the future of Palestine. Drafted by Chiam Weizmann and Walter Rothschild, the Balfour Declaration was issued in November of 1917 and expressed the support of the Zionist agenda by Britain. The Balfour Declaration intentionally remained vague in reference to “A Jewish State”, but still expressed support for Jewish settlement in Palestine while maintaining both social and religious rights for the Palestinian Arab population.

Tensions were exacerbated in Palestine as Arab riots ensued in 1921 against Zionism in Jaffa. As a response, Winston Churchill’s High Commissioner of Palestine, Herbert Samuel, drafted the Churchill White Paper in 1922. Samuel’s paper maintained support for the Zionist agenda and a national homeland for the Jewish people, but also limited Jewish immigration into Palestine. Samuel further clarified the Balfour Declaration by stating that the Jewish homeland shall be located “within” Palestine and not instead of Palestine; meaning that the objective was a homeland for the Jewish people and not necessarily Jewish statehood. Palestinians would not be forced to live under Jewish law or nationality. The aim of both the British and Zionists was to create a place where Jews and Arabs could live together peacefully. This paper was directed at quelling the anger and fear of Arab Palestinians about the estimated 20,000 additional Jewish immigrants into Palestine between 1917-1922. According to Samuel, Palestine couldn’t economically support more immigration.

??????????????? The League of Nations officially supported the British efforts in Palestine by issuing the British Mandate of 1922 stating that Palestine was to remain in British control until the state can function on its own. As a part of the mandate, The Palestinian Legislative Council was established in 1923 consisting of 8 Arab-Muslim members, 2 Christian Arabs, 2 Jews, the High Commissioner, and 11 British cabinet members. The Arabs didn’t like this distribution because even though they represented more than 3/4 of the population, they were allocated less than half the seats. A secondary electoral college had to be established based on population if a council were to be established. In protest of the seat distribution, the Arab Palestinians boycotted the elections. Elections had to be extended to successfully secure the allotted seats of the council.

??????????????? Towards the end of the 1920’s violence between Muslims and Jews escalated in Jerusalem regarding the control over holy sites. The Passfield White Paper of 1930 (by Sydney Webb) spoke out against Jewish-Palestinian institutions aiming to facilitate the purchase of Arab land by Jews who would only employ Jews on the land. This mentality of Jewish exclusivity was a detriment to Arab-economic growth and contributed significantly to Arab poverty/unemployment. The Passfield White Paper reaffirmed the commitments of the British to resolve conflict and foster peaceful coexistence of both groups in Palestine while simultaneously seeking to limit the influx of migrating Jews into the land.

??????????????? Zionist groups heavily spoke out against this document so much so that the British Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, had to clarify the White Paper in “The MacDonald Letter” of 1931 to Chiam Weizmann. MacDonald stated that the White Paper does not override the Balfour Declaration, but rather complements it. Fairness and justice for both populations were the the agenda of the British.

After a record annual number of 60,000 Jewish immigrants to Palestine in 1935, the Arabs had enough of the British not listening to their plea. The Arab Revolt against the Palestinian Mandate began in 1936. It started as a political catalyst to the Peel Commission Document of 1937. The Peel Commission Document suggested a 2 state solution splitting the state between Jewish and Palestinian territories with Jerusalem and the surrounding area remaining neutral of either side. The Zionist state would receive roughly 20% of the total territory, confined to the North, while the remaining 80% of the territory would be considered Arab Palestine. The Zionists very much liked the idea of their own autonomous state but didn’t like the boarders of the map. The Arabs flat out rejected the idea that the Jews would have their own state at all and called for a purely Arab Palestinian state while maintaining minority rights for Jews.

??????????????? The failure of this plan transcended into a renewal of the revolt, this time in the form of violent outbursts directed at the British forces. The British began suppressive measures that left thousands of Arabs dead. British sentiments were forced towards the Zionists who’s Hagganah (Jewish militia/paramilitary force) aided in suppressing attacks from Arab rebel forces.

??????????????? The Woodhead Commission of 1938 was organized to lull the violence and seek just resolution. It rejected the Peel Commission plan on the grounds that too many Arabs would have to leave the North to give the land to a Jewish state, and it sought to redraw a partition plan. Despite their efforts, the Woodhead Commission concluded that partition was not practical. Instead, they attempted to negotiate peace with a round table discussion between Jews and Arabs. This was a complete failure as no resolution could be agreed upon.

??????????????? By 1939 the British understood that there was too much animosity between the two sides to create a peaceful resolution. British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, issued yet another White Paper laying out the policies as decided by the Brits. This included limits on Jewish Immigration to 75,000 per 5 years and made the transfer of land from Arab to Jew the discretion of the appointed British High Commissioner. Chamberlain’s target was to create a State within 10 years consisting of a population of 2/3 Arabs and 1/3 Jews. The Jewish Zionists felt betrayed, and the Arabs felt slighted. Nobody was happy.?

??????????????? And then World War II began. Jews, although upset about Chamberlain’s White Paper, volunteered in massive numbers for the British Army. The Brits agreed to admit into their military equal numbers of Arabs and Jews (although many more Jews wanted to enlist than Arabs). Once it became evident that Axis powers stood to take Palestine, the British lifted restrictions on the number of Jews enlisting. Numerous Jewish factions joined with the Allied forces to defeat the Nazis. Arab Palestinians had no interest in supporting the Allies until it became clear that Axis powers were not going to win the war.

??????????????? In 1944, the Alexandria Protocol was signed between 5 Arab nations: Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Egypt. The agreement intended to create a unified alliance between the Arab nations of the region for the purpose of collective action in the Middle East post WWII. The Alexandria Protocol was a precursor to the formation of the Arab Leage in 1945 (which included Saudi Arabia and then Yemen a few months later). While acknowledging the deep injustice done to the Jews throughout WWII, the Arab League did not support the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine. Their position was that the injustice done to the Jews should not be displaced onto the Palestinian Arabs.

??????????????? The world, however, was extremely sensitive to the plight of the Jewish people. The British were bankrupt and in no shape to deal with Palestine anymore. They handed things off to the UN who commissioned a special committee on Palestine. UNSCOP was set up by the United Nations in May of 1947 to investigate and develop a plan to solve the conflict. They decided to terminate the British Mandate in Palestine and came up with Resolution 181, a partition plan granting both the Jews and Arabs their own territory. This plan was much more favorable to the Arabs than the previous one, but still they rejected it stating that it violated the principles of national self-determination. Despite their rejection, the UN moved forward with the resolution.

??????????????? Knowing that there would be revolt, the new nation of Israel declared its independence on May 14th, 1948. The War of Independence then ensued. A newly organized Israeli Army, comprised of Jewish fighters who were previously members of various militias, was put in a position of fighting for their right to exist. Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt joined the Palestinian fight. Despite the outside help, the Arab side was disorganized and gave way to significant Israeli advances. An armistice agreement was drafted in 1949 as an end to the war leaving the boundary lines significantly less in favor of the Arab Palestinians than that of Resolution 181.

??????????????? The Israeli government now had the great task of figuring out how to establish itself. In its Declaration of Independence, there was promise of a constitution, but the religious population opposed this notion. The Harare Decision of 1950 imposed basic laws for the state of Israel and stated that the rest of a constitution will be written in over time. From this point on, Israel was to be a Jewish State.

??????????????? Also in 1950, Egypt began prohibiting the entry of Israeli vessels through the Straits of Tiran thereby blocking access to Israel from the Red Sea. Coupled with Egyptian unrest regarding British stations on the Egypt-Israel boarder, further conflict was imminent. Israel led attacks on Egyptian forces during the Suez Crisis which ultimately led to the attainment of objectives: reopening both the Suez Canal (which had been blocked by Egypt during the conflict) and the Straits of Tiran in 1957.

??????????????? Tensions were high in the region and Israel made clear to the world that closure of the Straits of Tiran were cause for war. In May of 1967, Egyptian President, Gamal Abdel Nasser announced that he would once again close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships. In response, Israel mounted air strikes on Egyptian ground forces on June 5th, 1967. Nasser called on his Arab League partners in Syria and Jordan to counterattack. Syria bombed the Israeli Golan Heights and Jordan invaded the West Bank. Israeli forces beat back all three armies in addition to conquering The Sinai Peninsula, Gaza, and the Arab West Bank. A ceasefire was agreed to on June 11th. On June 29th, the Israeli Cabinet met to discuss a path to peace. Israel was willing to withdraw from all captured territory (except for the West Bank that needed to be held for security purposes) in exchange for Arab League recognition of Israel as a sovereign nation and a ceasefire from Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. The Arab nations refused to agree.

??????????????? In November of 1967, the UN issued the UN Security decision 242 once again aimed at encouraging peace in the Middle East. The decision highlighted the mandatory withdrawal of Israeli forces from captured territory in addition to freedom of navigation through the Straits of Tiran. 242 also acknowledged that a fair solution had to be realized regarding the problem of Arab-Palestinian refugees pushed out of Israel and into Gaza/Jordan.

??????????????? In 1971, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat realized that he had to make a choice between reengaging Israel militarily or creating diplomatic relations. At this point, the only way he could engage Israel again is if he had help. Sadat met with Ali Aslan, a high commander in the Syrian army, to plan another confrontation with Israel. On Yom Kippur, October 6th, 1973, the siege began as 100,000 Egyptian troops crossed the Suez Canal within the first 36 hours of engagement. Outgunned and outnumbered, The Israeli army proved victorious once again with the war ending on October 25th and capturing the Sinai Peninsula.

??????????????? Prisoner exchanges and disengagement agreements ensued ultimately leading to the first Camp David Accord of 1978. American President Carter, Egyptian President Sadat, and Israeli Prime Minister Begin came to terms. Israel was to withdraw all people from the Sinai Peninsula in exchange for freedom of passage through the Suez Canal/Straits of Tiran/Gulf of Aqaba, and Egypt would recognize Israel as a sovereign state. Sadat’s agreement left the Arab League enraged, thus dismantling any hope of Egypt’s participation in any future unified Arab front against Zionism.

??????????????? With the loss of Egypt, the Palestinian Liberation Organization was left with no official army to continue fighting. The cycle of violence continued in Israel through individual “terror” attacks and let to incursions such as the Lebanon War of 1982 and the Gulf war of 1991. In 1993, Israeli Prime Minister, Rabin, sought to solve the problem of constant individual attacks in Israel by officially calling for a peace agreement with Palestinian Authority Chairman, Yassar Arafat. What came to be known as the Oslo Accord outlined a plan where Israel would withdraw its presence from 76% of Gaza and fully from the city of Jericho. By 1995, the West Bank became divided into three different areas indicating where the Palestinian Authority has full control (Area A), where Palestinian Authority has administrative control, but Israel shares control over security (Area B), and where Israel maintains both administrative and military control (Area C).

The focus of Oslo II in 1995 was poised at focusing on what to do about Jerusalem, the Palestinian refugee crisis, boarders of a potential two state solution, and already established Jewish settlements in negotiated Palestinian territory. Just as things were looking in the favor of peaceful resolution, Rabin was assassinated on November 4th, 1995 leading to the resurgence of violence on both sides.

Another Camp David Summit was then organized by American President, Bill Clinton, in 2000, attempting to end this Israel-Palestine conflict once and for all. Then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, sat with Arafat and Clinton with the hopes that they could follow on the successful Camp David Accords of 1978 and negotiate peace. Unfortunately, agreement was not able to be reached as there was no two-state map plan that Arafat would agree to. Instead, a statement was issued between the three leaders which would serve as a template for a potential future peace agreement.

In a last ditch effort to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during his presidency, Clinton pieced together further negotiations between the three parties in December of 2000. Clinton proposed a two-state solution where by almost all of the West Bank would be considered Palestinian (with the exception of existing Israeli settlements). In January of 2001, Clinton added the entirety of Gaza to the list of Palestinian territories in the proposed charter. Both parties reluctantly accepted the parameters, however many more questions remained about the return of Palestinian refugees and jurisdiction over the old-city in Jerusalem.

Violence in Israel broke out beginning in September of 2000 following a visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosk by newly elected Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. This began what was considered the second Intifada. Clashes between Arab Palestinians and Israeli soldiers caused high numbers of civilian casualties. Suicide bombings, rocket attacks and shootings from Palestinians were met with Tank fire, aerial bombing and military response from Israelis yielding nearly 5000 deaths.

In 2003, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, proposed a unilateral disengagement plan to remove Israel’s entire presence from Gaza. This disengagement was unilateral in the sense that there were no requests or conditions to be met on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs. The plan would relocate the 21 Jewish settlements in Gaza to outside the boarder to strengthen control over the areas of Israel surrounding the Gaza Strip. On February 16th, 2005, the Knesset approved the plan and until day, no Israeli settlements or citizens are permitted inside Gaza.

In September of 2005, a truce was finally made between Palestinian president, Abbas, and Israeli PM, Sharon, at a middle eastern conference in Sinai, Egypt (Sharm el-Sheikh Summit). This was what most consider to be the end of the Second Intifada. Sharon agreed to release 900 Palestinian prisoners and withdraw from territories in the West Bank seized to maintain strategic military. In exchange, Abbas agreed that he would call for the cessation of terror attacks in Israel.

In November of 2005, the AMA was made (agreement on movement and access) between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The purpose of this agreement was to build a bridge towards peaceful dealings between Palestinians and Israelis by allowing Palestinians to control the Gaza-Egypt boarder in addition to the movement of both people and goods between Palestinian controlled areas. A pilot was supposed to take place in early 2006, however, it was disrupted by a new elected leadership taking over the strip. Hamas leader, Ismail Haniya, was elected in January of 2006. Haniya refused to accept any conditions as set by Israel and disavowed every PA-Israeli agreement including those formed during the Oslo Accords. To Hamas, it was all or nothing – Palestine or Israel – Muslim or Jew. To Hamas, Palestine must rise to become a state governed by Islamic Sharia Law.

In July of 2006, the Israel-Hezbollah war began in Lebanon after rebel organization, Hezbollah, fired rockets at Israeli boarder cities and anti-tank missiles at Israeli patrols on the boarder. Two Israeli soldiers were captured and 3 were killed in the attack. The Israeli Defense Forces attempted to rescue the hostages but failed, rendering another 5 IDF operatives dead. Hezbollah demanded the release of Israeli held Hezbollah prisoners in exchange for the two abducted soldiers. Israel refused and proceeded with the targeting of Hezbollah military infrastructure and launching a ground invasion as well as air raids and a naval blockade. Hezbollah defended using guerrilla war tactics and sent thousands of rockets into Northern Israel. The conflict decimated the Lebanese economy, displacing around 1 million Lebanese and 500,000 Israelis. The conflict lasted 34 days and was resolved by a bilateral agreement brokered by the UN and agreement by both the Lebanese and Israeli governments to disarm Hezbollah and withdraw all IDF troops from Lebanon. A UN Interim Force was tasked with ensuring that Hezbollah’s activities did not include armament or training of combatants. The conflict ended when Hezbollah exchanged the deceased remains of the two captured soldiers in exchange for live Hezbollah operatives in a prisoner exchange dated July of 2008. Since that time, Both the UN force and Lebanese government stated that they will not disarm Hezbollah.

By 2007, the full Hamas takeover of Gaza was complete. Israel continued building a relationship with the PA in West Bank territories, however, they tightened security around the Gaza strip due to increased threats of terror attacks by Gaza’s newly elected leadership. The AMA subsequently died due to the radical leadership seeking to import illegal terrorists, munitions, and weapons into Gaza for the purposes of destroying the state of Israel. Hamas called on the world to stand against Israel for going back on the AMA. This created international stigma around the restriction of movement of Palestinians and rampant use of the term “open air prison”.

Hamas proceeded to launch home made rockets regularly into densely populated Israeli cities. They used IEDs to carry out attacks on Israeli citizens as well as military. Hamas employed their connections throughout the West Bank to hide weapons caches and carry out random stabbings or shootings against innocent civilians and soldiers in Israel. This led to the Gaza war of 2008/9 when Hamas employed the use of hidden launch sites to fire rockets indiscriminately into crowded, civilian, areas of Ashkelon and Ashdod. The IDF invaded the Gaza strip in what they called “Operation Cast Lead”. This was an attempt to thwart both the weapons smuggling and rocket fire coming out of Gaza. The IDF invaded on the ground but quickly found out that Hamas’ use of civilian bodies and structures as human shields made it difficult to minimize collateral damage. The conflict ended in a unilateral, Israeli, ceasefire due to the concern for additional loss of life (both of Gazan civilians and of IDF soldiers) deep in Gazan territory.

In September of 2009, a UN special mission investigated both Palestinian militants and the IDF for war crimes and “crimes against humanity” against the civilians of Gaza. In 2011, one of the investigators, Richard Goldstone, documented that he does not hold the IDF accountable for said crimes. The other investigators of the report, however, did. The UN human rights council ordered that Israel repair the damages to civilian buildings in the Gazan war.

From 2011-2013, Many terror attacks were carried out against Israelis in the West Bank. In 2012, there were 578 documented attacks including stabbings, firearms, Molotov cocktails and explosives. In June of 2014, 3 Israeli teenagers were hitchhiking in Alon Shvut (a Jewish settlement in Gush Etzion) when they were abducted by 2 Hamas operatives. The teenagers were found murdered in a shallow grave 17Km away. Immediately, the IDF arrested all known Hamas leaders in the West Bank in addition to armed militants totaling 350 prisoners. The two suspects in the abduction were killed in a gunfight with Israeli security forces. Hamas response was expected when they fired hundreds of rockets into Israel over the course of 7 weeks. During this time, stabbings, and riots in Palestinian populated territories of the West Bank escalated dramatically.

From 2006, Hamas had been dismantling infrastructure put in place by Israel prior to their disengagement and taking international aid to build a complex “spider web” of underground tunnels. It was from these tunnels that Hamas operatives would carry out terror missions into Israel, smuggle weapons/people in and out of the Gaza strip, launch rockets, and house munitions. In July of 2014, Israel retaliated against the Hamas rocket attacks by launching Operation Protective Edge which sought to take out the Hamas tunnel system. During the ground incursion, Hamas used civilian buildings (including mosques and hospitals) as safe houses, knowing that the international pressure against attacking civilian establishments would slow down the IDF’s campaign. Hamas put as many Gazan civilians between them and the IDF as possible forcing many civilian casualties. At the same time, they launched more than 4,500 rockets into Israel. Of these, a reported estimate of 280 were failed launches landing in Gaza and killing Gazan civilians. The IDF reported that the incursion successfully destroyed 34 tunnels. On August 26th, a ceasefire was brokered. The Gaza Health ministry reported over 2,300 Gazan deaths during the conflict. Israeli Health Ministry reported 73 Israeli deaths.

Over the next few years, Israeli security of the Gaza boarder was extremely stringent. Multiple clashes between Gazans approaching the fence and throwing rocks or Molotov cocktails would provoke IDF soldiers to take decisive action which resulted in the death of Gazans and provoked additional international scrutiny of Israeli-Gaza border. From March of 2018 through December of 2019, Gazan demonstrators would approach the boarder fence each Friday to demand the return of Israeli land to Palestinians. As many as 30,000 protestors would show up each Friday for almost 18 months until Hamas announced that these demonstrations would be discontinued. These protests, while mostly non-violent, occasionally escalated to a boiling point. Throughout that year and a half, around 200 Gazans were killed in the protests. Hamas and the Islamic Jihad reported 53 of them to be officially affiliated with their para-military forces.

In January of 2020, US president, Donald Trump presented his administration’s attempt at a peace plan between Israel and Palestine. Trump’s plan called for the Israeli annexation of about 30% of the Palestinian controlled West Bank. When it became clear that this deal was not going anywhere, Trump began to facilitate the normalization of ties between neighboring Arab countries and Israel. The Abraham Accords emphasized the lifting of tourism restrictions and the opening of business relationships between Israel and the Arab world. The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain were the first to sign this normalization deal with Israel in September of 2020. The United States played a crucial role in assisting with these normalization deals by lifting US imposed sanctions, terrorist designations and recognizing sovereignty of Arab countries over contested land. The Abraham Accords of 2020 served as a precursor to the removal of trade barriers enabling agreements such as the clean energy deal currently in negotiations between Jordan, Israel, and the UAE. ?

This “legitimization” of Israel in the Arab world sparked radical outcry by the Iran backed terror organizations grouped together in what is called the “Axis of Resistance”. Consequently, more and more “resistance” attacks were carried out in Israel by Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups. Between 2021 and 2023, clashes at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem escalated dramatically. The most prominent of these happened in April of 2023 (during the Muslim holiday of Ramadan, nearing the Jewish holiday of Passover and the Christian holiday of Easter) when rumors were spread of Jews planning to hold a religious ceremony at the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

To give some context, The Al-Aqsa Mosque was built in the early 8th century CE on the very site where Solomon’s Holy Temple (the most sacred structure in Jewish history) was destroyed in the year 70 CE. All 3 major monotheistic faiths recognize the holiness of the site. To Islam, this is the place from which the Prophet Muhammad ascended into heaven for a night. To Judaism and Christianity, this is the site of the “Foundation Stone”, or the origin point from which the world was created. Solomon’s temple was constructed around the stone circa 1200 BCE and served as only place where Jews were permitted to make sacrifices to God.

There is a common misconception that sacrifices were merely animal slaughter, however, sacrifices were actually the only way by which the Jewish people were permitted to eat meat. In order to take a life, that life had to be taken through ritual means and for a righteous purpose. Since the Temple’s destruction, the ritual way in which the priests would slaughter an animal for sacrifice has been preserved through an act of “Schita”. Today, all kosher meats are slaughtered in this way as a symbol that even animal life must be taken through a righteous act.

The site of Al-Aqsa Mosque (and really, all of the old city of Jerusalem) has been a point of contention throughout the entire conflict. State law prohibits Jews from performing religious acts or praying at the site of the mosque. The incident in April of 2023 began when rumors spread that Jewish priests were going to attempt a ritual slaughter of a goat at the site of the mosque on Passover. This caused mass hysteria as hundreds of Muslims barricaded themselves inside the mosque overnight. Despite the detainment of a Jewish activist by Israeli police, Palestinian Arab demonstrations ensued. Fireworks and rocks were hurled at Israeli police. In response, Israeli riot police forcefully entered the mosque utilizing stun grenades and rubber bullets. At least 400 Palestinian Arabs were arrested.

Following this incident, Hamas fired rockets into Israel and ordered the random killing of civilians. On April 7th, 2023, a British-Israeli family was heading north through the West Bank on the way to a vacation during the holiday of Passover. They were rammed by an assailing vehicle and then fired upon by Hamas operatives, killing all 3 women in the car. The operatives were later hunted down by the IDF and their West Bank apartment was destroyed.

The cycle of violence continued throughout the Summer of 2023 which ultimately led to the massacre of October 7th when Hamas militants, along with Gazan civilians, breached the Gaza boarder early in the morning, entering nearby Israeli villages and proceeding to rape, murder and kidnap some 1400 men, women and child civilians while capturing it all on their own body cameras. This sparked Operation Swords of Iron – the conflict occurring in the time of the drafting of this document.

Now that I have taken you through a summarized history of this conflict, I would like to emphasize that this is only a taste of the multitude of events that have shaped the age old disagreement over this holy land. It is, in my opinion, however, that the information provided is enough to shape a constructive discussion.

?As mentioned in my introduction, I brought my family to Israel in the summer of 2018. At the time, I had known much more about ancient Israel than the history of Zionism. I felt deeply that this land contains the ancient roots of my Jewish identity (which was mostly undiscovered until the age of 23). We lived in Jerusalem for the first two years of our now almost 5 year tenure here. During that time, I had learned in a liberal yeshiva alongside many young Jewish supporters of Arab Palestinian sovereignty. I went with them on tours to Hebron and to East Jerusalem. I heard the stories of Israeli suppression and the necessity of Arabs to obtain special permits just to enter Israel. Searches prompted strictly by racial profiling and required checkpoints were presented as oppressive and unnecessary measures intended to belittle Arab Palestinians and remind them that they are second-class citizens. The encounters I had with Arabs were not militant at all in Jerusalem. In fact, some of the Arabs there were much friendlier to me than Israeli Jews. I remember one day in the rainy Jerusalem winter when I went to the pharmacy looking for a nebulizer for my 2 year old son with asthma. After the Israeli unable to understand and unwilling to help me, a woman in a hijab saw the concerned expression on my face and proceeded to engage in a full-on conversation with me. She gave me all sorts of recommendations and then found me the nebulizer to purchase. This was the type of friendly customer service I was used to in the US.

I also took an ulpan – Hebrew language class. I learned in Jerusalem alongside many 18 and 19 year old Arabs from East Jerusalem who were studying for their college entrance exams. We became very friendly. We would sit together every day during our breaks and chat about what our lives were like. We would eat falafel and pita together while some would smoke cigarettes. They were good kids. There was one, however, who refused to speak to me because I was a Jew. The other guys told me that his father does not permit him to interact with Jews. Although I was curious, I didn’t push it. It seemed very serious. I didn’t keep in touch with any of them after the course was over, but I still look back on the experience and smile.

During my trips to East Jerusalem, I found no militants. Nobody threw rocks at me for wearing a kippa or tzitzit. I went to a cultural center and saw kids of different faiths playing together. It appeared that the horror stories of Israeli oppression and Palestinian terror attacks were merely racist and isolated incidents. It was then that I began to dig into the recent history of the state of Israel and learned about the events that have shaped the conflict until today. I became infatuated with the modern state of Israel, however, still was unable to take a side definitive side in the conflict. I felt strongly that the Palestinian plight was a result of bad luck and lack of support from neighboring Arab nations, but at the same time, the ”we were here first” argument was simply not true.

In 2019, I took a trip called “Breaking the Silence” to Hebron. This trip was organized by ex IDF soldiers who were there to tell their stories about the things they did to the people of Hebron in response to suicide bombs, stabbings and other terror attacks. The stories were indeed over compensatory. I learned of midnight raids intended to disrupt and scare Arab residents of boarder neighborhoods. I learned about the establishment of the settlement called “Kiriat Arba” which forced the eviction of Palestinian Arabs from their homes due for the need to establish a security stronghold in the area. When I was on the tour, we were followed by residents of Kiriat Arba and shouted at regarding the “Palestinian dog” who stabbed an Israeli soldier the day before. I remember that comparing these guys to the calm Arabs who were sitting in their shops smoking hukkah made me think much less of the “settlers” than the Palestinians. Still, I challenged the tour guides to present a military exercise that was carried out which wasn’t in response to terror activity (this would indicate oppression). They couldn’t.

In my mind, I rationalized the actions of both sides. On the Palestinian side, these were acts of resistance which lashed out at a perceived occupying force. Regardless of my opinion on whether the acts were right or wrong, they were carried out with honest guile and for the specific purpose of passionate rebellion. On the side of the Israelis, every act taken was that of suppression of militant terror attacks against Israeli civilians or soldiers. My assessment then was that the problem was rooted in the fact that Israel didn’t take over the territory as most conquerors had done historically. Had Israel ordered every Palestinian to either conform or get out of the country, they wouldn’t have the problem they have today. If every square inch of the land were Israel, things would be different. By giving Arab Palestinians their own lands to govern, Israel has enabled them to develop complex animosity and breed generations of hatred for Israelis (which manifests itself in the hatred of Jews). The problem was that the Jews really didn’t want to oppress anyone. The problem was that the Jews were not conquerors. They were ultimately trying to live together (but separate) in peace while Palestinian Arabs were radicalized against a stereotyped “land grabber”.?

In 2020, a friend of mine took the bus from my neighborhood in Jerusalem into the center of the city. He was pepper-sprayed randomly by an Arab on the bus who then threatened the bus driver before getting off and running away into the Arab neighborhood of Abu Tor. This was the first time that I had gotten close to any sort of real time attack in Israel.

Later that year, my wife and I could not afford to live in Jerusalem any longer. We were looking outside of the city and decided to move to Efrat, a settlement just south of Bethlehem. Our move was not political, rather, economical. Plus, we understood that Efrat’s long standing existence was mutually recognized by Arabs and Jews alike.

Once we moved, however, we began to have real experiences with Palestinian culture. I started shopping at the Arab hardware store and interacting with the Arab car mechanic just outside of the neighborhood. These guys were not like the pharmacist in Jerusalem. They would yell at each other in Arabic, treating their workers like servants. The aggression and hostility that seemed to be merely cultural practice was uncomfortable for me to be around at first. As time went on, I grew accustomed to it. I frequented the hardware store, got what I needed, and little by little felt less threatened. I understood that there is so much about the way they live that my middle-class, western upbringing didn’t understand. Driving into Jerusalem for work, I would see Arabs beating their horses maliciously on the side of the road. One time, I was driving home and saw a grown man hit his son who couldn’t have been older than 10 or 11, knocking him backwards off his feet to the ground.

Living in Efrat, though, my interactions with Arabs grew. I developed a very friendly relationship with a handyman who would help me with home improvement projects. Every time he had to order a piece of cut fabric, metal, or glass, he would have to yell hastily at the fabricator in the hopes that the person will provide what he requested to purchase. Every time, it was like rolling the dice whether the fabricator would show up. When I asked him about it, he explained that violence was the only way to get something done. With him it was like a switch was flipping. It must be hard to have to switch back and forth when dealing with many westernized clients in Efrat.?

I called him on October 9th to check in and see how he was doing. He explained to me that it was very scary for him. His village entrance/exit was blocked by the IDF and he explained that even his neighborhood was under threat of rocket fire from Hamas. Together we agreed that it is in God’s hands and that we hope that one day there can be peace without the desire of one side to destroy the other.

After hanging up the phone, I really began to reflect on our perceived mutual sentiment. I asked some of my non-American, Israeli, neighbors about it. They said that it is very likely that there is no difference between this guy and those who seek to destroy Israel. After a lot of contemplation, I am inclined to agree with them. From a logical point of view, of course this guy would choose his Muslim brothers over the Jew, their mortal enemy. Even if he doesn’t agree with their ideology, he has no option to live with us. He has no opportunity to be an Israeli. If he stands with Israel in the hopes that one day he will have a path to citizenship, he will likely be killed by his own people for not standing for the restoration of chaotic, conflicted, Palestine. After all, violence is how anything gets done in his culture.

The evolution of this conflict has brought us to the point where there cannot be both an Israel and a Palestine. Any solution containing two states does not consider the undeniable and bluntly apparent fact that the lifeblood of the Palestinian people flows with the hatred of Jews. How could two countries live peacefully after one has stomped out most of northern Gaza in response to Gaza’s elected leaders repeatedly raping Israeli mothers while they are forced to listen to their screaming babies burning in the oven in the next room? The goal of the Iranian backed “axis of resistance” was accomplished. The brutal acts of October 7th, which grossly and gruesomely murdered around 1400 Israeli non-combatants, successfully drove a giant wedge between anyone who actually thought that peace could be possible.

When presented with partition plans beginning with the Peel Commission plan (giving Palestine 80% of the country) and ending with the most recent Abraham Accords, Palestinians have shown that they have no interest in peace. While most Palestinians probably do not agree with the inhumanity of Hamas’ or Hezbolla’s methodology, their goal is the same: Conquest of the land “From the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea”. ?It is my belief that this catalyst leaves no choice but to escalate this war until only one side remains. The “axis of resistance” seeks to make this war into a war between Islam and the rest of the world. They seek to establish the Islamic State whereby sharia law governs the land and all who don’t acknowledge the superiority of Islam are put to death.

This war is no longer about a small piece of land once called Canaan. The Palestinian people are sacrificial pawns being used by Iranian puppeteers as an excuse to wage world-wide Jihad. On one hand, they claim every Islamic casualty is a “martyr” and is rewarded greatly for their sacrifice. On the other, they strongly accuse Israel and call on the world to condemn Israel for war crimes of killing non-combatants being placed by Hamas between themselves and the IDF fighters.

It is interesting that the war crimes of Hamas (the official government of Gaza) are just taken for granted. Because they are not an official country, they are disqualified from being held accountable for their actions on the world stage. They can kidnap over 200 civilians, burn down their homes and slaughter their children, but Palestinian supporters claim they are just ”resisting the occupation”. I pray that the world wakes up. I pray that we don’t have to see it burn before everyone realizes what must be done. This is not a war for the state of Israel. This is a war between freedom and oppression.

I’d like to define the sides of the war as I see them: who is fighting for freedom vs who is fighting for oppression? The Palestinian narrative has used the terms “oppression” and “apartheid” to define Israel’s treatment over the conquered Arab Palestinians. The reality is that Arab Palestinians live and work in Israeli society. As mentioned earlier, some are pharmacists, doctors, architects, contractors, dentists, university students, ect… in Israel. Arab Palestinians may choose to integrate and “normalize” within Israeli society.

The “Axis of Resistance”, or the arm of which Hamas is affiliated, explicitly calls for the establishment of Sharia law in their charter.

- Article 1 states that Hamas is an Islamic Palestinian movement committed to implementing Allah's promise by establishing an Islamic Palestinian state.

- Article 5 states "The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinct Palestinian Movement which owes its loyalty to Allah, derives from Islam its way of life and strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine."- Article 6 states that the movement's principles are "adherence to its Islamic frame of reference and its principles; a comprehensive concept of Islam as a whole, political organization, way of life, culture, etc."

- Article 7 frames the conflict with Israel as rooted in religion and calls Muslims to take up jihad as a duty.

- Article 11 states that Palestine's land should form an Islamic state for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day.

In essence, the charter lays out Hamas' ideological commitment to establishing an Islamic state in Palestine governed under Sharia as part of its view of an inherently religious conflict and struggle.

Under Sharia law, non-Muslims are considered “dhimmi” (protected minority) and granted religious freedom in exchange for a special tax (jizya). Dhimmis historically faced various restrictions, inequality under the law, and vulnerability to societal discrimination. Additionally, intolerance of LGBTQ+, women’s rights and other blasphemy laws make this end goal the very definition of oppression.

Contrasting this with the Israeli goal to maintain Israel as a Jewish homeland under Herzl’s vision to create a place where Jews can live, practice religiously, and grow together without the fear of oppression just because of the way one is born, makes this the side fighting for freedom. The Jews have repeatedly proven that they have no interest in limiting the peaceful practice of other cultures or religions. Israel seeks to normalize relations with cultures all over the world.

I recognize that as a Jewish immigrant to Israel, I must have some sort of biased view on this subject. That being said, I have not been able to hear a compelling argument for peace coming from the side seeking Palestinian sovereignty. I can only pray that Palestinian Arabs really do seek to live together. If they don’t, there is no world in which their reality of security checkpoints, profiling, and restrictions of movement will ever change in Israel. If they don’t, I also can’t see how the world can possibly support them having their own state. The history has proven repeatedly that every time Israel tries to ease restrictions on the Palestinian Arabs, they take those liberties and use them to launch attacks against Israel. We need to hear the Palestinian voices screaming for peaceful co-existence with Israelis. Without it, they will not be given another chance. The events of October 7th can never be allowed to happen again. ?