At present, people on both sides of the Israel-Gaza conflict are pretty angry at each other. In my view a significant reason for this is that neither side understands the other’s perspective. My intention in this article is to explain both sides in an effort to facilitate mutual understanding, and to provide some commentary of my own.
What is the pro-Israel perspective?
The pro-Israel perspective runs thus: in 1948 the United Nations agreed to a partition plan allowing for two states, one for the Jews and one for the Palestinians. The Jews accepted this; the Arabs did not. The Arabs immediately invaded the fledgling state and lost what land they had been allocated in the process.
A country under continuous siege
The 75 years or so since then has been characterised by repeated attempts on the part of the Palestinians to regain their land. In 1967 the Israelis engaged in a pre-emptive strike on Arab armies who were massing to attack them, resulting in control of the West Bank. Ongoing control of the West Bank, and a blockade of Gaza, has been necessary for Israel’s protection because neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority are interested in peace.
The latest chapter in a long book
On October 7 2023 Hamas attacked Israel, massacred 1,200 people and kidnapped a further 250 people taking them as hostages into Gaza. Israel attacked Gaza in self-defence to regain the hostages. There have been civilian casualties but this is because Hamas’ tactic of using human shields to force the Israelis to accidentally kill civilians in the process of attacking military targets. The death toll provided by the Hamas Ministry of Health is unreliable.
Liberal democracies are assumed more reliable
This perception of events is shaped by the fact that Israel is a democracy and therefore its supporters tend to assume that it has the same commitment to human rights as a Western democracy.
What is the pro-Palestinian perspective?
The pro-Palestinian perspective runs thus: in 1948 the Jews announced that they were going to assume sovereignty over a significant part of an area which was already inhabited by indigenous people. This forced millions of people out of their homes and thus Israel was founded on stolen land. This is perceived by some as an act of ethnic cleansing.
Oppressed in their own land
The Palestinians have been oppressed by the Israelis ever since. The occupation of the West Bank has been brutal. For example, during the First and Second Intifada Israeli troops would sweep into Ramallah, announce an immediate curfew, and then arbitrarily shoot children on the streets before they could even get home.
Terrorism recontextualised
On October 7 2023 there was an attack on Israel by Hamas. Many pro-Palestinian supporters deny that this in fact took place: I have had dozens of such people deny it to my face at the weekly pro-Palestine protests in Auckland since October. Other pro-Palestinian supporters however accept that it occurred but situate it in the context of decades of Israeli oppression of Palestinians.
Not justice, but revenge
Pro-Palestinian supporters perceive the attack on Gaza not as an act of self-defence to save the hostages but as a war of revenge where civilians are intentionally targeted. Many pro-Palestinian supporters perceive this as an act of genocide.
Salting the earth
There is also a perception that the Israelis are trying to destroy sufficient infrastructure within Gaza to make the place unliveable and to force the Palestinians to leave, i.e. an act of ethnic cleansing. This is not helped by the extremist rhetoric of Israeli politician Itamar Ben-Kvir who has essentially proposed doing exactly that.
Wag the dog?
Pro-Palestinian supporters also point out that this war was very timely for Benjamin Netanyahu who was being prosecuted within his own country for corruption at the time of the October 7 attack and for whom this war has proven a welcome distraction. There are very real questions over Netanyahu’s true motivations for attacking Gaza.
The truth has to be somewhere in the middle
This is not an exhaustive coverage of the two perspectives. However, I hope it helps people to understand one another better. I shall provide my own commentary on these narratives in another article.