Beyond the headlines: Understanding the Israeli‑Palestinian Conflict

By KIM G Quilinguing on December 21, 2023

On December 12, 2023, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. The UNGA resolution demanded that all parties to the ongoing conflict between the State of Israel and Islamic Resistance Movement or Hamas comply with international humanitarian law, particularly in the protection of civilians.

The resolution comes after the collapse of the November 24 truce brokered by Qatar. This renewed open conflict between the state of Israel and the Palestinian armed organization Hamas started on October 7, when Hamas launched a massive rocket and ground attack in areas in Israel close to the Gaza strip. The offensive caught Israel by surprise, resulting in the deaths of at least 1,100 citizens and the hostage-taking of several who lived in communities close to the Palestinian territory.

Israel retaliated with a massive bombardment campaign and ground attacks which have resulted in the deaths of at least 17,400 Palestinians, and the displacement of entire communities threatened by bombs and firefights between the Israeli Defense Force and Hamas. Aid agencies estimate that most of the 2.3 million inhabitants of the strip are now left homeless and lacking basic necessities, such as water, food, and shelter.

While the Philippines is half a world away from the conflict, there are occasional news reports of Filipinos caught in the conflict, as there are several overseas workers who have long considered either places in Gaza or Israel as their adopted homes. There are also Filipinos who work in international organizations that have long been giving aid to communities in the strip.

With a strong research background in international relations and security, Professor Herman Joseph S. Kraft of the UP Diliman Department of Political Science provides some insight on the ongoing conflict.

*Professor Herman Joseph S. Kraft explaining the Israel-Hamas conflict during his interview with the UP MPRO. Photo by Kevin, Roque, UP MPRO.*

On the roots and current state of the conflict:

If we just limit it to that [October 7 attack], then obviously ang aggressors mo ay Hamas, attacking the Israelis. But of course, the overview can't stop there because the question is: why did the attack occur? In which case, that brings you back decades into the conflict.

This [conflict] involved historical decisions that took place at a time when these territories were under the mandates of colonial powers, and so the decisions were actually made by colonial powers. Those decisions and the consequences of those decisions, [such as] wars, [and] conflicts that took place, to a large extent, were disadvantageous to the Arabs, who were already there.

So, we're talking about the 1947 UN resolution, which led to the idea of dividing Palestine into two states: one Jewish, and one Arab. But of course, if one goes back the historical records, even that decision was already flawed because the way the land was supposed to be divided was non-contiguous between the two. And one argument that was being made was at that particular point in time, mas maraming Arabs in that area than there were Jews. Apparently, the amount of land that was actually going to be included in what was supposed to be the Jewish state was more than the land that was allocated for the Arabs. So, may sense na na disadvantaged ang mga Arabs even then.

The subsequent wars eventually led to the Palestinian Arabs being forced out of their homes… And so now we find them being limited in the Gaza Strip and of course, the West Bank. This was something that went on as a continuing conflict over decades until the 1993 and 1995 Oslo Accords - which led to the agreement where a two-state solution was going to be put into place.

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (left) shakes the hand of Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat (right) in the presence of United States President Bill Clinton, at the White House, after signing the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements under the Oslo Accord on September 13,1993. Photo by Vince Musi | White House.

By then, you had a State of Israel, wala pang state ng Palestine. Ang gusto nilang gawin, sana, was from that point on, mag-negotiate na yung Israeli state with the representative of the Palestinian people, which eventually became the Palestinian National Authority, in order to facilitate yung movement towards the establishment of an Arab Palestinian state.

Unfortunately, there were a number of things that made that unimplementable. On one hand, within Israel, there were people who were opposed to it, kasi the Zionist design was the whole of Palestine would eventually be Israel. In fact, one dangerous development now is this move to the right in Israel, na kung saan there's this sense that Israel should actually be a Jewish state, which is very different from saying that Israel is a secular state as it is now. So, that would make it even more polarizing, so to speak.

On the side of the Palestinians, the Palestinian Authority might actually represent that part of the Palestinian people, or the representation of the Palestinian people which agrees to accepting Israel, as a legal state, a legitimate state; and then the idea that there has to be some negotiation now between Israel and the Palestinians, for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

The first part is controversial because there is still a part in the Palestinian, and in the wider Arab community, na hindi acceptable yung idea of recognizing Israel, and recognizing its right to actually exist. That in itself is problematic, kasi yun yung precursor, yun yung prerequisite mo, to the negotiation that has to actually take place. That was something that was accepted by the Palestinian Liberation Organization - which led to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority.

Hamas emerged as a by-product of that opposition (to the recognition of the State of Israel). Ang position talaga ng Hamas ay hindi tatanggapin yung basic premise na Israel should be recognized; and its right to exist, should be recognized - a complete rejection of that fundamental premise.

So, you already have on both sides, parties that are not that keen on the idea of settling this issue by compromising with the establishment of a two-state solution. What's going on right now is a situation where you have these extreme positions, coloring the relationship between the Palestinian people and the Jewish people.

The interesting point there is you have people on both sides maybe, who are interested in settling this (conflict). But the whole process is disrupted because you have significantly influential groups, armed groups at that, that are really opposed to (the two-state solution), and willing to create trouble.

An illustration of the changes in the borders in what was then Palestine to what is now the State of Israel and the territories under the Palestinian National Authority. Graphic from איתמראשפר | Wikimedia commons.

On the possibility of de-escalation:

Both sides feel that they have to be guaranteed something. And hindi sila nabibigyan ng satisfaction on both sides. So, the Israelis want security. The Palestinians want that promise of a Palestinian state. The interesting thing there is that Palestinian state should include the lands that were included in the original 1947 UN resolution. Clearly that's not going to happen now. Yun yung problema ngayon. It's just this sense of injustice on both sides that feeds support for a continuing conflict so to speak.

Breaking that cycle of violence, would require somehow some form of acceptance on both sides that violence is something that will only make things worse. And that there has to be some concessions made by both sides towards some form of political resolution.

Clearly, at this point in time, the problem is negotiation that might take place is now going to be two parties that obviously are no longer equal in terms of positions. Israel would be in a more dominant position in negotiating with the Palestinians. And the Palestinians might feel na wala yata silang pinanghahawakan, in such negotiations. So, it's a very difficult situation.

Really, it's a question of finding a sort of compromise arrangement that will accept the existence of an Israeli state. Kasi kung ibabalik mo pa siya doon sa question ng injustice created by the UN resolution, andyan na ang Israel eh. You can't go back to a situation na parang burahin natin ang Israel sa mapa. … It's going to be very difficult to do that without genocide, or some sort of egregious crime.

At the same time, you have to accept the right of the Palestinian people to having their own state. Which is complicated by the fact that what they might consider to be their territories have already been truncated by the UN decision. And even more truncated by the fact that you've had all of these wars where Israel just gained more and more territory.

Professor Herman Joseph S. Kraft is a Professor at the Department of Political Science in UP Diliman. He is concurrently a Convenor of the Strategic Studies Program at the Center for Integrative and Development Studies. With his background in strategic studies, he has given talks at National Defense College of the Philippines, different services of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Department of National Defense, and the Foreign Service Institute of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

The views expressed in this interview are from the perspective of Prof. Kraft as an expert on international strategic and security affairs. They do not reflect the position of the University of the Philippines community as a whole, nor its administration.