In the early hours of Saturday, October 7, 2023, about a thousand militants from Hamas and other armed militias broke through the barriers between the Gaza Strip and Israel, pouring into Israeli territory, sowing terror and wreaking havoc. About 1,400 people were killed, thousands more wounded and some 220 Israeli soldiers and civilians kidnapped. The planning, implementation and ferocity of the attack caught Israel by surprise, not only because Israeli intelligence (as well as technologically advanced Western intelligence) had not detected the plan in advance, but also because the army, according to some analysts, took too long to counter the threat. Israelis were shocked and horrified, while some Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank (who are not supporters of Hamas) rejoiced, seeing it as a sign of liberation; others, on the contrary, condemned the ferocity of the indiscriminate killing.
The day after the attack, Sunday, October 8, when international diplomacy still seemed paralyzed by the incident, Pope Francis addressed the world with these words in the context of the Angelus: “I am following apprehensively and sorrowfully what is happening in Israel where violence has exploded yet more ferociously, causing hundreds of deaths and injured. I express my closeness to the families of the victims. I am praying for them and for all who are living hours of terror and anguish. May the attacks and use of weapons stop. Please! And may it be understood that terrorism and war do not lead to any resolutions, but only to the death and suffering of many innocent people. War is a defeat! Every war is a defeat. Let us pray that there be peace in Israel and in Palestine!”
Israel, for its part, responded to Hamas’ aggression with an intense bombardment of Gaza, which has been almost continuous, resulting in the deaths of thousands of people,[1] mostly civilians, and destroying both public and private buildings. This has resulted in a flood of refugees pouring into the south of the Strip, causing a serious and unacceptable humanitarian crisis. Israeli military authorities have called up the so-called “reserve” and massed troops (about 300,000 in number) on the border with the Strip.
After the October 7 massacre, the dreaded “ground offensive,” intended to annihilate Hamas in its territory (at the risk of killing thousands of innocent civilians) did not begin for several weeks. In fact, there were good reasons to wait. Western diplomacy, particularly that of the United States, put pressure on Israeli hardliners who wanted to enter Gaza, “destroy Hamas” and avenge the killings. The reasons mentioned were many; here we summarize some of them: 1) To slow the “ground attack” in order to continue the talks to free the hostages held by Hamas[2]; 2) Fear, which should not be underestimated, of a regional “proxy” war fomented by Iran; this is particularly the case in the North, where Hezbollah (the belligerent Shiite militia in the pay of Tehran), Israel’s historical enemy, is on high alert and has been firing rockets into Israeli territory since the beginning of the operation. Israel in turn is responding blow by blow, but without raising the tension or threatening, as in the past, the occupation of South Lebanon. In any case, some 30 militiamen of the “party of God” appear to have been killed in the border clashes. The situation, at least for the moment, appears to be under control, but it may slip over the edge, as many analysts believe,[3] at any moment. Prime Minister Netanyahu, for his part, confirmed on October 25 that a ground offensive was being planned, but that the most opportune time for an attack must be awaited. In the meantime, the bombardment of Gaza and the killing, in targeted attacks on Hamas leaders, at least as the Israeli military claims, continued.
The logic of violence and the war of images
In this conflict, the two sides, Israel and Hamas, are not only fighting each other with weapons and threats, but also attempting to mobilize public opinion at home and abroad to justify their actions. The military conflict parallels that over the control of images, sounds and words broadcast from the battlefield.
On the one hand, the media are flooded with terrifying images of armed and masked Hamas militants pouring into Israel, spreading death and destruction. These images capture the massacre of Israeli men, women and children, mowed down in the area bordering the Gaza Strip, including hundreds of young people killed during a music festival and dozens of people slaughtered, including several babies in cradles. On the other hand, alongside these images, Israel’s bombardment of the Gaza Strip in response to the aggression it suffered, conducted with its sophisticated arsenal of precision weapons, offered an equally terrifying set of images. On October 13, the Israeli army ordered Gaza residents to evacuate the entire northern part of the Strip, and images of the stream of people carrying their precious few possessions added to the harrowing scenes of the deaths of innocents from the heavy bombardment.
On both sides, the images selected are an appeal for solidarity, for support regarding the right to self-defense, and for legitimization of the means used against their opponents. In this battle for public opinion, many are on the side of Israel and many more on the side of Hamas, and others more generally on the side of the Palestinians. In the aftermath of the initial Hamas attack, U.S. President Joe Biden declared that his country’s support for Israel was “solid and unwavering.” The leaders of major Western European countries followed suit. Taking a step that stirred controversy, the European Union wanted to freeze all aid to the Palestinian authorities, a decision that was immediately rescinded.
Subsequently, the U.S. president, on October 22, after speaking on the phone for about 20 minutes with Pope Francis,[4] reiterated the U.S. position on this conflict: “Israel has the right to defend itself,” Biden said. “At the same time, Prime Minister Netanyahu and I have discussed how Israel must operate by the laws of war. That means protecting civilians in combat as best as they can.” He continued: “We can’t ignore the humanity of innocent Palestinians who only want to live in peace. That’s why I secured an agreement for the first shipment of humanitarian assistance for Palestinian civilians in Gaza […] which will become a continuous flow.”[5] In fact, in the following days, subject to agreement with the Egyptian government (which insists on keeping entry closed for Gaza refugees), dozens of truckloads of basic necessities passed through the Rafah crossing. According to aid workers in the territory, these truckloads of food and medicine would be insufficient to meet the needs of the civilian population now deprived of everything. On the part of Israel and Westerners, the fear remains that these goods will pass into the hands of Hamas, which would then use them to exercise a hold over civilians. President Biden went on to strongly emphasize that to resolve the Palestinian issue politically, “we cannot give up on a two-state solution.”[6]
This principle had been explicitly expressed by Biden to the Israeli prime minister during his visit to Jerusalem on October 18, in which he renewed his alliance with Israel and promised military aid needed to deal with the grave situation. On that occasion, Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority canceled a planned meeting with the U.S. president (which was to take place immediately after in Amman) in protest against the bombing of a Gaza hospital. That incident, in which several hundred civilians died, was blamed by Hamas and many Arab countries on the Israelis, while the government in Tel Aviv rejected any responsibility, believing, apparently rightly, that the incident was caused by rockets fired by Islamic Jihad extremists that mistakenly fell into Gaza territory.[7] Unfortunately, the narratives in this regard diverge, and from a propaganda standpoint, there is little use in ascertaining the truth.
It should not be forgotten that Article 51 of the United Nations Charter gives states the right to self-defense against armed attack, provided that, according to customary international law, the military force used is necessary, proportional and respects so-called “humanitarian law.” It should also be remembered that proportionality does not mean symmetry in the type of weapons used or the number of casualties caused. In short, a state defending itself against unjust aggression may use as much force as necessary, but no more. Drawing such a line is an arduous and often difficult task that provokes much controversy. According to some Western commentators, the Israeli response to the attacks suffered by Hamas has so far met, at least in part, these criteria, considering the fact that Israel, under international law, could “invade and temporarily occupy the Gaza Strip to destroy the armed group that has attacked and killed a substantial number of Israelis.”[8] Israel’s stated goal, though difficult to achieve, at least in the short term, is to destroy Hamas’ operational capabilities by preventing it from effectively governing Gaza. This, however, means laboriously clearing a 500-kilometer-long labyrinth of tunnels and fighting house-to-house to neutralize the enemy, which can hide anywhere and fire from buildings, where innocent people are often present. Recall that Iraq, in 2016-17, with the help of a large coalition force, took nine months to eliminate Isis’ presence from Mosul, a city of about two million people.[9]
In support of Israel there have been mass demonstrations condemning Hamas, and at times demonstrations have resounded with blatant racism, anti-Arab sentiment and Islamophobia. The suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza, equally real and intolerable, is criticized in Arab and Muslim countries and many others, where it once again carries to the extreme the feeling that the world is unjust and that condemnations are always skewed in favor of the more powerful.
Blocking the ‘Abraham Accords’
On Saturday, October 7, as Israel launched its military campaign dubbed “Operation Iron Swords,” Netanyahu vowed, “mighty vengeance.” For those who support Israel, it is clear that the narrative began on that black Saturday morning. Israeli President Isaac Herzog, in his October 12 press briefing, summed it up this way, “There was no reason at all for this flaring up which ended in the worst tragedy that was ever inflicted in the history of Israel, and the highest number of Jews killed since the Holocaust, including Holocaust survivors.”[10]
The armed Hamas militants who crossed the border took Israel by surprise. In fact, in the weeks and months leading up to the attack, Israel’s eyes were on a dream that seemed about to come true: Israel was about to sign a normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia, strongly supported by the U.S. administration. This was a substantial step forward in the process of normalizing relations with several Arab countries in the Arabian Gulf and North Africa, known as the “Abraham Accords,” which, promising a new era of prosperity and economic cooperation, had however pushed the Palestinian issue out of the limelight. But suddenly, from the margins, a wave of violence broke the calm, and Israelis faced an existential threat of menacing proportions.
Israel has always prided itself on its military and intelligence prowess. Since 1948, it has maintained supremacy in both, not only over Palestinians but also over surrounding Arab countries, to the extent that its defensive technologies were an integral part of the new alliances that were being consolidated, which saw the State of Israel deployed alongside other U.S. allies in the increasingly belligerent confrontation with Iran. The Palestinian threat seemed to be a thing of the past. For the Israelis, it had been reduced to minor skirmishes, especially in the West Bank, where clashes between Israelis and Palestinians had resulted in the deaths of some Israeli soldiers and settlers and many more Palestinians, militants and civilians caught in the crossfire. What happened on October 7, however, not only raised pressing questions about the assumed invincibility of the Israeli military and intelligence network, but also raised the frightening question of whether the State of Israel is really the safe haven it seemed to be for Jews fleeing violence in a world where they were once a marginalized and often persecuted minority.
Mohammed Deif, supreme commander of Hamas’ military wing, declared, “Enough is enough!” announcing this phase of the ongoing conflict as the “Al-Aqsa Flood.” Hamas declared that the incursion into Israel was an explicit response to the occupation and repression that have been going on for decades. More specifically, it remarked on the increase in Israeli attacks and repressive policies directed against Palestinians throughout the Israeli-occupied territories since the right-wing coalition led by Netanyahu came to power, as well as the intensification of raids by Jewish extremists in the Haram al-Sharif area (what Jews call the Temple Mount).
Hamas partisans justify this as a reaction to the regime that has kept them locked up in an overcrowded strip of land, crammed with overflowing refugee camps, subject to a deadly siege. In Gaza, refugees make up about 70 percent of the population: they are people whose forebears were driven out of the territories of the new state of Israel in 1948, and since then their descendants have been forced to live in terrible conditions, exposed moreover to periodic clashes with Israel since Hamas came to power in 2006; such clashes have left the territory battered and its people traumatized. Moreover, since 2006, the siege of the Strip has deprived its residents of many of the minimum conditions for life, prosperity and development. Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, whose diocese includes Gaza, had said a few days before the escalation of the war that the Gaza Strip is “an open-air prison.”[11]
The unsettling question, for the Israeli apparatus guarding that prison from the outside, is how did the Hamas militants get out? This question looms over Israeli institutions both military and civilian and will certainly be addressed as soon as this round of hostilities is over.
The battle is also a media one
In the media battle, Israel’s supporters portray Hamas as a den of Nazis, equivalent to Isis, enslaved to the evil empire of Islamic Iran. The dissemination of images of Palestinians rejoicing at the horrors inflicted on the decapitated heads of Israelis reinforces the sense of horror and contempt.[12]
In the Arab and Muslim world and in many countries that have experienced colonialism, racism and exclusion, Palestinians have been able to associate their cause with the worldwide liberation struggle against colonialism, imperialism and white supremacy. The Israelis are presented as colonial supremacists dedicated for decades to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in their own homeland. Hamas has been careful to explain that it does not target civilians, adding, however, the chilling clarification that the elderly, infants, children and youth are all part of the Zionist colonial project to deprive Palestinians of their rights and banish them from history.
Both sides in the conflict claim that violence will lead to victory. This is perhaps the most poisonous myth of any conflict. Fueled by what seems like an insatiable thirst for revenge, both sides seem to espouse the belief that victory can be achieved by defeating the enemy in ruthless warfare, a belief which is at the heart of the rhetoric of war.
This is not the first time Israel has been taken by surprise. In 1973, a joint Egyptian and Syrian attack on Israel on Yom Kippur (“Day of Atonement”) caught the Israelis off guard. It took them several days to repel the attacks. That war is celebrated as a victory by Egypt and Syria, although in the end the Israeli army prevailed. Interestingly, within five years Israel and Egypt had signed a peace agreement promoted by the United States.
The latest Palestinian incursion into Israel took place almost exactly 50 years after the 1973 war broke out. But there are substantial differences: while the one with the Egyptians was a conflict between two neighbors who shared a border, so that the territorial dispute could be resolved through negotiations, the conflict with Hamas is much more complex, because that militia does not represent the State of Palestine, whose existence Israel must recognize within clear borders. Those proposed in 1947 by the United Nations Partition Plan, and then by international law after the 1949 Armistice Agreement, and again by U.S.-imposed negotiations in the 1990s, have left the Palestinians without a state in practice, even though many countries already recognize it. Moreover, increasingly extremist Israeli governments have refused to recognize that the Palestinians have a right to a sovereign state with defined borders. Perhaps the intensity of the current conflict and the terrible losses on both sides could take them beyond the horizon of endless war, to the growing recognition that victory is illusory, and that continued violence is ultimately suicidal?
Latest developments
As we write – weeks after the massacre perpetrated by Hamas – the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) has entered the Gaza Strip with armored vehicles and soldiers. On the evening of October 27, the Israeli army, which had intensified its firepower in the preceding days, attacked from several directions, targeting the north of the Strip and entering three smaller population centers that encircle and protect Gaza city, the heart of Hamas power “with its dense neighborhoods and underground crisscrossed by a deep network of tunnels.”[13] Tanks and soldiers overnight crossed the so-called “no man’s land” and already gaps have opened up to enable them to enter population centers.
IDF spokesperson Daniel Hagari announced the operation as a simple expansion of ground activities, as if to say: this is not the dreaded ground operation, which would primarily target the capital.[14] According to some commentators, such a maneuver serves to bring the initiative back into Israeli hands, put pressure on Hamas and facilitate negotiations for the release of Israeli prisoners. According to others, it is aimed at asserting Israel’s right of defense and demonstrating to everyone, including inside the country, that the government is intent on proceeding against the enemy in any case. The simplest and most credible solution is that the so-called “ground operation” actually proceeds in phases, and may have already begun a few days earlier, with night sorties operated by soldiers and tanks, which, however, quickly left Gaza territory. This time, however, it seems that Israeli soldiers entered in order to stay in the Strip and begin more intensive war operations. In previous days, as noted above, Biden had asked Prime Minister Netanyahu to postpone the invasion (while making it clear that the ultimate decision remained in the hands of the Israeli government) and Iran had threatened retaliation in the event of an invasion.[15] In reality, from a purely formal point of view, the situation is still ambiguous; in fact, however, the Israeli army has already entered Gaza territory and its presence is likely to be even greater in the future. Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s spokesperson in an ominous tone announced, “Tonight the turning point begins, Hamas will feel our anger. And Gaza will be different.”[16]
As preparations for the attack began, the UN Assembly overwhelmingly adopted a resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza, with 120 countries supporting, 14 (including the United States) opposing and 45 abstaining.
The position of the Church
In this context, the Church’s discourse is particularly important. Free from the constraints of political interests, she can be prophetic in reminding everyone that every human being’s dignity must be respected. Cardinal Parolin tried to follow a line that expresses compassion for those who suffer, defends the right to self-defense and insists on the proportionality of the military response: “It is necessary to recover a sense of reason, abandon the blind logic of hatred and reject violence as a solution. It is the right of those attacked to defend themselves, but self-defense must also respect the parameter of proportionality.”[17] The cardinal said that in order to build a truly just peace, we need to arrive at the two-state solution, as envisaged by the decisions of the United Nations, a solution “that would allow Palestinians and Israelis to live side by side in peace and security.”[18]
At the end of his October 18 general audience, Pope Francis declared that “war does not solve any problem: it sows only death and destruction, foments hate and proliferates revenge. War cancels out the future.” The pontiff then urged believers “to take just one side in this conflict, that of peace. But not with words, with prayer and total dedication.” We note, too, that the Holy See’s spokesperson, Matteo Bruni, reported that in an October 26 phone call with Turkish President Erdoğan, the pope expressed his sorrow over the recent events in Gaza and hoped “that a two-state solution can be attained with a special statute for Jerusalem.” This is a position that has always been defended by the Holy See with regard to the resolution of the Palestinian question.[19]
Finally, international law and most Western countries recognize Israel’s right to defend itself proportionately. With humanitarian law in mind, Israel must show that its fight is against terrorists, against Hamas, which intends to destroy the Israeli state, and not against the people of Gaza. It should ensure a fresh start after the war, supporting a serious reconstruction program and promising not to “strangle” the economy of the Gaza Strip, rather proposing projects involving cooperation. Also, on the political side, it should support a new Palestinian constitution and back new leaders elected by the people. According to some commentators, this would be easier with a new Israeli government elected after the end of the war.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32009/22072446.1123.11
[1]. According to data updated on October 25, Palestinian victims numbered more than 6,500, including at least 2,700 children. The Palestinian Ministry of Health announced that more than 100 Palestinians had been killed in the West Bank since October 7. Cf. D. Dassa Kaye, “Se il conflitto si allarga”, in Internazionale, October 27, 2023, 24.
[2]. By the latest count, these number at least 220, including dozens of children, the elderly and citizens of at least a dozen foreign countries. The hostages have become an important source of pressure on the Netanyahu government. The prisoners’ families are conducting an effective “public relations” campaign and foreign leaders are pushing the Netanyahu government to try to free their citizens. For its part, Hamas is using them as an irreplaceable “bargaining chip”; it recently proposed to free them in exchange for a ceasefire. The Israeli government on this point, at least for now, does not intend to give in or deal with the enemy. Hamas, perhaps with propaganda intent aimed at the Arab world, has released some hostages: two American citizens and two elderly women. Cf. “Why Israel’s invasion of Gaza has been delayed”, in The Economist, October 26, 2023.
[3]. Cf. D. Dassa Kaye, “Se il conflitto si allarga”, op. cit.
[4]. The conversation focused on conflict situations around the world and “the need to identify paths to peace”: cf. P. Mastrolilli, “La strategia di Biden: azzerare Hamas senza guerra regionale”, in la Repubblica, October 23, 2023.
[5]. Ibid.
[6]. Ibid.
[7]. “Can America handle two wars and maybe a third?”, in The Economist, October 24, 2023.
[8]. “Is Israel acting within law of war?”, in The Economist, October 14, 2023.
[9]. Cf. L. Cremonesi, “Guerriglia urbana e trappole. La lezione dell’Iraq per Israele”, in Corriere della Sera, October 25, 2023.
[10]. “Herzog: We are targeting an enemy, part of an empire of evil”, in I24 News (www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/1697102264-herzog-we-are-targeting-an-enemy-part-of-an-empire-of-evil), October 12, 2023.
[11]. See E. A. Allen, “New Jerusalem cardinal calls Gaza under Israeli control an ‘open prison’”, in Crux (https://cruxnow.com/2023-consistory-and-synod-for-synodality/2023/09/new-jersualem-cardinal-calls-gaza-under-israeli-control-an-open-prison), September 30, 2023.
[12]. The well-known Israeli journalist Alon Goldstein wrote, “It is terrible, but it is also very simple: in every generation, there are those who aim to annihilate us because we are Jews. Even now we are faced with miserable creatures, Nazis reincarnated, Amalek.” This logic, according to the writer, justifies the counterattack: “Israel must launch a war of historic proportions against its enemies, no matter what the cost” (A. Goldstein, “Hamas una reincarnazione dei nazisti, dovrà rimpiangere il giorno in cui ha violato i confini dello Stato ebraico”, in Israel.net, October 17, 2023 [www.israele.net/hamas-una-reincarnazione-dei-nazisti-dovra-rimpiangere-il-giorno-in-cui-ha-violato-i-confini-dello-stato-ebraico-piegata-e-distrutta]).
[13]. D. Raineri, “Gaza battle, Israel on the attack with air raids and incursions”, in la Repubblica, October 28, 2023.
[14]. Ibid.
[15]. Cf. A. Simoni, “E adesso Biden teme l’escalation: meglio raid mirati che l’offensiva di terra”, in La Stampa, October 28, 2023. According to the Americans, the one adopted would not be the right strategy against Hamas; in fact, they fear a possible widening of the conflict, fomented by Iran through its allies, to other neighboring countries.
[16]. D. Raineri, “La battaglia di Gaza, Israele all’attacco con raid aerei e incursioni”, op. cit.
[17]. A. Tornielli – R. Cetera, “Parolin: l’attacco a Israele è stato disumano, la legittima difesa non colpisca i civili”, in Vatican News (www.vaticannews.va/it/vaticano/news/2023-10/parolin-intrevista-violenze-israele-palestina-gaza-attacco.html), October 13, 2023.
[18]. Ibid.
[19]. Cf. I. Scaramuzzi, “Le direttive del Papa: empatia per le vittime e dialogo”, in la Repubblica, October 27, 2023.