The Israel-Hamas Conflict: How Did We Get Here and How Do We Go Forward?

These pictures were found on the internet and show the current war in Israel and Palestine.

As a Jewish person, I have struggled to articulate my perspective and opinion on the Israel-Hamas Conflict. Since the start of the war, I have taken a nuanced position given that I am in support of both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. I have become more protective of my religion because I do not want religious and ethnic cleansing, such as the Holocaust, to reoccur. However, my religion does not inform my understanding of the situation because I have longed to understand the conflict from both narratives, avoiding the use of religious justification. Mr. Bauman was a highly articulate, intelligent, and engaging speaker. He began the presentation by acknowledging his biases, of which he had none in the matter. He is pro-Israeli people and pro-Palestinian people. Mr. Bauman discussed the history of the situation and the narrative of the situation, from both sides. He was careful to avoid the topic of religion, because religious justification has been used to warrant the murder of innocent individuals – and because it is more important to understand the historical context of the situation. 

Mr. Bauman’s core argument was that everyone involved – directly, or not – in the current conflict must address the situation by understanding the historical perspective and both narratives present in this conflict. To dispel any preconceived notions by the audience, Mr. Bauman was strategic in outlining three major matters. One, Hamas is not justified in its actions. Two, an explanation of the situation is not justification for any actions. And three, a description is not an excuse.  By saying this, I believe he further enhanced his credibility regarding an unbiased opinion of the situation. 

To begin discussing the specific situation, he discussed the concept of narrative and began to discuss the geography of Israel and the Gaza Strip (specifically how Israel can fit into the state of Colorado). Next, he began to establish the Israeli narrative, mainly in terms of historical context. Throughout many historical periods, the Jewish people have been forced to decide between assimilating to a country or culture or separating from that country. Given that, as Mr. Bauman said, the “gentile world would never allow Jews to assimilate, they must separate.” So, Jews began to emigrate to Israel, and other places, through aliyahs, riots, and “work-zionism”. Eventually, the Ottomans allowed Jews to emigrate to the land of Israel but they could not settle where Palestinians resided. Then, during World War I, the Ottoman Empire disintegrated and Palestine was now under British rule. Soon after, during World War II, the British Empire ended, but the Holocaust began. Mr. Bauman mentioned the Holocaust to make a point about the current conflict. Many Jewish people are retaliating against Hamas because they worry that the Holocaust will occur again. This conflict is retraumatizing everyone who worries for the safety and security of their ethnicity, religion, and being. Following WWII, Israel was officially designated for Jewish people to reside. However, this angered the Palestinians, which led to the first Arab-Israeli War. 

When discussing the Palestinian narrative, Bauman outlined the drastic changes in geographic presence that Palestine faced. From 1947 to the present day, the Palestinian land has decreased continuously; by 1969, Israel had settled nearly 78% of the land available in Israel. In this new Israeli land, ethnic cleansing of Palestinians continued. After the end of the Arab-Israeli war, ending in 1949, the Palestinian people wanted to return home, but Israel wouldn’t let them. So, as the Democratic State of Israel continued to expand its borders to Jewish people, the Palestine Refugee Crisis surfaced. The West Bank was sectioned into three distinctive sections: A (Palestinian authority), B (Palestinian authority and Israeli security), and C (Israeli authority). These sanctioned areas of land were created to send the Palestinians home; however, due to the barrier built by Israel, Palestinians were unable to re-enter their land. It is the responsibility of the state to provide safety and security to its citizens; however, the barrier puts citizens from Israel and Palestine in more danger than anticipated. While Israel has a stronger and more strategic military presence – which controls what enters and exits the West Bank – the barrier facilitates more tension between Hamas and the Israeli government.

Bauman formulated a clear and structured way for what policymakers should prioritize and how to, potentially, move forward with a two-state solution. First, Israel and Palestine must keep Hezbollah; Hezbollah would create more destruction. Second, policymakers must watch the internal dynamics with Jordan closely, because those relationships could be telling of the current state of the conflict. Third, everyone should be in support of the removal of Hamas, but they should avoid human casualties as much as possible. Palestinians see Hamas as the only freeing force (the only organization sticking up to Israel). So, to remove Hamas, policymakers must work with Palestinians to institute a strong government, which is not a terrorist organization. Fourth, Palestine, Israel, and other supporting countries must prepare for the morning after the war ends. In order to do this, Palestinians must be given hope. West Bank A must be expanded and there must be rapid and significant changes in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. A new Palestinian authority must be validated and fortified. This will all, hopefully, lead to a successful two-state solution. Bauman concluded this speech by saying, “It’s taken decades to create this mess, it will likely take decades to resolve it.” So, the most important facet of creating a two-state solution, and a solution, in general, is a commitment from both sides and all supporting countries. 

This speech was one of the most impactful sessions I have attended. I feel more educated on the subject and can now properly articulate my stance on the conflict. This event opened my eyes to the interconnectedness of conflict. It also reminded me of the importance of understanding the historical context and every perspective of a situation.