The Israel–Gaza Conflict

A History of Stalemate, Polarisation, and Human Cost

Few global conflicts are as enduring, emotionally charged, and politically polarised as the one between Israel and the Palestinian territories—most acutely, Gaza. This war is not just one of military strikes and blockades. It’s also a war of narratives, trauma, blame, and deeply entrenched positions. And while leaders on both sides and across the world continue to point fingers, it is overwhelmingly the innocent—civilians, families, children—who continue to pay the price.

In this article, we explore the historical context of the Israel–Gaza conflict, examine the hardened ideological positions that fuel ongoing violence, and call attention to the tragic consequences of a political deadlock that seems immune to resolution.

Historical Background: From Mandate to Modern Conflict

Pre-1948: The region now known as Israel and the Palestinian territories was under British mandate following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Rising Jewish immigration and growing Arab nationalism sowed deep tensions.

1948–1949: The declaration of the State of Israel led to the first Arab-Israeli war. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced—an event Palestinians call the "Nakba" (catastrophe).

1967: Israel occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip, and other territories following the Six-Day War. Gaza would remain under Israeli military rule until 2005.

2005: Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza but retained control over borders, airspace, and access. Hamas later took control of the territory after a brief and violent struggle with the Palestinian Authority.

The Role of Hamas and Israel’s Response

Hamas, designated a terrorist organisation by Israel, the U.S., the EU, and others, has explicitly committed to the destruction of Israel in its founding charter. Over the years, it has launched thousands of rockets at Israeli civilian areas, built underground tunnels for militant use, and governed Gaza with a firm ideological stance.

Israel, citing the need to defend its citizens, has launched repeated military campaigns in Gaza, maintained a blockade, and engaged in extensive surveillance and airstrikes—often with devastating consequences for Gaza’s civilian population.

Ideological Entrenchment and the Cycle of Blame

At the heart of the impasse is an unwillingness to budge from foundational positions:

>>> Hamas refuses to recognise Israel's right to exist.

>>> Many in Israel refuse to engage with any party that refuses that recognition.

This mutual intransigence has produced:

>>> Cyclical warfare: Periodic eruptions of violence followed by temporary ceasefires, then more violence.

>>> Polarised narratives: Each side believes itself to be acting in defence.

>>> Blame games: Each incident of violence is framed as retaliation for the previous one.

The result is not just military deadlock but psychological and political paralysis.

The Civilian Toll

Every time rockets are fired or bombs dropped, it is civilians who suffer most:

>>> In Gaza: Mass casualties, destroyed infrastructure, limited access to clean water, healthcare, and electricity.

>>> In Israel: Civilians live under threat of rocket attacks, air raid sirens, and trauma, particularly in communities near the border.

International outrage often flares temporarily—before the media moves on. Meanwhile, generations grow up knowing only violence, fear, and hatred.

Polarisation Beyond the Battlefield

Perhaps the most insidious outcome of this protracted conflict is the deepening polarisation it generates—not just within Israel and Gaza, but globally. The war fuels identity-based politics, radicalisation, and hardened worldviews among observers, activists, and governments.

>>> Communities around the world are split, with protests and counter-protests often echoing extreme positions.

>>> Social media amplifies outrage and disinformation, reducing complex realities to binary blame.

>>> Diaspora populations become increasingly entrenched in opposing narratives, often pressuring local governments to align with one side or another.

This emotional and ideological fragmentation ensures that middle ground becomes a political no-man’s-land. Moderates are drowned out, peacebuilding voices are marginalised, and nuanced discourse is replaced by absolute moral positioning.

In short, the conflict doesn’t just resist resolution—it perpetuates the very conditions that make resolution less likely with every passing year.

The Failure of the International Community

Despite decades of peace talks, UN resolutions, and global diplomacy:

>>> No durable peace agreement has been reached.

>>> Key international actors often take sides, fuelling the division.

>>> Humanitarian aid flows in, but political solutions remain elusive.

Most tellingly, there is little appetite to challenge entrenched positions—whether out of fear of domestic backlash, geopolitical strategy, or a lack of political will.

The Need for a New Conversation

What’s needed is not another round of finger-pointing, but a radically honest reassessment of the status quo:

>>> Can Hamas be part of a peace process if it maintains its charter’s call for Israel’s destruction?

>>> Can Israel claim democratic legitimacy while maintaining a blockade and occupation that limits the freedom and development of millions?

>>> Can either population build a future when every child is raised in fear and grief?

Conclusion: Beyond Blame, Toward Responsibility

The tragedy of the Israel–Gaza war lies not just in its history, but in its predictability. Violence erupts, leaders harden their rhetoric, and ordinary people die. Again. And again.

Until both sides—and the international community—are willing to confront uncomfortable truths and abandon absolute positions, there can be no progress.

Peace will not come from winning the blame game. It will only come when all parties prioritise human dignity over ideological victory. The cost of waiting is measured not in political capital—but in lives lost, communities shattered, and futures stolen.

This conflict will not resolve itself. Someone must choose to break the pattern.