The road to Gaza is not only paved with broken treaties, betrayals, and bitter politics. It is littered, too,with the daily human tragedies that rarely make the headlines. In Gaza, throughout Palestine, families have seen their homes bulldozed in moments, their children gunned down in village streets during military incursions and their livlihoods destroyed by the encroachment of settlements. Many have endured attacks by settlers, the slow suffocation of land seizures and the daily humiliation of walls, checkpoints, and travel bans. In Israel, Jewish families have been murdered in their homes, kidnapped, or killed by rockets fired from Gaza with indiscriminate rage. The body counts rise year after year — in Gaza, in the West Bank, in Israel itself — and if numbers alone could tell the story, it would be one of near-endless escalation and suffering on both sides.
Yet, behind the violence lie deeper currents: the despair and radicalisation that culminated in the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023; the extent to which Hamas’ brutal methods are supported, resented, or merely endured by Palestinians under siege; the Israeli government's relentless, disproportionate military response, and the political calculations of leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu, whose survival may depend as much on extending the conflict as on ending it.
We cannot just start on October 7th 2023, or 1967 or 1948. Understanding Gaza means wading into decades of history, decisions made in distant capitals, and betrayals stretching back over a century. It demands looking past slogans and absolutes, to the human cost exacted from ordinary people — Palestinian and Israeli alike — caught in a conflict that no longer seems to offer a future to either side.
What follows is not a simple story. It is a journey through the tangled politics, broken promises, and hardened ideologies that have led Gaza to the abyss.
In the early Middle Ages, Jews lived across Europe and the Islamic world, often tolerated but rarely equal. They were a minority everywhere — distinct in religion, language, and culture. Their communities often lived under fragile protection, subject to the moods of rulers and mobs.
Two forces shaped Jewish life in this era:
1. Religious exclusion and legal restrictions
In Christian Europe, Jews were increasingly portrayed as outsiders, even threats.
In 1096, during the First Crusade, Christian armies massacred entire Jewish communities in the Rhineland.
Jews were banned from owning land, joining guilds, or holding public office.At the same time, Christian doctrine forbade Christians from lending money at interest ("usury") — but allowed Jews to do so. As a result, many Jews were pushed into roles as moneylenders and financiers — one of the few livelihoods legally open to them.
Their visibility in these roles fed deep resentment, creating myths of Jewish wealth and power that would echo for centuries.
2. A pattern of exile and dispersal
Over time, Jews were expelled from England (1290), France (1306 and 1394), and Spain (1492). Each expulsion uprooted families, scattering them into new lands — often eastward into Poland or southward into the Ottoman Empire.
In the Muslim world, Jews lived under Islamic protection as "People of the Book," but still with second- class status ("dhimmi") and restricted rights.
Why does this matter for Gaza?
Because centuries of persecution seeded the belief among many Jews that no matter how much they adapted, they would never be safe without a land of their own.
And for a small group of religious Jews, the dream of returning to Zion — to the ancestral land of Israel/Palestine — never fully faded.
For now, however, that dream was largely spiritual. Political action would not come until modern times, when a new idea — nationalism — transformed old hopes into new demands.
By the late 18th century, the old world was cracking open. In Europe, centuries of religious rule were challenged by the Enlightenment: a movement of philosophers, scientists, and reformers who championed reason, individual rights, and secular government.
The French Revolution (1789) exploded these ideas into action, toppling monarchy and church authority in the name of liberty, equality, and fraternity.
The shockwaves changed the world. New nations began to form:
In the Americas, the United States emerged, declaring all men created equal.
In Europe, older feudal states dissolved and new national unifications took place — Germany and Italy becoming unified nations by mid-century.
Across the world, the idea spread that peoples — not kings — had the right to self-rule.
For European Jews, this was a moment of both hope and disappointment.Hope, because for the first time, they were promised equal rights under law. Jews could become citizens, not just tolerated outsiders.
Disappointment, because acceptance was often conditional. Many governments pressured Jews to shed their distinct customs, languages, and religious practices.
True equality remained elusive. Even when they assimilated, Jews found themselves subject to new forms of hatred — now cloaked not in religion, but in racial theories that marked them as permanently "other."
It was in this fraught atmosphere that a new idea took root among some Jewish thinkers: if Germans, Italians, and Americans could claim nationhood based on shared history and culture, why couldn’t the Jews?
Modern Zionism — the political movement seeking a Jewish homeland — was born. At first, it was a dream without a clear plan. Some imagined resettling in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jewish people. Others considered new frontiers elsewhere (such as Argentina or Uganda).
But the pull of Zion — of Jerusalem — remained powerful, and Palestine slowly became the focus.
Meanwhile, independent changes were underway in the Arab world.
The Ottoman Empire, which ruled Palestine and much of the Middle East, was weakening. In response, a new spirit of Arab cultural revival — known as the Nahda — began to emerge, particularly in centers like Beirut, Damascus, and Cairo. Arab scholars, poets, and reformers began reasserting pride in Arab identity, history, and language. Although political Arab nationalism was still in its infancy, the seeds of a movement seeking greater Arab self-determination were being planted.
Thus, two parallel awakenings were underway: A Jewish search for a homeland after centuries of exile and exclusion and an Arab cultural revival after centuries of imperial domination.
At first, they developed in near ignorance of one another. But they were moving — quietly, inevitably — toward the same land.
Why does this matter for Gaza?
Because the coming collision was not simply about religion, or even land alone.
It was the meeting of two peoples, each carrying centuries of dreams, fears, and ambitions — but with little understanding of the other’s story.
Before the 19th century, most Arabs saw themselves mainly in terms of family, tribe, or faith — as part of the great Muslim world ruled by the Ottoman Sultan, who was also the Caliph of Islam.The idea of being "Arab" as a separate national identity — across countries — was faint, more cultural than political.
But this began to change. From the early 1800s, under pressure from both European imperial powers and internal reforms, the Ottoman Empire weakened. New ideas seeped in: liberalism, nationalism, constitutionalism — imported from Europe but reshaped by local thinkers.
The result was the Nahda ("awakening" or "renaissance"). Arab intellectuals revived pride in the Arabic language, history, and civilization, newspapers and books flourished in cities like Cairo, Beirut, and Damascus.
Calls grew for better governance, education, and eventually — political autonomy. At first, Arab leaders hoped for reform within the Ottoman Empire: a more just, inclusive empire where Arabs could share in power. Not full independence yet — few imagined overthrowing the Empire outright before the 20th
century.
However, trust eroded as reforms faltered. The Ottoman rulers, feeling their grip weaken, became increasingly authoritarian — especially under Sultan Abdulhamid II (1876–1909), who ruled with suspicion and centralised power around Turkish elites.
Meanwhile, European powers — Britain, France, and later Germany — began meddling: offering scholarships and aid, but also seeking influence, playing rival Arab groups against each other, often favoring Christian minorities to weaken Muslim rulers, planting the seeds of divide and rule that would blossom after World War I.
Thus, by the eve of the First World War, Arab identity had been reawakened — but remained fragile:
some Arabs still saw themselves primarily as Muslims loyal to the Caliph, others dreamed of an Arab nation stretching from Morocco to Iraq.
Crucially, Palestine was not yet a separate concept. It was part of a larger Arab-Muslim world — a province within greater Syria — and its fate was imagined as tied to that larger Arab future.
Why does this matter for Gaza?
Because when World War I came, and Arabs were promised independence if they rose against the Ottomans, they believed they were fighting for their own nationhood. They did not know that British and French diplomats had already begun carving up their lands in secret deals.
A century of resentment was about to be born.
When World War I broke out in 1914, the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany and Austria-Hungary — enemies of Britain and France. For the Arabs living under Ottoman rule, this offered a sudden, dangerous opportunity. Many, frustrated by Turkish domination, dreamed of liberation — but liberation under Arab flags, not European ones.The British saw this Arab discontent as a weapon. They sent agents like T.E. Lawrence — later immortalised as "Lawrence of Arabia" — to convince Arab leaders to rise against their Ottoman rulers.
The key figure was Sharif Hussein of Mecca, guardian of Islam’s holiest cities.
In a series of letters now known as the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence (1915–1916), the British promised Hussein an independent Arab state after the war, including most of the lands of the Ottoman Arab provinces: from Aleppo in Syria to Aden in Yemen.
Encouraged by these promises, Arab forces launched the Arab Revolt in 1916. They fought bravely — and crucially — for the Allied cause.
Meanwhile, unbeknownst to the Arabs, Britain and France had already made other plans. In 1916, in a secret agreement called the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the two powers agreed to divide the Ottoman Arab lands between themselves after the war: France would take Syria and Lebanon, Britain would take Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine.
The Arabs were not consulted.
As if that were not enough, in November 1917, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration — a public letter expressing support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."
This declaration, vague in wording but explosive in impact, ignored the Arab majority already living in Palestine — and the promises made to them.
For many Arabs, these betrayals were shattering. They had fought and bled for freedom, only to see new colonial masters. In Palestine, they now feared being made strangers in their own land.
By the end of the war in 1918, Britain and France occupied the Arab provinces. Rather than liberation, the Arabs were subjected to new mandates — thinly disguised colonies — under the authority of the League of Nations.
In Palestine, the stage was now set for collision: Jews, inspired by Zionist dreams and backed by British promises, began to arrive in growing numbers, Arabs, betrayed and angry, began to resist what they saw as a second conquest.
The road to Gaza would no longer be a slow journey. It would soon be a march to confrontation.
The Balfour Declaration, issued in November 1917, seemed on its surface a moral statement: Britain "viewed with favour" the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. But the reality was far more layered — and driven by cold calculations of war, empire, and influence.
First, Britain hoped to secure Jewish support — particularly in the United States and Russia — for the Allied cause during the brutal years of World War I. In America, the Zionist movement had gained strength under figures like Louis Brandeis, a close adviser to President Woodrow Wilson and the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice. Britain believed that winning Zionist support could help keep America fully committed to the war — and perhaps even sway Jewish communities in Russia to bolster the faltering Eastern Front.
Second, Britain sought to strengthen its claim to Palestine strategically. Control of Palestine meant controlling the eastern approaches to the Suez Canal, the lifeline to Britain's empire in India. By cultivating a future Jewish presence in Palestine, Britain believed it could create a loyal buffer against both Arab nationalism and French ambitions.
Third, there were strong ideological currents in British politics itself. Some leaders, including Prime Minister David Lloyd George, held a kind of Christian Zionism: a belief that the return of Jews to the Holy Land fulfilled biblical prophecy. Others, like Balfour himself, viewed Jews as a "people without a
land" who deserved restoration — but often with an undercurrent of paternalistic, and sometimes antisemitic, logic.
Importantly, even as Balfour issued the Declaration, he confided privately that: “Zionism… is of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land."
The seeds of resentment were thus sown. Arab rights were seen as secondary, almost invisible, compared to imperial aims and Zionist hopes.
Meanwhile, in Palestine itself, Jewish organizations like the Jewish National Fund were already quietly purchasing land. Many of these lands were bought legally from absentee Arab landlords, often living in Beirut, Damascus, or Cairo — not from the tenant farmers who had lived there for generations.
Thus, even before mass immigration, tensions simmered. Dispossessed Arab peasants saw themselves losing their homes and livelihoods to strangers. Jewish settlers, often idealistic and socialist, believed they were reclaiming a lost heritage.
The powder keg was building, even before either side fully realised it.
The Mandate system, soon to be imposed by the League of Nations, would only add fuel to the fire.
The post-World War I era was a time of hope and disillusionment for many, but for the inhabitants of Palestine, it marked the beginning of a new and dangerous phase of their story.
The League of Nations, created to ensure lasting peace after the war, entrusted Britain with the mandate to govern Palestine. This was not a sovereignty granted to any nation, but rather a temporary trust meant to prepare the land for self-rule — a promise that was rarely fulfilled.
Instead, Britain became the new colonial master, overseeing a complex and contradictory situation. On one hand, they were bound by the Balfour Declaration to help create a Jewish national home in Palestine; on the other hand, they were supposed to respect the rights and interests of the Arab population, which was overwhelmingly Muslim and Christian.
The Jewish National Home and Arab Resistance: The early 1920s saw the first waves of Jewish immigration, particularly under the auspices of organizations like the Jewish National Fund and the Zionist Federation. These immigrants were often young idealists who believed in the Hebrew revival, hoping to turn the desolate land of Palestine into a thriving Jewish state. By 1922, the Jewish population had reached about 84,000, and their influence on the land and economy began to grow.
But for the Arabs, the increasing numbers of Jewish immigrants and the land purchases, many of which were made without consulting the local population, began to stir deep resentment.
The Arab population felt betrayed by the British, who had promised them independence, only to deliver them into the hands of a foreign power that was now facilitating Jewish immigration. This tension reached its first explosive peak in 1920, when riots broke out in Jerusalem between Jews and Arabs. By 1921, these clashes had spread to other towns and villages, signaling the beginning of a long, volatile relationship.
Britain's double-dealing only deepened the sense of betrayal. Having promised Arabs independence in 1915, they were backing the establishment of a Jewish homeland. For many Arabs, this was nothing short of treachery — especially when British promises to safeguard Arab interests were undermined by their growing support for Zionist aims.It was in this climate of unrest that Arab nationalism began to crystallise. Leaders like Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, began to advocate for the Arab revolt against British rule and Jewish immigration. They demanded independence for Palestine, rejecting both British and Jewish claims to the land.
Because of his vocal criticism of Zionism, Al-Husseini who had became a symbol of Arab opposition to British and Zionist policies, was exiled in the 1930s to Mauritius, along with many other prominent Arab leaders. He remained in exile for over a decade, effectively decapitated the leadership of the Arab nationalist movement, weakening its ability to resist Zionist aspirations in Palestine.
The British duplicity was a source of deep resentment for the Arab population, who felt betrayed by the conflicting promises made during the war. The British had promised Arab independence in return for their support in the fight against the Ottoman Empire (via the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence), only to later endorse a Jewish homeland in Palestine through the Balfour Declaration. This stark contradiction had intensified the Arab nationalist movement, particularly under the leadership of Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
In 1929, the Hebron Massacre marked another significant chapter in the growing rift: Arab mobs attacked Jewish communities, killing dozens and sparking wider violence. The British, caught between two increasingly hostile groups, began to shift their policies — but with little success in either placating the Arabs or satisfying the Jews.
Meanwhile, in the Jewish camp, figures like Ze'ev Jabotinsky, a prominent Zionist leader, argued that the Palestinian Arabs were seen as an obstacle to the establishment of a Jewish state. In his work The Iron Wall (1923), Jabotinsky argued that the colonization of Palestine would only succeed through the establishment of a powerful military presence: "If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison on your behalf. Or else—give up your colonization." He underscored that without the ability to defend and secure the land with force, the Zionist project would be doomed.For Jabotinsky, the question of armed power was central to the survival and success of the Jewish state.
This philosophy would influence future generations of Zionist leaders, including those within the Irgun and Haganah—the military organizations that played critical roles in the defense of Jewish settlements and, later, in the formation of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).
His controversial view emphasised the need for strong action to ensure that the land would be predominantly Jewish, even at the cost of the Arab population's displacement.
As the decade progressed, the trajectory toward an inevitable conflict became clearer. The failure of the British to resolve the conflicting promises and the intensifying Zionist resistance were setting the stage for the larger conflict that would define the future of Palestine. By the time World War II ended, the
Zionist movement was ready to make its claim for a Jewish state, and the Arab world was equally determined to oppose it. The path to Gaza—and to the broader conflict between Jews and Arabs—was laid by the conflicting promises, broken treaties, and militarised ambitions of both sides. The resulting struggle would lead to a series of wars, displacement, and lasting enmity that still reverberates today.
The British government, feeling the weight of pressure from both sides, issued the White Paper of 1939. It drastically limited Jewish immigration to Palestine, ostensibly to appease Arab opposition. This policy change angered many in the Jewish community, particularly those who felt the urgency of a safe haven in light of rising antisemitism in Europe, and especially the Nazi threat.
The most cataclysmic event in the history of the Jewish people — the Holocaust — began in 1939, while Britain was still governing Palestine under the Mandate. By the time the war ended in 1945, the loss of six million Jews weighed heavily on Jewish consciousness. The survivors, and many others who had fled Europe before and during the war, looked to Palestine as a sanctuary.
After the Holocaust, Zionism gained even more global support, and the demand for an independent Jewish state became impossible to ignore. The British were now stuck in a dilemma. On one hand, they could not ignore their promises to the Jews; on the other, they faced mounting violence from the Arab population and growing resistance to their rule. The situation in Palestine had reached a boiling point.
The United Nations Steps In. In 1947, after years of failed diplomacy and escalating violence, Britain decided to withdraw from Palestine and handed the issue over to the newly formed United Nations (UN).
The UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) was tasked with recommending a solution. The committee proposed a partition plan: Palestine would be divided into two states — one Jewish and one Arab — with Jerusalem placed under international control.
The Jews, despite their deep reservations, accepted the UN partition plan. For them, it was a recognition of their right to a homeland after centuries of persecution. The Arabs, however, rejected the plan outright, arguing that it violated their rights to self-determination and that the land could not be divided.
The British, unable to hold onto their mandate any longer, withdrew in mid-1948. The Jewish leadership, now ready to declare independence, did so on May 14, 1948, just hours before the British left. The new state of Israel was born.
The British dilemma had been a precarious balancing act: honoring their commitment to the Jewish homeland while managing increasing Arab opposition. The Great Arab Revolt (1936-1939) was a direct response to British colonial rule and the growing Jewish presence. For the Arabs, the issue was not just about land but also about sovereignty and identity. To them, British promises of independence had been broken, while the Zionist ambitions seemed increasingly unstoppable.In contrast to the Jewish vision for a homeland, the Arab perspective was one of resistance. The Arab nationalist movement had taken shape in response to the Ottoman Empire's decline and the growing influence of European colonial powers.
In walking away from Palestine the British left behind a land divided, a people dispossessed and a conflict that would ignite a century of was, exile and unresolved longing.
As the Second World War drew to a close, the balance of power in the Middle East was on the cusp of transformation. The global landscape was reeling from the effects of the war, and colonial powers, weakened by their involvement in the conflict, found themselves unable to maintain control over their overseas empires. The British, who had been overseeing Palestine since the end of World War I, were facing increasing pressure from both the Jewish and Arab communities.
The Zionist movement had been gaining momentum throughout the 1930s and 1940s, with Jewish immigrants continuing to flood into Palestine despite British restrictions on immigration. At the same time, the Holocaust had galvanised support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, as the international community grappled with the aftermath of the genocide. Zionist leaders, recognizing the urgency of their cause, began to press for a Jewish state as the only solution to the persecution that Jews had faced in Europe.
The British Mandate had become increasingly untenable. Faced with escalating violence, including attacks by Jewish underground groups like the Irgun and Lehi, and persistent Arab resistance, Britain sought a way to extricate itself from the situation. The United Nations, newly established after the war, would soon take on the mantle of resolving the future of Palestine.
In 1947, the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) proposed a Partition Plan that recommended dividing the land into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem administered internationally. The Zionist leadership, having long pushed for a state of their own, was largely in favor of the plan, despite its compromises. On the other hand, the Arab leaders rejected the proposal, viewing it as a betrayal of their rights to the land and a confirmation of the colonial powers’ disregard for their sovereignty.
The UN Partition Plan passed by a narrow margin, with 33 votes in favor, 13 against, and 10 abstentions. For the Zionists, this was seen as a victory—a step toward the realization of the long-dreamed-of Jewish state. However, the Arab world immediately rejected the plan, and tensions began to escalate rapidly. The Palestinian Arab leadership and the broader Arab states were unwilling to accept the creation of a Jewish state on land they considered their own.
On May 14, 1948, the State of Israel was declared, and the Zionist dream was realised. However, the moment of triumph was immediately overshadowed by the eruption of violence. Arab armies from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon—backed by Palestinian Arab forces—invaded the newly declared state, leading to the First Arab-Israeli War (1948-1949).
The conflict was brutal and left deep scars on both sides. The Jewish forces—newly organised under the banner of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)—fought fiercely for survival. Despite being outnumbered, they managed to gain the upper hand, thanks in part to superior organization, international support, and a growing sense of Zionist resolve. The Arab forces, however, were hampered by a lack of coordination and political differences among the Arab states.
One of the most significant outcomes of the war was the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, many of whom fled or were expelled from their homes during the fighting. The Nakba (Arabic for "catastrophe") became a central event in the Palestinian collective memory, marking the loss of their homeland and the beginning of the ongoing Palestinian refugee crisis.
By the end of the First Arab-Israeli War, Israel had expanded beyond the borders outlined in the UN Partition Plan, taking control of territories that had been designated for the Arab state. The Gaza Strip came under Egyptian control, while the West Bank was annexed by Jordan. Jerusalem was divided, with West Jerusalem controlled by Israel and East Jerusalem, including the Old City, falling under Jordanian control.
For the Jewish state, the war was a victory, but it came at a heavy cost. The Jewish population had grown rapidly, but they also had to confront the Arab opposition that remained. For the Palestinians, the war represented a devastating loss that would shape their identity and their political struggles for decades to come.
In the years following the war, Israel continued to develop and solidify its position as a sovereign state.
The country’s military and political leaders focused on the challenges of integration, security, and state-building. Meanwhile, the Arab states remained deeply hostile to the new state of Israel. The situation in the refugee camps—filled with displaced Palestinians—remained dire.
The creation of Israel and the resulting displacement of Palestinians would serve as the foundation for decades of conflict, with the issue of Palestinian refugees and the right of return becoming a central point of contention. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict would continue to evolve, with multiple wars, peace attempts, and countless lives lost along the way. Yet, the fundamental questions about territory, sovereignty, and justice remained unresolved, setting the stage for a conflict that would continue to shape the Middle East and the wider world for the foreseeable future.
The motivations for the Arab nations intervening in the 1948 war against the newly declared State of Israel were driven by a mix of solidarity with Palestinians and regional political interests. After Israel declared independence, the surrounding Arab nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, saw the establishment of a Jewish state as a betrayal of the Palestinian Arabs, who had hoped for
their own independent state. But the reasons for their involvement went deeper.
The creation of Israel was seen as a legacy of Western colonialism, particularly British double-dealing.
The Balfour Declaration had promised a Jewish homeland, but the Arab population in Palestine, who had hoped for independence, felt betrayed. Arab leaders rallied to defend Palestinian land, but their involvement was also about resisting the imposition of a Western-backed state at the heart of the Arab world. Despite their military efforts, however, the Arab states were also driven by regional rivalries, making their response less coordinated.
Egypt, for instance, aimed to control the Gaza Strip, while Jordan had its own aspirations for Palestinian territory, particularly the West Bank. This was not a unified Arab defense of Palestine, but rather a collection of competing agendas. The Arab states, despite rallying against the new Israeli state, had their own interests that often overshadowed the Palestinian cause.
For Palestinians, 1948 became known as the Nakba, or catastrophe. More than 700,000 Palestinians were displaced from their homes, either through forced expulsion by Israeli forces or through fear and panic caused by the violence of war. Some fled, believing they would return once the fighting was over.But the creation of Israel, alongside military actions and psychological warfare, ensured that many never did.
Palestinians who managed to flee settled in neighboring Arab countries, such as Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. However, these refugees were denied full citizenship, leaving them in a limbo that continues to this day. Gaza was placed under Egyptian administration, but Egypt did not annex the region, nor did it offer the displaced Palestinians citizenship. This left Gaza in a constant state of political and social stagnation, its residents unable to return home or integrate into neighboring countries.
The West Bank, meanwhile, was annexed by Jordan. This move was not universally accepted, and Palestinian Arabs living in the West Bank found themselves under a new authority. The fate of the Palestinian people was now tied to the foreign policies of the surrounding Arab states, which were unwilling or unable to provide a solution.
Thus, by 1948, the division of Palestine into zones controlled by Israel, Jordan, and Egypt set the stage for ongoing conflict. Palestinians, who had been promised their own homeland, were left without sovereignty, and the displacement created a refugee crisis that continues to haunt the region.
In 1956, the Suez Crisis brought Israel into direct conflict with Egypt under President Gamal Abdel Nasser. Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal angered Britain and France, two former colonial powers with vested interests in the canal. Israel, eager to weaken Nasser’s influence and gain security along its borders, launched an invasion of the Sinai Peninsula.
However, this conflict was quickly complicated by the broader Cold War dynamics. While Britain and France sought to intervene to protect their colonial interests, the United States, under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, opposed their actions. The U.S. was already taking a more proactive stance in supporting
Israel, viewing it as a strategic ally in the region against the growing influence of the Soviet Union.
At the same time, the Soviet Union sided with Nasser, offering him political and military support as part of their broader Cold War strategy to challenge Western influence in the Middle East. This marked a shift from Britain/France to the USA/USSR as the principal powers involved in Middle Eastern affairs, a dynamic that would shape the region for decades to come.
The Six-Day War of 1967 was a turning point in the Israeli-Arab conflict. Israel launched a preemptive strike against its Arab neighbors, including Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, after rising tensions and a buildup of enemy forces near its borders. Within six days, Israel had achieved a stunning military victory, capturing the West Bank (from Jordan), East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip (from Egypt), and the Golan Heights (from Syria).
The U.S. was quick to provide political and military support to Israel, ensuring that its military victories were recognised and solidified. At the same time, the Soviet Union offered support to Egypt and Syria, but the defeat in the Six-Day War marked a significant setback for the Soviet-backed Arab states.Israel’s victory left the region more polarised, with the USA aligning strongly with Israel and the Soviet Union deepening its alliances with Egypt, Syria, and other Arab states. This ideological split would fuel much of the conflict in the coming decades, with the Middle East serving as a battleground for Cold War influence.
The Yom Kippur War (1973): The Arab Counterattack was launched in 1973. The Arab states, led by Egypt and Syria, launched a surprise attack on Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. The aim was to recapture the territories lost during the Six-Day War. Led by President Anwar Sadat of Egypt and President Hafez al-Assad of Syria, the attack caught Israel off-guard and initially resulted in significant Israeli losses.
The conflict showcased the vulnerability of Israel, despite its military might and highlighted the involvement of the U.S. and Soviet in the conflict and Cold War dynamics at play.
The war lasted several weeks and ended in a ceasefire, but the military confrontation highlighted the growing need for a political resolution. For Israel, it was a wake-up call that military dominance alone couldn’t secure lasting peace in the region. Meanwhile, the Arab states demonstrated that they could unite for a common cause, making Israel reconsider its approach to peace talks.
The Camp David Accords (1978): The First Peace Agreement. A major turning point came in 1978 when Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin signed the Camp David Accords, under the mediation of U.S. President Jimmy Carter. This was the first time an Arab country officially recognised Israel.
The accord is important because it was the first time an Arab state, Egypt, recognised Israel and establishmed diplomatic relations. It also brought about Israel’s withdrawal from Sinai, which it had occupied since 1967 and – in theory created a framework for peace talks regarding the Palestinians.
Though a historic breakthrough, the peace accord was controversial in the Arab world. Sadat’s decision to make peace with Israel was met with fierce opposition, and he ultimately faced assassination by Islamic extremists. However, Egypt’s peace with Israel has largely held, and it remains a cornerstone of the region’s geopolitics.
Palestinian Nationalism: The Rise of the PLO. During the 1960s and 1970s, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) emerged as the main representative body for the Palestinian people. Led by Yasser Arafat, the PLO aimed for an independent Palestinian state and engaged in both diplomatic efforts and militant actions to achieve this goal. The organization became recognised internationally, though it was seen as a terrorist group by Israel and its allies.
In the 1960s, Palestinian nationalism began to take a more defined shape with the creation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). Initially formed in 1964 with the support of the Arab League, the PLO was intended to unify Palestinian factions and represent Palestinian interests in the broaderArab world. However, it was Yasser Arafat, leader of the Fatah movement, who transformed the PLO into the principal body for Palestinian resistance and self-determination.
Under Arafat's leadership, the PLO adopted a more militant approach, using both diplomatic and military means to achieve the goal of a Palestinian state. This included attacks on Israeli targets, including hijackings and bombings, which garnered international attention, often for the wrong reasons.
The PLO's tactics were controversial—while they helped to cement the organization as the voice of Palestinian nationalism, they also attracted condemnation for their violent methods.
In 1970, after the Jordanian Black September, which saw a brutal crackdown on Palestinian militants by King Hussein of Jordan, the PLO was forced to relocate its headquarters to Lebanon. From this base, the PLO continued its operations, and its militancy became more pronounced. As the 1970s progressed, the PLO's image was complicated by its involvement in attacks that resulted in the deaths of civilians, including several high-profile hijackings, such as the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, which left 11 Israeli athletes dead.
The international community, including much of Europe and the United States, was deeply horrified by these acts of terrorism. The image of Palestinians, particularly through the lens of organizations like the PLO, became increasingly tied to the violence of their campaigns. Many countries recognised the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, but there was widespread condemnation of the organization's use of terrorism to achieve its ends.
In the late 1980s, amidst the growing disillusionment with the PLO’s failure to achieve a lasting peace, a new player emerged on the Palestinian political scene: Hamas. Established in 1987 during the First Intifada (uprising), Hamas was rooted in Islamist ideology and drew inspiration from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Unlike the PLO, which had a more secular approach to resistance, Hamas
positioned itself as a religious and ideological alternative, calling for the establishment of an Islamic state in Palestine and rejecting negotiations with Israel.
Hamas's approach was heavily focused on militant resistance, including suicide bombings and other forms of terrorism targeting Israeli civilians, which further entrenched the image of Palestinian groups as violent and uncompromising. The international community, particularly Israel and the United States, viewed Hamas as a terrorist organization, and many countries imposed sanctions or severed ties with it.
At the same time, Hamas gained significant support from Palestinians disillusioned with the PLO’s failure to deliver on promises of peace and statehood. While the PLO continued to be the dominant force in Palestinian politics, Hamas quickly became a powerful alternative, particularly in the Gaza Strip, where it would eventually take control after violent clashes with the Palestinian Authority in the early 2000s. Hamas's rise was seen by many as a direct challenge to the PLO’s leadership, and its commitment to violence, rather than diplomacy, made it a highly divisive force within Palestinian society.
The High Cost of Violence: While Palestinian resistance gained sympathy in some quarters, especially within the broader Arab world, the international community was increasingly horrified by the violence perpetrated by Palestinian militants. The terrorist tactics employed by groups like the PLO and Hamas— such as bombings, hijackings, and targeted assassinations—not only alienated much of the West but also created moral and political dilemmas for Arab governments who were already wary of the use of violence in the pursuit of political goals.
While these Palestinian militant groups carried out deadly attacks against Israeli civilians, rural Palestinians across the West Bank experienced a slow but relentless erosion of their land, security, and freedom of movement.Following Israel’s occupation of the West Bank in 1967, settlement construction began almost immediately. Over time, particularly after the Likud Party came to power in 1977, settlement expansion accelerated. Between 1977 and 2000, the settler population in the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) grew from around 5,000 to over 200,000.
Settlements were often strategically placed to fragment Palestinian communities, seize control of key agricultural areas, and create "facts on the ground" that would be difficult to reverse in any future peace deal.
By 2000, about 40% of the West Bank was effectively off-limits to Palestinians due to settlements, military zones, and bypass roads built for settlers' exclusive use. Palestinian farmers and villagers faced not only land loss but frequent harassment and violence from settlers.
Reports by Israeli human rights groups such as B’Tselem documented a pattern of attacks — including vandalism of olive groves, physical assaults, and property destruction — often carried out with little intervention from the Israeli army.
The situation worsened after the outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000. In response to Palestinian suicide bombings and other attacks, Israel began constructing the "Separation Barrier" in 2002.
Although Israel described it as a security measure, the barrier — over 700 kilometers long when complete — often veered deep into West Bank territory, enclosing settlements and cutting off Palestinian villages from farmland, schools, and hospitals. Entire communities were hemmed in, forced to navigate a labyrinth of military checkpoints and permit regimes.
Daily life for rural Palestinians became a constant battle against isolation, economic strangulation, and administrative control. Meanwhile, in Gaza, physical encirclement took a different but no less devastating form.
After the withdrawal of Israeli settlements from Gaza in 2005, Israel imposed an air, sea, and land blockade in 2007, following Hamas' takeover of the Strip. Gaza’s borders were sealed, its economy collapsed, and its two million residents were effectively trapped in a territory roughly the size of Philadelphia or the Isle of Wight. These realities — the land seizures, the walls, the blockades, the everyday humiliations — created a seething sense of injustice among Palestinians, even as Hamas’ violent methods divided opinion among them. The conflict was no longer just a question of borders but of dignity, survival, and the basic right to a normal life.
Despite the violence, the Palestinian cause remained prominent in international politics, with many countries acknowledging the legitimacy of Palestinian aspirations for a state. However, the violence created significant challenges in advancing the peace process. The question of how to reconcile the Palestinian right to self-determination with Israel's right to exist and defend itself remained deeply contentious, and international actors, including the United Nations, found themselves unable to bridge the divide between these two intractable positions.
The Gulf War in 1990-1991 marked a crucial turning point in Middle Eastern geopolitics, with repercussions for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the U.S.-led coalition response put pressure on Israel to remain neutral. Despite being targeted by Iraqi Scudmissi les, Israel refrained from retaliating, which helped to stabilise its relationships with many Arab states.
Israel’s restraint earned it international sympathy, particularly from the United States and Europe. The war itself did not immediately lead to peace between Israel and the Arab states, but it initiated a subtle shift in Arab attitudes toward Israel. Countries like Jordan, once strongly opposed to Israel, began to reassess their positions.
Though the Gulf War did not directly lead to peace, it laid the groundwork for future diplomatic efforts, especially in the 1990s, when the Oslo Accords would present an opportunity for a lasting resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Oslo Accords in 1993 marked a pivotal moment in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After decades of violence and deadlock, Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), led by Yasser Arafat, came together to sign an agreement aimed at laying the foundation for a peaceful resolution. The accords were the result of secret negotiations facilitated by Norway, and they represented the first formal recognition of the PLO by Israel.
Key elements of the Oslo Accords included:
The establishment of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which would govern parts of the West Bank and Gaza.
Commitments to further negotiations on contentious issues, such as borders, refugees, and the status of Jerusalem.
A framework for eventual Palestinian self-rule and the gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of the occupied territories.
The signing of the Oslo Accords was celebrated internationally as a major breakthrough, and Arafat, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 for their roles in the agreement. It was a rare moment of optimism in a region long defined by conflict.
However, the Oslo process quickly encountered significant challenges. Violence erupted shortly after the accords were signed, with groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad rejecting the peace process and continuing their attacks against Israeli targets. On the Israeli side, right-wing factions, including those in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, opposed the concessions made to the Palestinians.
In addition, key issues were left unresolved, most notably the final status of Jerusalem, the fate of Palestinian refugees, and the borders of a future Palestinian state.The failure to address these deep- seated issues led to frustration on both sides, and the Oslo Accords ultimately failed to lead to a lasting peace with the start of the “Second Intifada” in the first 5 years of this millenium.
As the 1990s gave way to the 2000s, the optimism surrounding the Oslo Accords began to fade. The Second Intifada, also known as the Al-Aqsa Intifada, erupted in 2000 in response to the collapse of the peace process. This uprising was marked by violent protests, suicide bombings, and armed confrontations between Israeli forces and Palestinian militants. It led to a dramatic increase in casualties
on both sides.The 2000 Camp David Summit, where President Bill Clinton attempted to broker a final-status agreement between Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, ended in failure. Palestinian frustration over Israeli settlement expansion, economic conditions, and the stalled peace process exploded into violence.
The Second Intifada deeply damaged the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians, with widespread distrust on both sides. The wave of terrorist attacks by Palestinian groups, including Hamas, and Israel's military retaliation led to thousands of deaths. It was a devastating setback for the peace process and
cemented the divide between moderate Palestinian factions and more radical groups like Hamas.
By the mid-2000s, the peace process appeared to be at an impasse. Arafat's leadership was increasingly questioned, especially as Palestinian society grew divided, and many Palestinians began to view him as a symbol of failed diplomacy. In 2004, Arafat died, leaving a leadership vacuum that would eventually be filled by Mahmoud Abbas, who became the head of the Palestinian Authority.
After the Second Intifada, the situation in the Palestinian territories became even more fractured. In 2006, Hamas won a majority in the Palestinian legislative elections, further dividing Palestinian politics.
While the Palestinian Authority, led by Fatah, retained control of the West Bank, Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip after a violent struggle with Fatah forces in 2007.
Hamas's rise to power marked a significant shift in the conflict. While Fatah, which dominated the Palestinian Authority, had participated in peace talks with Israel, Hamas rejected any recognition of Israel, insisting on the establishment of an Islamic state in all of historical Palestine. This created a severe rift between the two major Palestinian factions, with Fatah and Hamas fighting both politically and militarily for control over Palestinian governance.
The Gaza Strip became the focal point of this division, with Israel imposing a strict blockade on the territory, citing Hamas's continued attacks and its refusal to renounce violence. The situation in Gaza became increasingly dire, with humanitarian crises exacerbated by frequent Israeli military operations aimed at dismantling Hamas’s military infrastructure. Hamas, in turn, fired rockets into Israeli civilian areas, leading to widespread casualties and triggering military responses from Israel.
The years following the rise of Hamas saw frequent cycles of violence, with Israel launching major military offensives in Gaza in 2008-2009, 2012, and 2014, resulting in heavy civilian casualties on both sides. The Gaza Strip became synonymous with suffering and instability, and international calls for a two-state solution were met with limited progress.
Shifting Alliances and the Changing Geopolitical Landscape: In the years that followed, the broader geopolitical context in the Middle East shifted dramatically. The Arab Spring in 2011 and subsequent uprisings across the Arab world led to the destabilization of many regimes in the region. Meanwhile, Israel's relationships with some Arab states began to evolve in unexpected ways.In 2015, Israel and several Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, began to engage in behind-the-scenes cooperation, primarily driven by mutual concerns about Iran’s growing influence in the region. This led to the Abraham Accords in 2020, in which the UAE and Bahrain officially normalised relations with Israel, marking a dramatic shift in regional dynamics.
While the normalization of relations between Israel and certain Arab countries was a breakthrough, it was not accompanied by progress in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinian cause remained unresolved, and the divide between the parties continued to widen.
The Road Ahead, Is Peace Possible? The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains one of the most entrenched and complex conflicts in the world. Despite numerous attempts at peace, including the Oslo Accords and subsequent negotiations, the core issues—borders, refugees, the status of Jerusalem, and security— remain unresolved. Both sides have suffered immense losses, and mistrust runs deep.
The rise of groups like Hamas and the ongoing control of the Gaza Strip by factions that reject peace with Israel only complicate the path forward. Meanwhile, Israel’s security concerns continue to shape its approach to peace talks.
International efforts to broker a solution persist, but many argue that the two-state solution, once seen as the most viable path to peace, has become increasingly unfeasible given the expansion of Israeli settlements and the political fragmentation of Palestinian leadership.
As the region remains in flux, the possibility of peace remains elusive. The future of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, and the broader Middle East, hinges on overcoming entrenched divisions, addressing the deep-rooted grievances of both peoples, and finding a way forward amidst an ever-changing geopolitical landscape.
Whether a lasting peace is possible depends not only on political will but also on healing generations of trauma, fostering new leadership, and reimagining diplomacy in a region still shaped by fear, resistance, and unfulfilled promises.