top of page

October 7th War

Accusation: Israel is accused of instigating the war, causing Palestinian casualties and devastation. Critics argue that the root cause lies in Israel's establishment in 1948, claiming that the alleged occupation and oppression of Palestinians since then led to October 7th as an inevitable response.

Immediate Context of October 7th:


  • Unprovoked Attack: On October 7, Israel was subject to an unprecedented assault. Hamas militants launched a coordinated invasion, entering Israeli territory, attacking civilians, and engaging in acts of terror. This wasn’t a response to a recent action but a premeditated attack on civilians, marking one of the deadliest days in Israel's history.


  • Peace on October 6th: The day before the attack, Israel was not engaged in any offensive military operations in Gaza. The borders had seen no major escalations, and citizens on both sides were living under relatively stable conditions. October 7th shattered this stability upon the decision of Hamas.


The Historical Foundation:


  • Israel’s 1948 Founding: Critics often assert that the conflict began with Israel's establishment in 1948. However, it is crucial to note that Israel's founding was internationally sanctioned, and the United Nations proposed a two-state solution, intending to create both Jewish and Arab states. Israel accepted this partition, but Arab states rejected it, initiating a war to prevent Israel's existence. It's also important to remember that the Jews living in the land before 1948 were constantly under Arab attacks, like in the Hebron 1929 massacre. So no, it didn't start in 1948 - it started with the ancient Jew-hatred.


  • Repeated Peace Offers: Since 1948, Israel has sought peace numerous times, including significant territorial compromises in the Camp David Accords (1978), Oslo Accords (1993), and offers during the 2000 Camp David Summit and the 2008 Olmert proposal. Despite these efforts, Palestinian leadership often rejected these compromises, missing opportunities for a peaceful resolution.


  • Occupation Narrative: Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, removing its military presence and civilian villages. However, rather than building a peaceful society, Hamas used this autonomy to build military infrastructure and smuggle weapons. This shows that “occupation” is not the sole catalyst for violence; ideological rejection of Israel’s existence drives continued hostility.


Hamas’s Role in Perpetuating Violence:


  • Hamas’s Charter: Hamas’s founding charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel. Unlike some Palestinian factions that seek a two-state solution, Hamas does not accept Israel’s right to exist in any form. Their actions, including targeting Israeli civilians and using their own civilian areas for military operations, reflect this extremist ideology. So when they invaded Israel, it was not to enforce the two-state solution but rather an attempt to enforce the one-state solution without Israel.


  • Diverted Resources: Rather than using resources to improve Gaza’s infrastructure, Hamas diverts international aid to build tunnels, rockets, and weaponry aimed at Israel. By prioritizing militarization over civilian welfare, Hamas undermines Palestinian quality of life and perpetuates suffering in Gaza.


Complexity of the “Occupation” Argument:


  • Jordanian and Egyptian Occupation: From 1948 to 1967, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) was under Jordanian control, and Gaza was controlled by Egypt. During these years, no Palestinian state was established in these territories, indicating that the absence of a state is not solely due to Israeli policies.


  • Post-1967 Security Needs: After the 1967 Six-Day War, in which Israel gained control of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza following an existential threat from neighboring states, Israel repeatedly expressed a willingness to negotiate land for peace. However, security threats, such as terrorism and the refusal to recognize Israel, made unconditioned withdrawal risky.


International Legal and Humanitarian Perspective:


  • Human Rights and Civilian Protections: Israel follows international humanitarian law in its operations, making efforts to avoid civilian casualties even while countering terrorist threats. The IDF warns civilians before strikes on military targets, something rarely seen in other conflict zones.


  • Accountability and Judicial Oversight: Israeli actions are subject to judicial review by its Supreme Court, which frequently rules in favor of Palestinian plaintiffs on issues related to human rights. This accountability reflects a legal system that values transparency and responsibility even under challenging security conditions.


Conclusion:


  • A Quest for Peace: Israel has repeatedly shown a willingness to coexist peacefully, extending offers for negotiation and compromises. Each attempt at peace, however, is undermined by entities that reject Israel’s right to exist.


  • Reality of Ideological Conflict: The conflict’s persistence is not simply about territory or control but is deeply rooted in ideological opposition. October 7th exemplifies that Israel is not engaged in perpetual aggression but rather must defend itself against groups dedicated to its destruction.

Project Gallery

Subscribe Form

Thanks for submitting!

©2024 by Hananya Naftali.

bottom of page