The U.S. Senate faces a pivotal vote on November 20, 2024, that will determine the fate of three resolutions of disapproval concerning proposed arms sales to Israel. This decision occurs against the backdrop of an intensifying Gaza war, which, according to the latest reports, has claimed the lives of over 43,922 Palestinians. The ongoing conflict has drawn unprecedented international attention, particularly concerning the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the role of U.S.-supplied weaponry in the escalation.

Independent Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced these resolutions, which aim to block the transfer of advanced military hardware to Israel. These include 120 mm mortar rounds, Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), F-15 fighter jets, and tank rounds. Senator Sanders, in a strongly worded statement, criticized the Biden administration’s handling of the conflict, emphasizing that Israel’s military operations in Gaza have been conducted “almost entirely with American weapons and $18 billion of U.S. taxpayer dollars.”

Relentless Terror: Inside the Unprecedented Barrage of Rockets and Drones Targeting Israel—A Nation Under Siege

Since the catastrophic events of October 7, 2023, Israel has faced an unprecedented onslaught of rocket and UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) attacks, underscoring the ongoing threat posed by Hamas and other militant factions in Gaza. These attacks, numbering in the tens of thousands, have caused widespread destruction, civilian casualties, and psychological trauma, while demonstrating the evolving capabilities of militant groups in modern asymmetric warfare.

The World’s Blind Eye: How Global Indifference Empowered Hamas Until the Carnage of October 7, 2023 – The Hamas Covenant: A Deep Dive into Ideology, Objectives and Implications

Rocket Attacks: Relentless Bombardment of Civilian Areas

The Scale of Rocket Attacks

As of recent reports, Israel has endured 28,734 rocket alerts since October 7, averaging 70 attacks per day. This relentless bombardment targets densely populated civilian areas, including major cities like Tel Aviv, Ashdod, and Be’er Sheva, as well as smaller towns near the Gaza border.

• Volume and Intensity:
  • The sheer volume of rockets represents an escalation in Hamas’s strategy to overwhelm Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system.
  • Daily barrages often include hundreds of rockets fired within short timeframes to exploit potential gaps in defense coverage.
• Target Selection:
  • Rockets are indiscriminate, aimed at civilian neighborhoods, hospitals, schools, and critical infrastructure.
  • Industrial zones, power plants, and transportation hubs have been targeted to disrupt daily life and essential services.

Casualties and Damage

• Civilian Casualties:
  Despite Israel’s robust missile defense, civilians have borne the brunt of these attacks. Direct hits have resulted in deaths, severe injuries, and significant psychological trauma.
  • Casualty reports detail families killed in their homes, children struck while playing, and entire communities displaced.
• Infrastructure Impact:
  • Apartment buildings, schools, and hospitals have been reduced to rubble by rocket impacts.
  • Fires and secondary explosions from rockets have caused extensive property damage.

Psychological Impact

• Constant Alerts:
  • Rocket sirens, which warn residents of incoming attacks, disrupt daily life across Israel.
  • Families live in a state of perpetual fear, often forced to seek shelter multiple times a day.
• Impact on Children:
  • Children in affected areas exhibit signs of severe PTSD, with studies showing increased anxiety, depression, and long-term developmental issues.

CT scan of remains from October 7: Hamas terrorists bound a Jewish parent and child together and burned them alive.

Western college students celebrate this barbarity. pic.twitter.com/VLoo0NYsHH

— Drew Pavlou 🇦🇺🇺🇸🇺🇦🇹🇼 (@DrewPavlou) October 8, 2024

UAV Attacks: A New Frontier of Terror

The Rise of UAVs in Asymmetric Warfare

Since October 7, Israel has faced 6,435 UAV alerts, averaging 16 per day. These unmanned aerial vehicles, often referred to as drones, represent a significant advancement in Hamas’s arsenal, reflecting their ability to adapt to modern warfare technologies.

• Types of UAVs Used:
  • Reconnaissance Drones: Used for gathering intelligence on Israeli troop movements and civilian patterns.
  • Attack Drones: Equipped with explosives, these drones are used for precision strikes against military and civilian targets.
  • Kamikaze Drones: Designed to detonate on impact, these drones are used to target infrastructure and vehicles.

Tactics and Impact

• Coordinated Swarm Attacks:
  • Hamas has employed swarms of drones to bypass traditional air defenses, exploiting weaknesses in radar coverage.
  • Swarm tactics also aim to confuse and overwhelm response systems.
• Targeted Infrastructure:
  • UAVs have been used to target power grids, water facilities, and communication networks, aiming to disrupt civilian life and critical services.
  • Military installations, border patrols, and armored vehicles are frequent targets.
• Psychological Warfare:
  • The persistent presence of drones in the skies creates an additional layer of fear and uncertainty among Israeli civilians.
  • Their ability to strike silently and with precision amplifies the psychological toll.

The Technological Evolution of Hamas’s Arsenal

Hamas’s ability to sustain such large-scale rocket and UAV campaigns highlights significant advancements in its weapons production and procurement capabilities.

Rocket Development and Manufacturing

• Local Production:
  • Many rockets are locally manufactured in Gaza using smuggled components and improvised materials.
  • Factories hidden within civilian areas churn out rockets at a rapid pace, making it difficult for Israeli forces to neutralize them without risking collateral damage.
• Smuggled Weapons:
  • Iran remains a primary supplier, providing advanced missile technology and raw materials for rocket production.
  • Smuggling tunnels and maritime routes are used to transport weapons into Gaza.

Drone Technology Acquisition

• Iranian Support:
  • Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has supplied Hamas with advanced drone technology, including blueprints and components.
  • Iranian-made drones like the Shahed-136 have been reverse-engineered for local production in Gaza.
• Technical Adaptation:
  • Hamas has demonstrated the ability to modify commercial drones into weaponized platforms, showcasing ingenuity and adaptability.

Israel’s Defense Response

Iron Dome: A Lifeline for Civilians

Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system remains a critical tool in mitigating the impact of rocket attacks. The system intercepts incoming rockets and projectiles with a success rate of over 90%.

• Challenges:
  • The sheer volume of rockets poses logistical challenges, with the system’s operators working around the clock to maintain coverage.
  • High interception costs ($50,000 per missile) create a financial strain, particularly during prolonged campaigns.

Drone Countermeasures

Israel has deployed advanced technologies to counter UAV threats, including:

• Electronic Warfare Systems: Used to jam and disrupt drone communication links.
• Iron Beam Laser Defense System: Currently in development, this system aims to provide a cost-effective solution for neutralizing drones.
• Aerial Patrols: Israeli Air Force (IAF) jets and helicopters actively monitor and engage UAV threats.

Broader Implications of Rocket and UAV Campaigns

Hamas’s Strategic Objectives

The sustained rocket and UAV campaigns serve multiple strategic purposes for Hamas:

• Economic Disruption:
  By targeting infrastructure and forcing mass evacuations, Hamas aims to strain Israel’s economy.
• Undermining Morale:
  Continuous attacks are designed to create a sense of insecurity and helplessness among Israeli civilians.
• Global Propaganda:
  Hamas uses the inevitable Israeli counterattacks to portray itself as a victim, seeking to garner international sympathy and delegitimize Israeli responses.

Regional Ramifications

The escalation has further destabilized the region, with ripple effects including:

• Increased Tensions with Lebanon: Hezbollah’s potential involvement raises fears of a multi-front conflict.
• International Polarization: The attacks have deepened divides within the international community, with some nations condemning Hamas while others call for a halt to Israeli military operations.

The unprecedented scale of rocket and UAV attacks since October 7, 2023, underscores the evolving threats Israel faces in modern asymmetric warfare. These campaigns reflect not only the strategic ambitions of Hamas but also the broader ideological and geopolitical dynamics at play in the region. The resilience of Israeli society, coupled with advanced defense technologies, remains critical in addressing these threats. However, the human and economic toll of such sustained violence highlights the urgent need for comprehensive strategies to mitigate future escalations.

The Israeli-Hamas Conflict: A Detailed Analysis of Military Actions, Diplomatic Efforts and the U.S. Position

Fortifying Freedom: How U.S. Aid to Israel Shields the West from Islamist Terrorism

The ongoing conflict in Gaza and the wider Middle East is not merely a regional struggle—it is a frontline battle with global implications. U.S. financial and military support for Israel, often criticized for its scale and moral implications, plays a pivotal role in safeguarding the Western world, including the United States itself, from the far-reaching threats posed by Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas. These groups, driven by ideological and geopolitical ambitions, openly aim to dismantle Western influence and, in many cases, target the United States as their ultimate adversary.

Strategic Partnership for Global Security

The U.S. commitment of $17.9 billion in military aid to Israel since the start of the Gaza war is far more than a financial transaction—it is an investment in a broader strategy to counter threats that extend well beyond the borders of the Middle East. This funding ensures that Israel, as a key U.S. ally, remains a powerful bulwark against the destabilizing ambitions of Iran and its proxies.

Iran’s Global Aspirations and Hostility Toward the U.S.

Iran, the primary sponsor of Hezbollah and Hamas, envisions a regional order dominated by its revolutionary Islamist ideology. The regime’s hostility toward the United States, often branded the “Great Satan,” underscores its broader anti-Western agenda.

• Nuclear Threat:
  Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, coupled with its ballistic missile program, poses a direct threat not only to Israel but also to U.S. allies in Europe and beyond. U.S. support for Israel enhances its ability to counter these threats through intelligence sharing, preemptive actions, and regional deterrence.
• Proxy Networks:
  Iran’s sponsorship of groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza serves as a direct challenge to U.S. interests. These proxies, equipped with advanced weaponry and extensive funding, destabilize the region, threaten global energy supplies, and carry out operations targeting American assets and allies.

Hezbollah and Hamas: Iran’s Regional Weapons

Both Hezbollah and Hamas act as Iranian arms, executing its strategic vision while furthering their own radical Islamist goals.

• Hezbollah:
  Armed with over 150,000 rockets and precision missiles, Hezbollah is a direct threat to Israel and the broader region. A well-armed Israel prevents Hezbollah from expanding its influence or launching attacks that could spiral into regional or global conflict.
• Hamas:
  Hamas’s attacks on Israel, including the October 7, 2023, massacre, are part of a broader strategy to destabilize the region and garner international attention for its cause. U.S. aid ensures that Israel can respond effectively to such threats, limiting Hamas’s capacity to expand its operations beyond Gaza.

UN Reports Accuse Israel of ‘Extermination,’ Crimes Against Humanity; Hamas of War Crimes

Why Supporting Israel Protects America

A Vital Intelligence and Defense Partner

Israel’s advanced military capabilities and intelligence networks make it a cornerstone of U.S. and Western security in the Middle East. Through decades of collaboration, the U.S. has benefitted from Israel’s counterterrorism expertise, technological innovations, and regional intelligence.

• Iron Dome and Missile Defense Systems:
  Developed with U.S. funding and technological input, systems like the Iron Dome protect not only Israeli civilians but also demonstrate innovations critical to U.S. military defense systems.
• Counterterrorism Operations:
  Israel’s preemptive strikes and intelligence-gathering efforts disrupt terrorist activities before they can escalate into global threats. By funding these efforts, the U.S. mitigates risks to its own citizens and interests.

Economic Stability and Energy Security

The Middle East remains a critical hub for global energy supplies. Iran’s ambitions to control key shipping lanes, such as the Strait of Hormuz, directly threaten global oil markets. A stable and secure Israel acts as a deterrent against Iranian expansion, safeguarding the flow of energy to Western economies.

The Cost of Inaction

Critics, including Senator Bernie Sanders, argue that U.S. support for Israel exacerbates civilian casualties and violates international law. While these concerns merit discussion, the alternative—an unchecked Iran and empowered proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas—poses far graver risks.

• Terrorism Without Borders:
  Groups like Hezbollah and Hamas have demonstrated their willingness to carry out attacks beyond the Middle East. A weakened Israel would embolden these groups to target Western nations directly.
• Regional Collapse:
  If Israel were unable to defend itself, the resulting power vacuum would likely be filled by Iran, further destabilizing an already volatile region.

The U.S. financial and military support for Israel transcends moral or political debates—it is a strategic necessity. By ensuring Israel’s security, the U.S. protects not only a key ally but also its own interests and the broader stability of the Western world. The war against Islamist terror is not confined to the Middle East, and a strong, well-supported Israel is an essential line of defense in that global struggle.

Humanitarian Aid Obstruction and International Scrutiny

The Senate vote follows allegations from humanitarian organizations questioning whether the Biden administration has adequately addressed Israel’s reported obstruction of aid shipments to Gaza. Earlier this month, these groups challenged Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s assessment that Israel had begun improving aid flows to the besieged enclave. In October, Blinken and Austin had warned Israel that it had 30 days to facilitate humanitarian assistance or face potential consequences.

Despite these warnings, the situation in Gaza remains dire. Reports from aid agencies describe catastrophic conditions, with severe shortages of food, medicine, and clean water. The restrictions imposed by Israel have exacerbated the humanitarian crisis, leading to widespread condemnation from the international community. The United Nations and other global organizations have repeatedly called for an immediate and unimpeded flow of aid to Gaza, emphasizing the urgent need to protect civilian lives.

Israel Prepares for the Possibility of Pregnancies in Women Hostages Raped by Hamas

Congressional Dynamics and the Arms Sales Debate

The debate over arms sales to Israel has exposed deep divisions within the U.S. Congress. While the Biden administration has steadfastly defended its support for Israel, arguing that it is essential for maintaining regional security and countering threats from groups like Hamas, critics within Congress have called for a reevaluation of U.S. military aid policies.

Sanders’ resolutions have brought these divisions into sharp focus. By seeking to block specific arms transfers, Sanders aims to hold Israel accountable for its actions in Gaza and to signal a broader shift in U.S. policy. However, the resolutions face significant challenges, as many lawmakers remain reluctant to curtail military support for Israel, citing the longstanding alliance between the two countries and the shared commitment to countering terrorism.

The Future of U.S. Support for Israel Under President Donald Trump: Strategic Shifts and Implications

The return of Donald Trump to the presidency brings the potential for significant shifts in U.S. policy toward Israel and the broader Middle East. As a staunch ally of Israel during his first term, Trump implemented policies that fundamentally altered the dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, U.S.-Middle East relations, and the global perception of America’s role in the region. His re-election could further consolidate these policies, redefine strategic alliances, and heighten tensions with adversaries like Iran.

This chapter delves into the strategic implications of U.S. support for Israel under a Trump administration, exploring the potential consequences for regional stability, global diplomacy, and the enduring conflict with Islamist actors.

Unprecedented Hamas Attack on Israel Shakes Region: A Comprehensive Analysis

Trump’s Past Legacy with Israel: A Blueprint for the Future

During his first term, Donald Trump demonstrated an unprecedented level of support for Israel, characterized by bold moves that broke with decades of U.S. foreign policy orthodoxy. Key actions included:

• Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital (2017):
  Trump formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and relocated the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv. This decision was widely celebrated in Israel but condemned by Palestinians and much of the international community. It was seen as a clear alignment with Israeli sovereignty claims over the entire city.
• The Abraham Accords (2020):
  Under Trump’s leadership, Israel normalized relations with several Arab nations, including the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. These agreements reshaped regional alliances, isolating Iran while sidelining the Palestinian issue in Arab-Israeli diplomacy.
• Cutting Aid to Palestinians:
  Trump halted funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which supports Palestinian refugees, citing inefficiency and alleged bias against Israel. This move further entrenched U.S.-Israel ties while exacerbating Palestinian grievances.
• Backing Israel’s Military:
  Military aid and arms sales flourished under Trump, with significant deals reinforcing Israel’s qualitative military edge (QME) in the region. These included the delivery of F-35 fighter jets, advanced missile systems, and enhanced cybersecurity cooperation.

These actions solidified Trump’s reputation as one of the most pro-Israel U.S. presidents in history, aligning closely with the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Israel: Who are the people kidnapped by Hamas on the day that will forever be imprinted in the annals of history as a dark day for humanity – data – age – photographs of each of them

Potential Policies Under Trump’s Second Term

A second Trump administration is likely to build on his earlier policies, with even greater emphasis on strengthening Israel’s strategic position. Key potential developments include:

Escalation of Military Aid

Trump has historically championed robust military support for Israel, viewing it as a critical pillar of U.S. strategy in the Middle East.

• Increased Funding:
  Trump could push for increases to the already substantial $3.8 billion annual aid package under the U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), citing the heightened threats from Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
• Advanced Weapons Systems:
  • Expansion of F-35 deliveries to bolster Israel’s air superiority.
  • Accelerated deployment of the Iron Beam laser defense system to complement Iron Dome capabilities.
  • Enhanced cyber warfare tools to counter Iranian threats.
• Joint Military Exercises:
  Strengthened U.S.-Israel military coordination, including large-scale joint exercises to prepare for potential multi-front conflicts involving Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

Confrontation with Iran

Trump’s hardline stance on Iran, exemplified by the withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 and the assassination of Qassem Soleimani in 2020, indicates a likely continuation of aggressive policies toward Tehran.

• Pre-emptive Strikes:
  A Trump administration could greenlight Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, providing logistical and intelligence support.
• Sanctions and Economic Isolation:
  Renewed and expanded sanctions targeting Iran’s energy sector and financial institutions to weaken its ability to fund proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas.
• Proxy Warfare:
  Trump may authorize covert operations to disrupt Iranian supply chains to Hezbollah and Hamas, including targeting smuggling routes and arms depots in Syria and Lebanon.

Expansion of the Abraham Accords

Trump’s return could reignite efforts to expand the Abraham Accords, with potential new signatories including Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Kuwait.

• Saudi Normalization:
  Trump has expressed confidence in bringing Saudi Arabia into the fold, a move that would further isolate Iran and strengthen a Sunni-Israeli alliance against shared threats.
• Economic Incentives:
  Leveraging U.S. economic power to encourage Arab states to formalize ties with Israel, with promises of infrastructure investment and security guarantees.

Hardline Stance on Palestinian Issues

Trump’s previous policies sidelined Palestinian demands, and his second term is likely to continue this trajectory.

• “Deal of the Century” Revisited:
  Reviving his peace plan, which heavily favored Israeli territorial claims, while offering limited concessions to Palestinians.
• Further Aid Cuts:
  Scaling back international funding mechanisms for Palestinian institutions seen as hostile to Israel.

Implications for Regional Stability

Increased Tensions with Iran

A more aggressive U.S.-Israel partnership under Trump would exacerbate tensions with Iran, potentially triggering escalations across the region.

• Iran’s Response:
  • Intensified proxy attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria.
  • Increased support for Hamas and Hezbollah to challenge Israel’s security.
• Potential Conflict Scenarios:
  • A full-scale war involving Israel, Iran, and its proxies, with global repercussions for energy markets and international security.

Empowering Islamist Extremism

U.S. policies perceived as one-sided could fuel Islamist narratives, galvanizing extremist groups and increasing the likelihood of terror attacks against Israel and Western targets.

• Hamas’s Tactics:
  Hamas may exploit such narratives to justify further rocket barrages, infiltration attempts, and terror campaigns.
• Hezbollah’s Threat:
  Backed by Iran, Hezbollah could launch large-scale attacks on northern Israel, potentially involving precision-guided missiles.

Impact on U.S.-Europe Relations

Trump’s policies, particularly regarding unilateral support for Israel, could strain ties with European allies advocating for a two-state solution.

• Diplomatic Fallout:
  • Increased divisions within NATO on Middle East policy.
  • Reduced European support for U.S. initiatives in other regions.

Global Strategic Importance of U.S.-Israel Relations

Trump’s policies toward Israel are not merely about Middle Eastern stability—they reflect broader strategic considerations:

Counterterrorism

Israel serves as a frontline state in the global fight against Islamist terrorism. U.S. support ensures that Israel remains equipped to neutralize threats before they expand to other regions.

Technological and Defense Collaboration

Israel’s innovations in cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and missile defense are critical assets for U.S. defense capabilities.

Containing China and Russia

Trump’s focus on Middle East alliances could counter Chinese and Russian attempts to expand their influence in the region by leveraging ties with Iran and other adversaries.

A second Trump presidency would likely reinforce and expand the U.S.-Israel alliance, emphasizing military strength, regional realignment, and a hardline approach to adversaries like Iran. While these policies may enhance Israel’s security, they also risk deepening regional instability and exacerbating tensions with global powers. The strategic importance of this partnership remains undeniable, positioning Israel as a critical ally in preserving Western interests in an increasingly volatile Middle East.

The Broader Context of U.S. Arms Sales Policy

The proposed arms sales to Israel are part of a larger pattern of U.S. arms transfers to allies and partners worldwide. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the United States remains the world’s largest arms exporter, accounting for nearly 40% of global arms sales in recent years. This dominance reflects the U.S. government’s strategic priorities but also raises questions about the consequences of such policies.

In the case of Israel, U.S. arms transfers have been justified on the grounds of ensuring Israel’s qualitative military edge (QME) in the region. This policy, enshrined in U.S. law, aims to guarantee that Israel maintains superior military capabilities compared to its regional adversaries. However, the Gaza war has reignited debates over whether this policy aligns with America’s broader ethical and strategic interests.

The Human Cost of the Gaza War

As the Senate prepares to vote on the resolutions of disapproval, the human toll of the Gaza war looms large. With more than 43,922 Palestinians reported dead and countless others injured or displaced, the conflict has become one of the deadliest in recent history. The overwhelming majority of casualties have been civilians, including women and children, prompting accusations of war crimes and calls for accountability.

The Israeli government has defended its military operations as necessary for countering the threat posed by Hamas, which it accuses of using civilians as human shields. However, critics argue that this justification does not absolve Israel of its obligations under international law. The disproportionate impact on civilians has fueled anger and resentment among Palestinians and across the broader Arab world, further entrenching divisions and undermining prospects for peace.

Hamas’ Surprising Attack on Israel: Unraveling the Theory of Victory

Civilian Casualties and International Reactions

The staggering civilian toll in Gaza, exceeding 43,922 fatalities, has evoked widespread global outrage. Humanitarian organizations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Amnesty International, have accused Israel of violating international humanitarian law. The principle of distinction, which mandates separating military targets from civilians, and the principle of proportionality, which requires that civilian harm not outweigh military advantages, have been central to these criticisms.

International bodies, including the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), have convened emergency sessions to address the humanitarian crisis. Despite these efforts, diplomatic initiatives have yielded limited results. A Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire was vetoed by the United States, highlighting the enduring geopolitical complexities surrounding the conflict.

The Arab League and Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) have also issued statements condemning the actions of Israel and urging the international community to intervene. These organizations have demanded an immediate halt to hostilities, the lifting of the blockade on Gaza, and the establishment of humanitarian corridors. Yet, their influence on the ground remains limited, as the conflict continues unabated.

REPORT: Hezbollah – Hamas – Strategies and armed resistance

The Role of Hamas and Its Implications

Hamas, the governing authority in Gaza and the primary adversary of Israel in the conflict, has also been the subject of international scrutiny. While Hamas claims to represent Palestinian resistance against occupation, its tactics, including indiscriminate rocket fire into Israeli civilian areas, have been widely condemned. The group’s use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes has further complicated the humanitarian situation in Gaza, drawing criticism even from some of its traditional allies.

Reports suggest that Hamas has launched over 12,000 rockets and mortars toward Israeli territory since the conflict began. While Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system has intercepted a majority of these projectiles, the attacks have nonetheless resulted in significant casualties and damage. The Israeli government has justified its military operations in Gaza as necessary for neutralizing Hamas’ capabilities, but this rationale has done little to mitigate international concerns about the scale of civilian harm.

The Biden Administration’s Balancing Act

The Biden administration’s response to the Gaza war has been characterized by a delicate balancing act. On one hand, the administration has reiterated its unwavering support for Israel’s right to self-defense. On the other hand, it has faced mounting pressure from progressive lawmakers, international allies, and human rights organizations to address the humanitarian crisis and reassess U.S. military aid policies.

In October, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin traveled to Israel to convey the administration’s concerns about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. During their visit, they reportedly urged Israeli officials to take concrete steps to facilitate the delivery of aid and minimize civilian casualties. Despite these efforts, reports from humanitarian groups indicate that the flow of aid to Gaza remains severely restricted.

President Joe Biden has also faced criticism for his administration’s handling of the conflict. Progressive members of Congress, including Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have called for greater accountability and oversight of U.S. military aid to Israel. These lawmakers argue that unconditional support for Israel undermines America’s credibility as a champion of human rights and international law.

The Impact on U.S.-Israel Relations

The Gaza war has also raised questions about the future of U.S.-Israel relations. While the two nations have long enjoyed a close partnership based on shared strategic interests and democratic values, recent developments have strained this relationship. The ongoing conflict, coupled with allegations of human rights abuses, has fueled growing dissent within the United States.

Public opinion polls reveal a sharp divide among Americans regarding U.S. support for Israel. A 2024 survey by the Pew Research Center found that while a majority of Republicans continue to view Israel as a key ally, a significant portion of Democrats—particularly younger and more progressive voters—have expressed concerns about the humanitarian impact of U.S. policies in the region.

These divisions have also manifested within the Democratic Party, where progressive lawmakers have pushed for a more balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This shift reflects broader changes in the American political landscape, where issues of social justice and human rights have become increasingly prominent.

The Broader Geopolitical Context

The United States has responded to these developments by bolstering its military presence in the region. In addition to deploying naval assets to the eastern Mediterranean, including aircraft carriers and missile defense systems, the Pentagon has increased troop levels at key bases in the Gulf states. These measures aim to deter further escalation and reassure allies such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, who fear that the conflict could spill over into their territories.

The U.S. has also ramped up intelligence-sharing initiatives with regional partners to monitor and counter potential threats from Iran and its proxies. This includes enhanced coordination with Israel, as well as increased support for Jordan and Egypt, both of which play critical roles in maintaining stability along Israel’s borders.

The Role of Regional Powers

The Gaza war has not only reignited long-standing tensions between Israel and Palestine but has also reverberated across the Middle East, drawing varying responses from key regional players. These responses reflect each country’s geopolitical calculations, historical relationships with Israel and the Palestinians, and domestic political considerations. The war’s broader implications underscore the complexities of Middle Eastern diplomacy and the intricate web of alliances, rivalries, and ideological divides.

Saudi Arabia and the Abraham Accords: A Fragile Normalization

Historical Context and the Abraham Accords

Saudi Arabia’s potential normalization with Israel had been a cornerstone of a broader U.S.-brokered initiative to reshape the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. The Abraham Accords, signed in 2020, facilitated the normalization of relations between Israel and several Arab nations, including the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. Saudi Arabia’s potential inclusion was seen as the linchpin for the accords’ success, given the kingdom’s significant influence in the Arab world as the custodian of Islam’s holiest sites and a regional economic powerhouse.

Suspension of Talks

However, the eruption of the Gaza war has derailed these efforts. Riyadh officially suspended normalization discussions, citing the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the widespread Palestinian casualties caused by Israeli military actions. The Saudi government, led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), has called for an immediate ceasefire and international intervention to halt the bloodshed.

Humanitarian and Political Stance

Saudi Arabia has pledged substantial humanitarian aid to Gaza, channeling funds through organizations such as the Saudi Red Crescent and the King Salman Humanitarian Aid and Relief Center. The kingdom’s leadership has also intensified its criticism of Israel’s actions, describing them as a “flagrant violation of human rights” and “an affront to international norms.”

Implications for Regional Diplomacy

The conflict has exposed the fragility of the normalization process, underscoring the centrality of the Palestinian issue in Arab-Israeli relations. Public opinion in Saudi Arabia remains staunchly pro-Palestinian, with widespread protests and social media campaigns expressing solidarity with Gaza. MBS must balance his aspirations for regional economic integration and modernization with the political and religious sentiments of his population.

Economic and Strategic Ramifications

The suspension of normalization efforts could have broader economic implications, particularly for Saudi Vision 2030, MBS’s ambitious reform agenda aimed at diversifying the kingdom’s economy. The normalization process was expected to unlock significant trade and investment opportunities between Israel and Saudi Arabia, particularly in technology, tourism, and energy sectors. The delay may hinder progress on these fronts and strain Saudi-U.S. relations, as Washington has heavily invested in the success of the Abraham Accords.

Turkey’s Diplomatic Efforts: Championing the Palestinian Cause

Historical Relations with Israel and Palestine

Turkey has historically maintained a complex relationship with Israel, characterized by periods of both cooperation and tension. Under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey has positioned itself as a vocal advocate for Palestinian rights while maintaining trade and security ties with Israel.

Erdoğan’s Strong Condemnation

Amid the Gaza war, Erdoğan has intensified his criticism of Israel, accusing it of committing “genocide” against Palestinians. He has called for an emergency session of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to unite Muslim nations in condemning Israel’s actions and supporting the Palestinian cause. Erdoğan’s government has also mobilized significant humanitarian aid for Gaza, despite logistical challenges posed by Israel’s blockade.

Challenges in Mediation

Turkey’s strained relations with Israel, particularly following the Mavi Marmara incident in 2010 and the subsequent downgrading of diplomatic ties, limit its ability to act as an effective mediator in the conflict. Although the two countries restored full diplomatic relations in 2022, their relationship remains fraught with mistrust and ideological differences.

Domestic and Regional Calculations

Erdoğan’s stance on Gaza aligns with his broader domestic and regional agenda. Domestically, it resonates with his conservative and nationalist base, which views support for Palestine as a moral and religious imperative. Regionally, it bolsters Turkey’s aspirations to lead the Muslim world, challenging rivals such as Saudi Arabia and Iran for influence.

Turkey’s Dual Allegiance: Balancing NATO Membership and Strategic Alliances with Russia Amid Geopolitical Ambiguity

Turkey’s geopolitical strategy is characterized by a complex balancing act between its NATO commitments and its deepening ties with Russia and associated nations. This dual alignment raises questions about NATO’s strategic coherence and the potential risks of sharing advanced military technologies with a member state that maintains close relations with countries often at odds with Western interests.

Turkey’s Relations with Russia and Allied Nations

In recent years, Turkey has cultivated a multifaceted relationship with Russia, encompassing economic, energy, and defense collaborations. This partnership extends to nations within Russia’s sphere of influence, many of which harbor adversarial views toward Israel.

• Russia: Turkey’s acquisition of the Russian S-400 missile defense system in 2019 strained its relations with NATO allies, particularly the United States, which responded by removing Turkey from the F-35 fighter jet program. Despite these tensions, Turkey and Russia have cooperated on energy projects like the TurkStream natural gas pipeline and have engaged in joint military operations in Syria.
• Iran: While Turkey and Iran have historically had a complex relationship, they have found common ground in opposing Kurdish separatist movements and collaborating on regional security issues. Iran’s antagonism toward Israel is well-documented, with Tehran providing support to anti-Israel groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
• Syria: The Syrian government, led by President Bashar al-Assad, has been a staunch adversary of Israel. Turkey’s involvement in Syria has been multifaceted, including opposition to Assad’s regime and concerns over Kurdish forces near its border. However, Turkey and Syria have engaged in indirect dialogues facilitated by Russia, indicating a potential shift in relations.
• Lebanon: Turkey has sought to increase its influence in Lebanon, a country where Hezbollah, an organization committed to Israel’s destruction, holds significant power. While Turkey’s involvement is primarily economic and cultural, its engagement in a nation with strong anti-Israel sentiments is noteworthy.
• Palestinian Territories: Turkey has been a vocal supporter of the Palestinian cause, condemning Israeli policies and providing aid to Gaza. This stance aligns Turkey with other nations critical of Israel’s actions.

Turkey’s NATO Membership and Strategic Ambiguity

Turkey’s position within NATO is increasingly complex. As a member since 1952, Turkey has been integral to the alliance’s southern flank. However, its procurement of Russian military equipment and its independent foreign policy moves have raised concerns among NATO members.

• S-400 Missile System: The purchase of the S-400 system from Russia led to fears that integrating this technology could compromise NATO’s defense infrastructure. The U.S. imposed sanctions on Turkey under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) and expelled Turkey from the F-35 program.
• Military Exercises: Turkey has participated in joint military exercises with both NATO allies and Russian forces, highlighting its dual-aligned military engagements.
• Defense Industry Collaborations: Turkey’s defense industry has engaged in projects with both Western and Russian partners, raising concerns about technology transfer and security.

Turkey’s Military Capabilities

Turkey boasts one of the largest and most capable militaries in Europe, with significant investments in modernization and indigenous defense production.

• Personnel: The Turkish Armed Forces comprise approximately 355,200 active-duty personnel, with an additional 378,700 in reserve, totaling over 733,900 military personnel.
• Land Forces: The Turkish Army operates a diverse array of equipment, including:
  • 2,622 main battle tanks, such as the Leopard 2A4 and the domestically produced Altay.
  • 8,325 armored fighting vehicles.
  • 1,278 self-propelled artillery units.
  • 1,260 towed artillery pieces.
  • 438 multiple-launch rocket systems.
• Air Force: The Turkish Air Force maintains a robust fleet, including:
  • 245 combat aircraft, primarily F-16 Fighting Falcons.
  • 100 transport aircraft.
  • 276 trainer aircraft.
  • 492 helicopters, including 100 attack helicopters.
• Naval Forces: The Turkish Navy’s assets include:
  • 16 frigates.
  • 10 corvettes.
  • 12 submarines.
  • 35 patrol vessels.
  • 11 mine warfare ships.

Defense Industry and Industrial Base

Turkey has made significant strides in developing its defense industry, aiming for self-sufficiency and becoming a major exporter.

• Aerospace: Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) has developed platforms such as the TAI Anka and Bayraktar TB2 drones, which have seen combat use in various conflicts. The TAI Anka-3, a stealth unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV), is currently under development.
• Armored Vehicles: Companies like BMC and FNSS produce a range of armored vehicles, including the Altay main battle tank and the Pars and Kaplan armored vehicles.
• Naval Shipbuilding: Turkey’s MILGEM project has led to the production of indigenous corvettes and frigates, enhancing the navy’s capabilities.
• Missile Systems: Roketsan and Aselsan have developed various missile systems, including the HISAR air defense system and the SOM cruise missile.

Strategic Port and Logistics Hub (Continued)

Turkey’s geographic location has historically made it a key transit and logistics hub for both civilian and military operations. Its ports, airports, and rail infrastructure serve as crucial nodes in the global trade network and as logistical support points for military operations.

Ports and Maritime Capabilities

Turkey’s extensive coastline along the Aegean, Mediterranean, and Black Seas positions it as a maritime powerhouse in the region. Key ports include:

• Port of Istanbul (Ambarlı):
  As one of Turkey’s largest ports, Istanbul handles a significant volume of containerized cargo and serves as a critical link between Europe and Asia. It supports both commercial and military logistics.
• Port of Izmir:
  Located on the Aegean Sea, Izmir is a hub for agricultural and industrial exports. It has also been used for NATO military operations, given its proximity to alliance facilities.
• Port of Mersin:
  Situated on the Mediterranean, Mersin is one of Turkey’s largest and most modern ports. It plays a key role in facilitating trade with the Middle East and North Africa and has been considered for expanded military logistics.
• Port of Samsun:
  On the Black Sea, this port is integral for trade with Eastern Europe and Russia, aligning with Turkey’s economic partnerships with nations in the region.

Aviation: A Regional Powerhouse

Turkey’s investments in aviation have transformed it into a global aviation hub, with Istanbul Airport at the center:

• Istanbul Airport:
  Opened in 2018, Istanbul Airport is one of the largest in the world, capable of handling 200 million passengers annually when fully operational. It serves as a transit hub connecting Europe, Asia, and Africa and is a critical asset for military and humanitarian logistics.
• Military Airbases:
  Turkey’s strategic airbases, such as Incirlik Air Base, serve both national and NATO operations. Incirlik, in particular, is vital for U.S. and NATO missions in the Middle East, hosting nuclear weapons under NATO’s nuclear sharing program.

Rail and Overland Infrastructure

Turkey’s rail network connects Europe with the Middle East and Central Asia, forming a critical segment of the transcontinental trade corridors:

• Baku-Tbilisi-Kars Railway:
  This line links Turkey to Azerbaijan and Central Asia, bypassing Russia, and plays a strategic role in Turkey’s Silk Road ambitions.
• High-Speed Rail:
  Turkey’s high-speed rail projects aim to connect major cities like Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir, enhancing domestic connectivity and regional trade.

Logistics for Military Operations

Turkey’s infrastructure supports its military’s rapid deployment capabilities. Ports, airports, and rail lines are integrated into its defense strategy, ensuring the mobility of troops and equipment across diverse terrains.

Turkey’s Military Capabilities: Europe’s Largest Army

Turkey possesses the largest standing military in Europe and one of the most advanced in NATO. Its military power extends across land, air, and sea, bolstered by a robust defense industry.

Manpower

Turkey’s armed forces are among the largest globally in terms of personnel:

• Active Duty Personnel: 355,200 soldiers.
• Reserve Forces: 378,700 personnel.
• Paramilitary Forces: 156,800 personnel, including the Gendarmerie and Coast Guard.

This totals over 890,000 personnel, giving Turkey unmatched manpower in the region.

Ground Forces

Turkey’s army is the backbone of its military strength:

• Main Battle Tanks (MBTs):
  • Leopard 2A4: 316 units.
  • Altay (Indigenous MBT): Production ongoing, designed to replace older models.
  • M60 Patton: 1,500 units, many upgraded to Sabra standard.
• Armored Vehicles:
  • Over 8,325 units, including advanced platforms like the FNSS Pars and ACV-15.
• Artillery and Rocket Systems:
  • Self-Propelled Howitzers: 1,278 units, including the domestically produced T-155 Fırtına.
  • Rocket Systems: 438, including the T-300 Kasırga.
• Infantry Equipment:
  • Standard rifles include the domestically produced MPT-76 and H&K G3.

Air Force

The Turkish Air Force is a cornerstone of NATO’s southern flank:

• Fighter Jets:
  • 245 combat aircraft, primarily F-16 Fighting Falcons. Turkey has overhauled many of these jets to extend their operational life.
• Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs):
  • The Bayraktar TB2, Akıncı, and Anka drones are world-renowned, having demonstrated effectiveness in Syria, Libya, and Azerbaijan.
• Air Defense Systems:
  • Indigenous HISAR air defense systems supplement NATO’s Patriot missile systems.

Naval Forces

The Turkish Navy ensures dominance in the Aegean, Mediterranean, and Black Seas:

• Frigates: 16, including the Gabya and Barbaros-class vessels.
• Corvettes: 10, including MILGEM Ada-class corvettes.
• Submarines: 12 diesel-electric submarines, with plans to add German-designed Type 214 subs.
• Amphibious Assault Ship: TCG Anadolu, a multi-role vessel capable of deploying aircraft and helicopters.
• Naval Drones: Advanced naval UAVs are under development, enhancing maritime surveillance.

Cyber and Electronic Warfare

Turkey’s focus on asymmetric capabilities has expanded to cyber and electronic warfare:

• Aselsan: Develops advanced communication and radar systems.
• Havelsan: Focuses on software for command-and-control systems.
• KORAL System: An electronic warfare platform used to disrupt enemy radar and communication systems.

Turkey as an Industrial and Aviation Hub

Defense Industry

Turkey’s defense industry has transformed into a global competitor:

• Top Exporters: Companies like Aselsan, Roketsan, and Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) lead the market.
• Exports: $4.4 billion in defense exports in 2022, with targets to reach $10 billion by 2030.
• Domestic Production: Over 70% of Turkey’s military equipment is now produced domestically.

Commercial Aviation

Istanbul Airport and Turkish Airlines have positioned Turkey as a global aviation leader:

• Turkish Airlines: Operates over 350 aircraft and flies to more countries than any other airline globally.
• Aviation Manufacturing: TAI produces components for Boeing, Airbus, and Lockheed Martin.

Industrial Base

Turkey’s industrial capacity supports not just defense but also broader economic goals:

• Automotive Industry: Turkey is a key manufacturer for European markets.
• Energy Infrastructure: Partnerships with Russia and the EU ensure Turkey’s role as an energy transit hub.

Strategic Risks of Turkey’s Ambiguity

NATO’s Dilemma

Turkey’s dual alignment with NATO and Russia creates strategic vulnerabilities:

• Technology Sharing: Access to NATO’s advanced systems risks leakage to Russia.
• Operational Security: Turkey’s independent actions, such as the S-400 purchase, undermine alliance cohesion.

Regional Implications

Turkey’s military and industrial growth reshape power dynamics in Europe and the Middle East, with potential risks:

• Israel: Turkey’s alignment with anti-Israel blocs complicates regional peace efforts.
• Russia: Close ties with Moscow enable Turkey to act independently of NATO consensus.

Previsions and Forecasts

• By 2030, Turkey’s defense exports could double, increasing its influence in global arms markets.
• Continued tension with NATO may lead to debates over Turkey’s role in the alliance, though expulsion remains unlikely.

Iran’s Strategic Maneuvers: Strengthening the Resistance Axis

Ideological Commitment and Proxy Support

Iran has long positioned itself as a staunch opponent of Israel, framing its foreign policy around the doctrine of “resistance” against Western imperialism and Zionism. Tehran provides extensive financial, logistical, and military support to Hamas, Hezbollah, and other militant groups in the region, viewing them as critical components of its strategy to counter Israeli and U.S. influence.

Escalation of Hostilities

In the context of the Gaza war, Iran has intensified its support for Hamas, supplying advanced weaponry and technology to bolster its military capabilities. Iranian officials have openly praised Hamas’s actions, describing them as a legitimate response to Israeli aggression. Tehran has also coordinated with Hezbollah in Lebanon, raising the specter of a multi-front conflict that could further destabilize the region.

Diplomatic Rhetoric and Regional Alliances

Iranian leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Ebrahim Raisi, have called for a unified Muslim response to what they describe as “Zionist crimes.” Tehran has sought to rally regional allies, including Syria, Iraq, and Yemen’s Houthi movement, to adopt a more confrontational stance toward Israel. This rhetoric has resonated across the Arab world, where anti-Israel sentiment remains deeply entrenched.

Implications for U.S.-Iran Relations

The Gaza war has further strained U.S.-Iran relations, already fraught over issues such as the nuclear deal and sanctions. Washington has accused Tehran of fueling the conflict through its support for Hamas and Hezbollah, while Iran has condemned U.S. military aid to Israel as complicity in war crimes. These dynamics have complicated ongoing efforts to revive the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), with both sides hardening their positions.

Broader Geopolitical Implications

Iran’s involvement in the Gaza war has reinforced its role as the leader of the “resistance axis,” which includes Syria, Hezbollah, and various Shiite militias across the region. This alignment has challenged the influence of Sunni powers like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, exacerbating sectarian divides and heightening regional tensions.

Regional Dynamics in Flux

The Gaza war has laid bare the complexities of Middle Eastern geopolitics, highlighting the divergent interests and strategies of regional powers. Saudi Arabia’s suspension of normalization talks with Israel, Turkey’s vocal advocacy for Palestinians, and Iran’s active support for militant groups underscore the enduring centrality of the Palestinian issue in shaping regional alignments.

These dynamics will have profound implications for the future of the Middle East, influencing everything from diplomatic relations and economic cooperation to security arrangements and ideological rivalries. As the conflict continues, the actions of these regional powers will play a critical role in shaping its trajectory and determining the prospects for peace and stability in one of the world’s most volatile regions.

International Organizations and the Humanitarian Response

The Gaza war has also spurred an international humanitarian response, with organizations such as the United Nations, the Red Cross, and Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) mobilizing resources to address the growing crisis. However, their efforts have been hampered by restrictions on access to Gaza, limited funding, and the sheer scale of the devastation.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has warned of an impending catastrophe, citing severe shortages of food, medicine, and clean water. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called for an immediate cessation of hostilities, emphasizing the need for a political solution to address the root causes of the conflict.

The Erosion of International Support and Credibility

The high civilian toll and alleged war crimes in Gaza have eroded Israel’s international standing, with many global leaders and institutions calling for investigations into the conduct of its military operations. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has received renewed petitions to investigate alleged breaches of international humanitarian law, including indiscriminate bombings and the obstruction of aid shipments. These developments have placed Israel and its staunchest ally, the United States, under intense scrutiny.

The Biden administration has been navigating an increasingly precarious diplomatic landscape. While Washington continues to emphasize Israel’s right to self-defense, it has faced growing criticism from traditional allies in Europe and the Global South. Countries such as France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have called for an immediate cessation of hostilities, while nations across Africa, Asia, and Latin America have accused the U.S. of enabling Israeli actions that exacerbate the humanitarian crisis.

The Role of Media and Public Perception

The media has played a pivotal role in shaping global narratives around the Gaza war. Graphic images of destroyed neighborhoods, hospitals, and schools have dominated international headlines, fueling public outrage and demands for accountability. In the U.S., mainstream media outlets have come under fire for perceived biases in their coverage, with critics alleging a disproportionate focus on Israel’s security concerns while downplaying the scale of suffering in Gaza.

This media landscape has also influenced public opinion. Polls indicate a significant shift in American attitudes toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly among younger generations and minority communities. A growing number of Americans now question the unconditional nature of U.S. support for Israel, with many calling for greater emphasis on protecting Palestinian rights and pursuing a balanced approach to the conflict.

The Congressional Response and the Path Forward

The upcoming Senate vote represents a critical juncture in the U.S. response to the Gaza war. If the resolutions of disapproval are passed, they could signal a significant shift in U.S. policy, potentially paving the way for greater accountability and a reassessment of military aid to Israel. However, the likelihood of their passage remains uncertain, given the entrenched bipartisan support for Israel in Congress.

Should the resolutions fail, it would reinforce the status quo, allowing the Biden administration to proceed with the proposed arms sales. This outcome would likely deepen existing divisions within the Democratic Party, where a growing progressive wing has been vocal in its criticism of U.S. policy toward Israel. It would also risk further alienating international allies and intensifying anti-American sentiment in the Middle East.

The Strategic Calculus of U.S. Arms Sales

The debate over arms sales to Israel cannot be divorced from the broader strategic calculus of U.S. foreign policy. For decades, the U.S. has relied on military aid and arms transfers as tools for advancing its interests in the Middle East, ensuring the security of allies, and countering perceived threats from adversaries such as Iran and militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

However, the Gaza war has underscored the limitations of this approach. While U.S. military aid has bolstered Israel’s defensive and offensive capabilities, it has not addressed the underlying drivers of conflict, including the enduring occupation of Palestinian territories and the lack of a viable peace process. Critics argue that continued arms sales risk perpetuating a cycle of violence, undermining U.S. credibility and strategic objectives in the region.

The Economic Dimensions of Military Aid

Beyond its strategic implications, U.S. military aid to Israel also carries significant economic dimensions. The American defense industry stands to benefit substantially from arms sales, with major contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon securing lucrative contracts for the production and supply of advanced weaponry. These economic interests have contributed to the persistence of U.S. military support for Israel, despite growing ethical and strategic concerns.

At the same time, the financial costs of military aid have sparked domestic debates over resource allocation. Critics argue that the billions of dollars spent on supporting Israel could be better invested in addressing pressing domestic challenges, such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure. This perspective has gained traction among progressives, who view U.S. foreign policy through the lens of broader social and economic justice.

The Long-Term Implications for U.S.-Israel Relations

The outcomes of the Senate vote and the broader debate over arms sales will have far-reaching implications for U.S.-Israel relations. A decision to block the proposed sales would represent a rare rebuke of Israel by its most important ally, potentially straining diplomatic ties and prompting a reevaluation of the bilateral relationship. Conversely, approval of the sales would reinforce the traditional alignment between the two nations but at the cost of heightened criticism and reputational damage.

In either scenario, the Gaza war has underscored the need for a more nuanced and balanced approach to U.S. policy in the Middle East. As the conflict continues to unfold, the Biden administration faces a daunting challenge: navigating the complexities of a deeply polarized domestic and international environment while upholding its stated commitment to human rights and the rule of law.

The Senate vote on November 20 will be a defining moment, not only for U.S. policy toward Israel and the Gaza war but also for America’s role in shaping the future of the Middle East. As the world watches, the decisions made in Washington will reverberate far beyond the halls of Congress, influencing the lives of millions and shaping the trajectory of one of the most intractable conflicts of our time.

The Global Islamist Strategy: The Role of Lebanon, Hamas, and Iran in Cultural, Economic, and Military Hostility Toward Israel and the West

Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran form a strategic triad driven by a shared Islamist ideology aimed at reshaping the Middle East’s geopolitical landscape. Their ultimate objective is the elimination of Israel as a sovereign state and the establishment of a regional order aligned with their religious and ideological doctrines. This effort transcends military aggression, extending into economic disruption, cultural influence, and a broad campaign against non-Muslim societies globally. This strategy is deeply rooted in historical grievances, religious imperatives, and political calculations designed to challenge Western hegemony while advancing their vision of an Islamic world order.

The ideology driving these entities is grounded in an interpretation of Islam that prioritizes resistance to perceived imperialist forces, with Israel and the West at the forefront. Hezbollah, founded in 1982 during the Lebanese Civil War, reflects Iran’s revolutionary Shia Islamist vision, which seeks to export its political and religious model across the region. Hamas, established during the First Intifada in 1987, is an offshoot of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood and operates under the principle of “armed resistance” to liberate Palestinian territories. Iran, the linchpin of this alliance, provides ideological, financial, and logistical support to both organizations, leveraging its proxies to achieve strategic depth and exert influence across the Middle East.

The primary objective of these actors is to destroy Israel, which they view as a colonial outpost and an illegitimate entity imposed on the Muslim world by Western powers. Israel is perceived not merely as a territorial challenge but as a cultural and ideological affront to their vision of Islamic governance. This hostility is enshrined in the foundational documents of both Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as in the policies of the Iranian regime. For Hezbollah, its 1985 manifesto explicitly declares its intention to “obliterate Israel from existence.” Similarly, Hamas’s charter calls for the “obliteration” of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in all of historic Palestine.

The organizations view Israel as the physical manifestation of Western imperialism, a proxy for the United States, and a source of moral and cultural corruption. In their view, Israel’s existence undermines Islamic unity and sovereignty. The battle against Israel is therefore framed as not only a territorial struggle but also a broader confrontation with non-Muslim influences that threaten the cultural and religious identity of the region. This ideological lens informs their strategies, which combine military, political, and cultural warfare to achieve their goals.

Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran each play distinct but complementary roles in this alliance. Hezbollah operates as Iran’s most powerful proxy, with a well-organized political and military structure that extends its reach far beyond Lebanon. Its military wing possesses an arsenal of over 150,000 rockets and missiles, many supplied or designed by Iran, capable of striking deep into Israeli territory. Hezbollah’s fighters are highly trained, having gained combat experience in conflicts such as the Syrian Civil War, where they fought alongside Iranian forces to support the Assad regime. Beyond its military capabilities, Hezbollah exerts substantial influence in Lebanon’s political system, effectively controlling large portions of the state and ensuring that Lebanese foreign policy aligns with Iranian interests.

Hamas, while primarily focused on Gaza and the Palestinian territories, serves as the frontline entity in the struggle against Israel. Its governance of Gaza provides a territorial base for launching attacks, including rocket barrages and cross-border infiltrations. Hamas has developed an extensive network of tunnels for smuggling weapons, facilitating attacks, and evading Israeli surveillance. Its armed wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, is equipped with rockets, drones, and improvised explosive devices, much of which are either locally manufactured or supplied by Iran. Hamas’s propaganda machine also plays a critical role, disseminating anti-Israel and anti-Western messages to garner regional and international support.

Iran functions as the ideological and logistical anchor for this triad. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran’s foreign policy has centered on exporting its revolutionary ideals and countering Western influence. The regime’s animosity toward Israel is both ideological and strategic, rooted in the belief that Israel represents a threat to Islamic unity and a barrier to Iranian regional hegemony. Through its Quds Force, a branch of the IRGC, Iran provides Hezbollah and Hamas with financial resources, advanced weaponry, and training. Estimates suggest that Iran provides Hezbollah with approximately $700 million annually and Hamas with tens of millions of dollars, in addition to weapons and technical support.

The funding and sponsorship of these entities are not limited to Iran. Wealthy individuals and organizations in Gulf states, despite their governments’ official stances, have historically funneled money to Hamas and other Palestinian groups. International charities and non-governmental organizations, often under the guise of humanitarian assistance, have also served as conduits for funding militant activities. This financial support is complemented by state-level backing from countries like Syria, which has long served as a logistical hub for Iranian arms shipments to Hezbollah.

The broader strategy employed by these actors combines military aggression with economic and cultural warfare. On the military front, Hezbollah and Hamas engage in asymmetric warfare designed to exploit Israel’s vulnerabilities and maximize psychological impact. Rocket attacks, suicide bombings, and ambushes are intended to instill fear and disrupt normal life in Israel. These tactics are supplemented by propaganda campaigns that frame their actions as legitimate resistance against occupation and oppression.

Economically, these organizations aim to weaken Israel through boycotts, divestment, and sanctions campaigns. The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, though not officially linked to Hezbollah or Hamas, aligns with their goals by promoting international isolation of Israel. Cyberattacks targeting Israeli financial institutions and infrastructure further illustrate their commitment to economic disruption as a tool of warfare.

Culturally, the Islamist bloc seeks to delegitimize Israel on the global stage while promoting narratives that emphasize Islamic unity and resistance. This effort includes disseminating anti-Israel propaganda through media outlets, social media platforms, and academic institutions. In regions with significant Muslim populations, such as Europe and North America, these narratives are used to mobilize support and influence public opinion.

The ultimate goal of this triad is not merely the destruction of Israel but also the establishment of a regional order dominated by Islamist governance. For Hezbollah and Iran, this vision is tied to the Shia Islamist ideology that underpins their political systems. For Hamas, it is rooted in the Sunni Islamist doctrines of the Muslim Brotherhood. Despite these sectarian differences, their shared hostility toward Israel and the West unites them in a common cause.

This strategy poses significant challenges for Israel and its allies. The combination of military threats, economic pressure, and cultural warfare creates a multifaceted conflict that cannot be addressed through conventional means alone. Israel’s responses have included military operations, intelligence-sharing with allies, and efforts to counter propaganda through public diplomacy. However, the persistence and adaptability of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran ensure that this conflict will remain a central issue in Middle Eastern and global geopolitics for the foreseeable future.

The UN’s War Against Israel: Unmasking the Institutionalized Anti-Semitism Driving Global Bias

The United Nations (UN) has faced criticism over the years for perceived biases against Israel, with allegations of anti-Semitism and disproportionate censure. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of official UN actions, statements, and resolutions concerning Israel, identifying key individuals and entities involved, their supporters, and the roles they have played in shaping the UN’s stance toward Israel.

United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolutions

The UNGA has adopted numerous resolutions critical of Israel, often focusing on its policies in the occupied Palestinian territories. Critics argue that the sheer volume and frequency of these resolutions indicate a disproportionate focus on Israel compared to other nations.

• Resolution A/RES/77/247 (2022): Titled “Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,” this resolution was adopted with 87 votes in favor, 26 against, and 53 abstentions. It called for Israel to cease all settlement activities and respect the rights of Palestinians. Countries supporting this resolution included members of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Biblioteca Digitale ONU
• Resolution A/RES/77/400 (2022): This resolution addressed the “Assistance to Palestine refugees” and was adopted by a recorded vote of 157 in favor to 1 against (Israel), with 10 abstentions. It affirmed the necessity for the continuation of the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and extended its mandate until 30 June 2026. Supporters included a broad coalition of UN member states, while the United States abstained. United Nations Press

United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Actions

The UNHRC has been a focal point for allegations of anti-Israel bias, particularly through its adoption of resolutions and establishment of investigative bodies.

• Commission of Inquiry (2024): In October 2024, the UNHRC’s Commission of Inquiry released a report accusing Israel of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in its attacks. The report was presented by Navi Pillay, Chair of the Commission, who stated that Israel must immediately stop its “unprecedented wanton destruction of healthcare facilities in Gaza.” The Commission also investigated the treatment of Palestinian detainees in Israel and of Israeli and foreign hostages in Gaza since 7 October 2023, concluding that both Israel and Palestinian armed groups are responsible for torture and sexual and gender-based violence. Ufficio Diritti Umani
• Special Rapporteur Reports: Several UN Special Rapporteurs have issued reports critical of Israel. In March 2022, Michael Lynk, the UN’s Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, submitted a report to the UN Human Rights Council stating that Israel’s control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip amounts to apartheid, an “institutionalised regime of systematic racial oppression and discrimination.” The Israeli Foreign Ministry and other Israeli and Jewish organizations called Lynk hostile to Israel and the report baseless. Wikipedia

Statements by UN Officials

High-ranking UN officials have made statements that have been perceived as biased against Israel.

• António Guterres (UN Secretary-General): In October 2023, Guterres stated that international humanitarian law was being violated in the war between Israel and the Palestinian armed group Hamas. These statements have been echoed by several world leaders. China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that while every country has the right to self-defence, they should adhere to international law and protect civilians. Chilean President Gabriel Boric echoed this while condemning the Hamas attack. Al Jazeera
• Francesca Albanese (UN Special Rapporteur): During the 2023–24 Israel–Hamas war, Albanese called for an immediate ceasefire, warning that “Palestinians are in grave danger of a mass ethnic cleansing.” She further stated that the international community must “prevent and protect populations from atrocity crimes,” and that “accountability for international crimes committed by Israeli occupation forces and Hamas must also be immediately pursued.” In February 2024, Albanese responded to French President Emmanuel Macron’s description of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel as “the largest antisemitic massacre of our century” by stating that “the victims of the October 7 massacre were killed not because of their Judaism, but in response to Israeli oppression.” The French Foreign Ministry condemned her remarks, and the Israeli government declared Albanese persona non grata in Israel and denied her future entry to the country. Wikipedia

Supporters and Influences

The positions and actions of the UN regarding Israel are influenced by various member states and blocs.

• Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC): Comprising 57 member states, the OIC has been instrumental in sponsoring and supporting resolutions critical of Israel. Its collective voting power significantly impacts the passage of such resolutions in the UNGA and UNHRC.
• Non-Aligned Movement (NAM): With 120 member states, NAM often aligns with the OIC on issues concerning Israel, advocating for Palestinian rights and condemning Israeli policies.
• European Union (EU): EU member states have varied in their support for anti-Israel resolutions. While some countries consistently vote in favor, others abstain or oppose, reflecting internal divisions within the EU regarding Middle East policy.

Accusations of Anti-Semitism

Critics argue that the UN’s disproportionate focus on Israel and the nature of certain resolutions and statements cross the line into anti-Semitism.

• International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Definition: The IHRA’s working definition of anti-Semitism includes “applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” Some contend that the UN’s actions meet this criterion.
• U.S. and Israeli Responses: Both nations have frequently accused the UN of harboring anti-Semitic sentiments, citing the consistent singling out of Israel for condemnation while neglecting human rights

Key UN Resolutions and Statements in Detail

The United Nations has consistently adopted resolutions critical of Israel, citing its policies in the occupied Palestinian territories, treatment of Palestinians, and military actions in Gaza and beyond. These resolutions often reflect broader geopolitical dynamics within the organization and highlight how blocs of nations leverage their voting power to shape international discourse.

UN General Assembly Resolutions

The UNGA’s focus on Israel is evident in the disproportionate number of resolutions dedicated to its actions compared to other global conflicts. Key examples include:

• Resolution A/RES/74/243 (2020):
  This resolution reaffirmed the rights of Palestinians to self-determination and condemned Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Notably, it passed with 147 votes in favor, 7 against (including Israel and the United States), and 13 abstentions.
  • Key Accusers: Representatives from the OIC and NAM, including Turkey, Indonesia, and South Africa, presented strong arguments in favor of the resolution.
  • Supporters: Countries like Russia and China backed the resolution, emphasizing their opposition to U.S.-Israeli policies in the region.
• Resolution A/RES/ES-10/17 (2018):
  This resolution condemned Israel’s use of force during the Gaza border protests, labeling it “excessive, disproportionate, and indiscriminate.” It passed with 120 votes in favor, 8 against, and 45 abstentions.
  • Key Accusers: Kuwait, as the representative of the Arab Group, played a significant role in drafting and promoting the resolution.
  • Supporters: Qatar and Pakistan emphasized Israel’s alleged violations of international law.

UN Security Council

The UNSC has often been a battleground for Israel-related resolutions, with the United States frequently exercising its veto power to shield Israel from condemnation.

• Resolution 2334 (2016):
  This resolution demanded that Israel cease all settlement activities in the occupied territories. Unlike previous instances, the U.S. abstained rather than vetoing, allowing the resolution to pass.
  • Key Accusers: Malaysia, Venezuela, and Egypt were instrumental in drafting the resolution.
  • Supporters: France and the UK voted in favor, citing the need to uphold international law.

UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolutions and Actions

The UNHRC has been particularly active in addressing Israel’s policies, with many resolutions focusing on alleged human rights violations. Critics argue that the UNHRC disproportionately targets Israel compared to other nations.

• Resolution 31/36 (2016):
  This resolution called for the establishment of a database of companies involved in Israeli settlements. The database, published in 2020, listed 112 companies, drawing sharp criticism from Israel and the United States.
  • Key Advocates: South Africa, Venezuela, and Pakistan championed the resolution, arguing that settlements constitute a war crime under the Rome Statute.
  • Supporters: OIC members collectively supported the resolution, while European nations were divided.
• Agenda Item 7:
  A permanent agenda item at the UNHRC, this focuses exclusively on human rights violations by Israel. No other country is subjected to such scrutiny.
  • Accusers: Representatives from countries like Iran, Syria, and Malaysia consistently use Agenda Item 7 to criticize Israel.
  • Supporters: The bloc of OIC nations ensures its retention on the UNHRC’s agenda.

Accusations of Bias and Anti-Semitism

Patterns of Disproportionate Focus

The UN’s focus on Israel is evident in the sheer volume of resolutions and reports addressing its actions. Between 2015 and 2020, the UNGA adopted over 140 resolutions critical of Israel, compared to fewer than 10 resolutions addressing the actions of countries like Iran, North Korea, and Syria combined.

• Allegations of Double Standards:
  • Pro-Israel Arguments: Advocates for Israel highlight that the UN fails to address gross human rights violations in other regions with the same intensity.
  • Anti-Israel Counterpoints: Opponents argue that Israel’s actions, particularly in Gaza and the West Bank, warrant international scrutiny due to their scale and duration.

Accusations Against Individuals

• Richard Falk (Former UN Special Rapporteur): Falk frequently accused Israel of apartheid and war crimes during his tenure, drawing allegations of bias.
  • Criticism: The United States and Israel condemned Falk’s language as inflammatory and unbalanced.
  • Supporters: Palestinian representatives and NAM countries supported his reports.
• Michael Lynk: Lynk’s 2022 report accusing Israel of apartheid was similarly criticized as one-sided.
  • Supporters: Backed by the OIC and numerous European NGOs advocating for Palestinian rights.

Key Supporters of Anti-Israel Positions

Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)

The OIC’s 57 member states consistently push anti-Israel resolutions and provide coordinated voting blocs at the UNGA and UNHRC.

Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)

NAM countries frequently align with the OIC on Israel-related issues, amplifying their impact in UN forums.

European Divisions

European Union member states often exhibit division in their votes on Israel-related resolutions, reflecting internal disagreements over Middle East policy.

Strategies to Address Bias

Israeli and Allied Responses

• Diplomatic Engagement: Israel and its allies, including the U.S., have worked to counter anti-Israel narratives through public diplomacy and coalition-building.
• Advocacy for Reform: Efforts to reform the UNHRC and remove Agenda Item 7 have been ongoing, though largely unsuccessful.

Efforts to Combat Anti-Semitism

• Adoption of IHRA Definition: Many countries have adopted the IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism to counter biased narratives at international forums.

Understanding the Islamist Bloc: Lebanon and Hezbollah – A Proxy State

Hezbollah was founded in 1982 during the Lebanese Civil War, a period of intense political instability and foreign intervention. Its creation was driven by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which sought to establish a militant Shia Islamist organization aligned with its ideological goals. Initially, Hezbollah’s primary purpose was to resist Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon, but over time, it evolved into a multifaceted entity that combines military operations, political power, and social welfare initiatives.

Hezbollah’s ideological foundation is deeply rooted in the teachings of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the architect of Iran’s Islamic Revolution. The group’s manifesto explicitly calls for the eradication of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in Lebanon. Over the decades, Hezbollah has become a central player in Lebanon’s politics and a linchpin of Iran’s regional influence.

Military Capabilities

Hezbollah is widely regarded as the most powerful non-state armed group in the world. Its military capabilities surpass those of many national armies, and it operates with a degree of autonomy that allows it to engage in both conventional and asymmetric warfare. Key aspects of Hezbollah’s military power include:

• Missiles and Rockets:
  Hezbollah’s missile and rocket arsenal is central to its military strategy. Estimates place its stockpile at over 150,000 projectiles, which include:
  • Short-range rockets: Katyusha rockets with ranges of 20-40 km, used to target northern Israeli towns like Nahariya and Kiryat Shmona.
  • Medium-range missiles: Iranian-supplied Fajr-5 and Zelzal missiles with ranges of 75-200 km, capable of reaching major Israeli cities such as Haifa and Tel Aviv.
  • Long-range systems: Advanced missiles like the Fateh-110 and Scud-D, which can strike targets anywhere in Israel with high precision.
• Drone Fleet:
  Hezbollah operates a fleet of combat and surveillance drones, primarily supplied by Iran. These include:
  • Mohajer-6: Equipped for surveillance and limited strike capabilities.
  • Shahed-129: A larger, multi-role drone capable of long-range reconnaissance and precision attacks.
• Naval Warfare:
  Hezbollah’s naval capabilities, though less publicized, are significant:
  • Anti-ship missiles: The Chinese-designed C-802, which was used successfully against an Israeli naval vessel during the 2006 Lebanon War.
  • Underwater sabotage units: Trained divers equipped to disrupt Israeli shipping lanes and target naval assets.
• Ground Forces and Tactics:
  Hezbollah’s ground forces are battle-hardened from their involvement in the Syrian Civil War, where they fought alongside Iranian and Syrian government troops. They employ guerrilla tactics, fortified defensive positions, and urban warfare strategies to counter superior conventional forces.

Political Influence

Hezbollah’s influence in Lebanon extends far beyond its military capabilities. It functions as a political party and a provider of social services, making it a dominant force in Lebanese society.

• Seats in Parliament: Hezbollah directly holds 13 seats in the Lebanese Parliament but exerts significant control through alliances with other Shia, Christian, and Druze factions.
• Control of Ministries: Hezbollah’s allies occupy key ministerial positions, enabling the group to influence government decisions and allocate resources to its supporters.
• Social Services: Hezbollah operates an extensive network of hospitals, schools, and welfare programs, particularly in Shia-majority areas. This network provides healthcare, education, and housing, ensuring loyalty among its base and mitigating criticism of its militant activities.

Strategy

Hezbollah’s strategy is shaped by its dual role as a Lebanese political entity and an Iranian proxy. Key elements of this strategy include:

• Military Escalation:
  Hezbollah periodically engages in military confrontations with Israel to assert its strength and maintain its image as the “resistance” against Zionism. Notable examples include:
  • 2006 Lebanon War: Hezbollah’s cross-border raid and subsequent missile barrages prompted a month-long conflict, causing significant casualties and destruction on both sides.
  • Sporadic Rocket Fire: Hezbollah continues to test Israeli defenses by launching sporadic attacks, often calibrated to avoid full-scale retaliation.
• Terrorism Abroad:
  Hezbollah’s global operations extend far beyond Lebanon. Its operatives have been implicated in numerous terrorist attacks, including:
  • 1994 AMIA Bombing (Argentina): A deadly attack on a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, attributed to Hezbollah and the IRGC.
  • Burgas Bus Bombing (2012): A suicide attack targeting Israeli tourists in Bulgaria.
• Encircling Israel:
  Hezbollah has established military infrastructure in southern Lebanon and increasingly in Syria, with Iranian support. This encirclement strategy aims to create a “ring of fire” around Israel, threatening it from multiple fronts.
• Proxy Warfare:
  Hezbollah acts as a force multiplier for Iran, providing training, funding, and operational support to allied militias in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. This role solidifies its position as a central node in Iran’s “Axis of Resistance.”

Hezbollah’s evolution from a resistance movement to a regional powerhouse exemplifies the complexity of modern non-state actors. Its integration of military might, political power, and social services makes it a formidable force, both in Lebanon and across the Middle East. By aligning closely with Iran and positioning itself as a vanguard against Israel, Hezbollah continues to shape the geopolitical dynamics of the region, posing a persistent challenge to Israel and the West.

This expanded section adheres strictly to your request, focusing solely on Lebanon and Hezbollah while providing in-depth details. Let me know if further expansion or adjustments are needed.

Hamas: The Islamist Vanguard in Gaza

Hamas: The Islamist Vanguard in Gaza represents one of the most strategically influential and militarily capable non-state actors in the Middle East. Established during the First Intifada in 1987, Hamas has evolved from an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood into a highly organized entity combining militant resistance, governance, and ideological propagation. Its multifaceted strategy encompasses military capabilities, political influence, economic control, and an ideological commitment to the eradication of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state.

Origins and Ideology

Hamas’s roots lie in the Muslim Brotherhood, an international Sunni Islamist organization founded in Egypt in 1928. Drawing on the Brotherhood’s principles of political Islam, Hamas was established by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and other Palestinian leaders during the uprising against Israeli occupation. The organization positioned itself as a counterbalance to the secular Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), advocating for a religiously defined resistance movement.

• Founding Charter (1988):
  Hamas’s founding document explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state over all of historic Palestine. The charter invokes religious texts to justify its stance, framing the conflict as a divine struggle between Islam and Zionism. Although the charter was partially softened in 2017 to emphasize political pragmatism, Hamas’s core ideological commitment to Israel’s eradication remains unchanged.
• Religious and Political Doctrine:
  Hamas operates under the belief that Palestine is sacred Islamic land (waqf) that cannot be ceded to non-Muslims. This doctrine drives its rejection of permanent peace agreements or recognition of Israel. Its approach intertwines nationalist aspirations with Islamist principles, seeking to galvanize support across the Muslim world.

Military Capabilities

Hamas’s military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, is a well-equipped and highly disciplined force. Over decades, it has transformed from a loosely organized militia into a sophisticated military entity capable of executing large-scale operations against Israel. Its arsenal, tactics, and infrastructure reflect years of support from external sponsors, particularly Iran.

Rocket Arsenal

The centerpiece of Hamas’s military strategy is its extensive rocket arsenal, used both for offensive operations and psychological impact. Estimates suggest Hamas possesses approximately 30,000 rockets, ranging from crude, locally manufactured designs to advanced systems supplied by external allies like Iran.

• Short-range rockets:
  • Qassam Rockets: Basic, locally produced projectiles with a range of 10-20 km. Primarily used to target border towns such as Sderot.
  • Grad Rockets: Imported or locally modified versions with ranges up to 40 km.
• Medium-range rockets:
  • M-75 and J-80 Missiles: Domestically developed systems capable of reaching Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, with ranges between 75-90 km.
• Long-range missiles:
  • R-160 and M-302 Missiles: Adapted from Syrian and Iranian designs, capable of targeting Israel’s central and southern regions, including Haifa and Ben Gurion Airport.
• Tactical Use:
  Hamas uses rockets in coordinated barrages designed to overwhelm Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system. These attacks aim to cause civilian casualties, disrupt daily life, and project Hamas’s military strength.

Tunnel Network

Hamas’s extensive underground infrastructure, often referred to as the “Gaza Metro,” is a cornerstone of its military strategy. These tunnels serve multiple purposes, including smuggling, storage, and operational deployment.

• Construction and Design:
  • Built with reinforced concrete, some tunnels extend for kilometers and reach depths of 20-30 meters.
  • Equipped with electricity, ventilation, and secure communications.
• Tactical Uses:
  • Smuggling Tunnels: Connect Gaza to Egypt, facilitating the movement of weapons, supplies, and personnel.
  • Attack Tunnels: Extend into Israeli territory for launching surprise attacks and infiltrations.
  • Defensive Tunnels: Used to shield leadership and assets from Israeli airstrikes.

Naval and Drone Capabilities

Hamas has invested in expanding its naval and aerial capabilities, recognizing the strategic value of diversifying its methods of attack.

• Naval Units:
  • Frogmen Divers: Hamas trains elite naval commandos capable of seaborne infiltrations into Israeli territory.
  • Explosive Boats: Small, remote-controlled vessels designed to target Israeli naval ships.
• Drone Program:
  • Developed with Iranian assistance, Hamas’s drone fleet includes both reconnaissance and attack UAVs.
  • Models such as the Ababil and smaller custom-made drones have been used for surveillance and kamikaze-style attacks.

Political and Economic Role

Hamas’s control of Gaza, established through a violent takeover in 2007, allows it to govern a population of approximately 2.3 million residents. Its role extends beyond militancy to include political administration, economic control, and social services.

Revenue Generation

Hamas’s ability to fund its military and political activities depends on a mix of local taxation, foreign aid, and clandestine financial networks.

• Taxes and Smuggling:
  • Border Crossings: Hamas levies taxes on goods entering Gaza via smuggling tunnels or through Israeli and Egyptian crossings.
  • Fuel and Construction Materials: These are heavily taxed, with revenues diverted to military projects.
• Foreign Aid:
  • Qatar is a significant benefactor, providing hundreds of millions of dollars annually for infrastructure, salaries, and humanitarian aid. However, a portion of this aid is diverted to fund military operations.
• Illicit Funding Networks:
  • Hamas operates an extensive financial network, including front companies and cryptocurrency channels, to circumvent international sanctions.

Public Services

Despite international isolation and economic hardship, Hamas has developed a robust social infrastructure that solidifies its support among Gazans.

• Healthcare and Education:
  • Operates hospitals, clinics, and schools, often doubling as recruitment hubs and propaganda outlets.
  • Curricula in Hamas-controlled schools emphasize resistance and martyrdom.
• Humanitarian Aid Distribution:
  • Controls the allocation of resources, ensuring loyalty among its base while marginalizing opposition groups.

Strategy

Hamas’s overarching strategy reflects a blend of pragmatism and ideological rigidity. Its actions are guided by short-term tactical goals and long-term ideological ambitions.

Asymmetric Warfare

Hamas employs guerrilla tactics and unconventional methods to offset Israel’s superior military capabilities.

• Rocket Attacks:
  Regular rocket barrages aim to inflict damage, disrupt civilian life, and challenge Israel’s technological defenses.
  • Example: During the 2021 conflict, Hamas launched over 4,000 rockets, targeting major cities and infrastructure.
• Ambushes and Raids:
  Cross-border infiltrations, often initiated through tunnels or disguised movements, target Israeli soldiers and civilians.

Psychological Operations

Hamas uses propaganda and media campaigns to bolster its image, undermine Israeli morale, and garner international sympathy.

• Media Outreach:
  • Operates Al-Aqsa TV and radio stations, broadcasting anti-Israel content and showcasing its military achievements.
  • Uses social media platforms to disseminate graphic imagery and mobilize support.
• Martyrdom Culture:
  • Promotes the concept of martyrdom as a religious and national duty, particularly among youth.

International Advocacy

Hamas frames its resistance as a struggle for liberation, aiming to attract global support and delegitimize Israel.

• Diplomatic Efforts:
  • Engages with sympathetic states and organizations to build alliances and secure funding.
  • Exploits forums like the United Nations to highlight Palestinian grievances.
• Alignment with Global Movements:
  • Collaborates with activists and organizations aligned with the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement to isolate Israel economically and politically.

Hamas’s position as the Islamist vanguard in Gaza underscores its dual role as a governing authority and a militant organization. Its military capabilities, political control, and ideological commitment to the destruction of Israel make it a formidable actor in the Middle East. Supported by external allies like Iran, Hamas continues to pose a significant challenge to regional stability and international peace efforts. Understanding the depth of Hamas’s strategy is essential for addressing its influence and mitigating the broader threats it represents.

Iran: The Epicenter of Islamist Ambitions

Iran’s role as the epicenter of Islamist ambitions in the Middle East is rooted in its revolutionary ideology, military capabilities, and regional influence. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has sought to export its Shia Islamist ideology, challenge Western dominance, and position itself as a leader in the “Axis of Resistance” against Israel and the United States.

The Islamic Revolution and Ideological Drive

Iran’s transformation in 1979 from a monarchy under the Shah to a theocratic state marked a profound shift in the region. The revolution, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, established the concept of Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), which placed supreme political and religious authority in the hands of the Supreme Leader. This framework underpins Iran’s governance and its revolutionary foreign policy.

Exporting the Revolution

Khomeini’s vision was not confined to Iran’s borders. The Islamic Republic was designed to be a model for other Muslim-majority nations, particularly in the Shia world. The goal was to inspire uprisings against pro-Western governments, support Islamist movements, and reshape the political landscape of the Middle East.

• Anti-Israel Doctrine:
  • Israel is seen as a colonial implant in the Muslim world and a proxy for Western imperialism.
  • The revolutionary ideology frames the destruction of Israel as a religious and political imperative.
  • The annual “Quds Day” rallies, initiated by Khomeini, symbolize Iran’s commitment to the Palestinian cause.
• Anti-Western Sentiment:
  • The United States is branded as the “Great Satan,” representing imperialism, cultural corruption, and oppression.
  • European nations are viewed with suspicion for their historical role in shaping Middle Eastern borders and their support for Israel.

Military Power

Iran’s military capabilities are central to its strategy of projecting power and deterring adversaries. Its investments in ballistic missile technology, drone development, and naval forces have positioned it as a formidable military power.

Ballistic Missile Program

Iran’s ballistic missile program is one of the most advanced in the region. It serves both as a deterrent and a tool for projecting power.

• Shahab Series:
  • Shahab-3: With a range of 1,000-2,000 km, it can strike targets across the Middle East, including Israel.
  • Upgraded Variants: Improved accuracy and payload capacity enhance its strategic value.
• Fateh Series:
  • Fateh-110: A short-range, precision-guided missile capable of targeting military bases and infrastructure in neighboring countries.
  • Zolfaghar Variant: Extended range of 700 km with precision strike capabilities.
• Sejjil-2:
  • A solid-fuel, medium-range missile with a range of up to 2,500 km, posing a threat to Europe.

Drone Arsenal

Iran has become a leader in unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology, developing drones for reconnaissance, strike missions, and as loitering munitions.

• Shahed Series:
  • Shahed-136: A kamikaze drone used in regional conflicts and supplied to proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthis.
  • Shahed-129: A multi-role drone capable of long-range surveillance and precision strikes.
• Operational Use:
  Iranian drones have been employed in attacks on Israeli infrastructure, Saudi oil facilities, and U.S. bases in Iraq. They are also a critical component of proxy warfare.

Naval Forces

Iran’s navy operates in both the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, leveraging asymmetric tactics to counter superior Western fleets.

• Fast Attack Craft: Small, agile boats equipped with anti-ship missiles and torpedoes.
• Mine Warfare: Deployment of naval mines to threaten shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz.
• Submarines: A fleet of mini-submarines capable of stealth operations in the Gulf.

Proxy Network

Iran’s influence across the Middle East is amplified through its proxies, which act as force multipliers. These groups receive funding, weapons, and training from the IRGC’s Quds Force.

Hezbollah (Lebanon)

• Creation and Role:
  Hezbollah was founded by Iran in 1982 as a response to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. It is Iran’s most capable proxy.
• Capabilities:
  • A rocket arsenal exceeding 150,000 projectiles, including precision-guided missiles.
  • Advanced drone and naval units.
  • Combat experience gained in Syria and Iraq.
• Strategic Importance:
  Hezbollah acts as a deterrent against Israeli action and a tool for Iranian influence in Lebanon.

Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Gaza)

• Support:
  Iran provides financial aid, weapons, and training to both groups. Estimates place Iranian aid to Hamas at tens of millions of dollars annually.
• Military Role:
  • Hamas uses Iranian-supplied rockets and drones in its campaigns against Israel.
  • Palestinian Islamic Jihad is a more direct Iranian proxy, heavily reliant on Tehran for its operations.

Shia Militias (Iraq and Syria)

• Iraq:
  Groups like Kataib Hezbollah and Asaib Ahl al-Haq act as Iranian proxies, targeting U.S. forces and influencing Iraqi politics.
• Syria:
  Iran has deployed militias to support the Assad regime, securing a land corridor from Tehran to the Mediterranean.

Houthis (Yemen)

• Support:
  Iran supplies the Houthis with ballistic missiles and drones, enabling them to target Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
• Strategic Value:
  The Houthis disrupt Saudi operations and threaten maritime traffic in the Red Sea.

Economic and Cultural Influence

Despite international sanctions, Iran has developed mechanisms to fund its ambitions and spread its ideology.

Oil Revenue

• Sanctions Evasion:
  Iran uses illicit channels to sell oil, generating billions of dollars annually to fund its proxies.
• Bartering Agreements:
  Deals with China, Russia, and other nations circumvent traditional financial systems.

Cultural Propaganda

• Media Outlets:
  Iran funds networks like Press TV and Al-Alam to promote anti-Israel and anti-Western narratives.
• Religious Centers:
  Establishes Shia seminaries and cultural centers across the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.
• Education Programs:
  Offers scholarships to foreign students, bringing them to study in Iran and absorb its ideology.

Strategy

Iran’s overarching goals are defined by three primary objectives: the destruction of Israel, undermining Western influence, and asserting regional dominance.

Destroying Israel

• Proxy Warfare:
  Iran uses Hezbollah, Hamas, and other groups to wage a continuous, low-intensity conflict with Israel.
• Missile Threats:
  Its ballistic missile program ensures it can target Israeli cities and military installations directly.
• Cyber Operations:
  Iranian hackers have targeted Israeli infrastructure, financial institutions, and government systems.

Challenging the West

• Undermining U.S. Influence:
  Iran seeks to expel U.S. forces from the region, particularly Iraq and Syria.
• Coalition Building:
  Aligns with Russia and China to counterbalance Western alliances.

Regional Domination

• Shia Crescent:
  Iran aims to create a contiguous sphere of influence stretching from Iran through Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon to the Mediterranean.
• Economic Integration:
  Uses initiatives like the Belt and Road alignment with China to strengthen its economy and regional ties.

Iran’s role as the epicenter of Islamist ambitions is driven by its ideological commitment to exporting its revolution, its advanced military capabilities, and its extensive network of proxies. This multi-pronged strategy ensures Iran’s influence across the Middle East while posing a persistent challenge to Israel, the West, and regional stability. Understanding the depth of Iran’s ambitions is crucial for crafting effective policies to counter its growing power.

Acts of Terrorism Against Israel: A Historical and Modern Analysis

The history of terrorism against Israel reflects decades of targeted violence, rooted in ideological, political, and religious motivations. The most recent events, including the unprecedented attack on October 7, 2023, have underscored the enduring existential threats Israel faces. This report provides a chronological and detailed account of significant acts of terrorism, shedding light on their impact on civilians and the broader geopolitical implications.

Historical Context and Recent Escalations

Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has faced waves of terrorism from various actors, including organized militant groups, lone attackers, and state-sponsored entities. The motivations for these attacks often combine a desire to challenge Israel’s sovereignty with broader ideological goals, including the destruction of Israel as a state and the imposition of Islamist governance.

In the 21st century, terrorism against Israel has escalated in sophistication and brutality. Key perpetrators include Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and other Islamist groups operating within Gaza, the West Bank, and neighboring countries. These groups have adopted methods ranging from suicide bombings and rocket barrages to infiltration attacks and targeted massacres.

Significant Acts of Terrorism (Recent Years) – These are just very small examples of the violence against Israel.

2021: Operation Guardian of the Walls

During May 2021, following heightened tensions in Jerusalem, Hamas and PIJ launched over 4,000 rockets into Israel within 11 days. The indiscriminate nature of the attacks targeted civilian areas, including Tel Aviv and southern towns such as Ashkelon and Sderot.

• Casualties: 12 Israeli civilians and 1 soldier killed, hundreds injured.
• Tactics:
  • Mass rocket barrages aimed to overwhelm Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system.
  • Use of human shields in Gaza to complicate Israeli military responses.
• Impact: Civilian life in central and southern Israel was disrupted, with schools, businesses, and infrastructure sustaining significant damage.

2022: Wave of Lone-Wolf Terrorist Attacks

A surge in lone-wolf terrorist attacks, often inspired by Islamist ideology or directed by external actors, swept Israel during 2022.

• Bnei Brak Shooting (March 29, 2022):
  A Palestinian gunman killed five people in a residential area, targeting civilians and security forces indiscriminately.
• Beersheba Stabbing and Car-Ramming Attack (March 22, 2022):
  A terrorist killed four civilians in a coordinated knife and vehicle attack in southern Israel.
• Tel Aviv Shooting (April 7, 2022):
  A gunman opened fire in a crowded bar, killing three civilians and wounding over a dozen others.

2023: The Attack on October 7

The events of October 7, 2023, marked a watershed moment in modern terrorism against Israel. Hamas orchestrated a large-scale, coordinated assault that targeted civilians, including women, children, and the elderly. This act of unprecedented brutality drew global condemnation and underscored the group’s explicit goal of eradicating Israel.

Chronology of the Attack

• Pre-Dawn Infiltration:
  At approximately 6:30 AM, thousands of Hamas militants breached the Gaza-Israel border through tunnels, by land vehicles, and via paragliders.
• Rocket Barrage:
  Over 5,000 rockets were launched into Israeli towns and cities within a few hours, targeting civilian areas.
• Massacres in Border Communities:
  Militants infiltrated over 20 kibbutzim and towns, including Sderot, Be’eri, and Kfar Aza. Entire families were massacred, with reports of executions, mutilations, and sexual violence.

Horrific Details and Evidence

• Massacres in Be’eri and Kfar Aza:
  In these kibbutzim, over 100 civilians were killed, many executed in their homes. Bodies showed signs of torture, and eyewitness accounts described militants setting homes ablaze with families inside.
• Sexual Violence and Brutality:
  Survivors and forensic evidence revealed that women were raped before being murdered. Young girls and elderly women were among the victims.
• Kidnappings:
  Over 200 hostages, including infants, children, and the elderly, were taken to Gaza. Videos released by Hamas showed captives being paraded through the streets, a clear violation of international law.
• Infanticide:
  Shocking reports, corroborated by multiple sources, described babies being burned alive or decapitated. Forensic teams documented the charred remains of infants in cradles.

Casualties and Destruction

• Death Toll: Over 1,400 Israelis killed, including 260 at a music festival in Re’im, where attendees were gunned down or taken hostage.
• Injuries: Thousands wounded, many suffering life-altering injuries.
• Infrastructure Damage: Entire towns were left in ruins, with homes, schools, and medical facilities deliberately targeted.

Global Reactions

The international community responded with a mix of condemnation and calls for restraint. Israel declared war on Hamas, initiating a massive military operation in Gaza. The brutality of the October 7 attack prompted debates about the nature of Islamist extremism and its threat to regional stability.

Terrorism as a Tool of Islamist Strategy

Hamas, and similar groups, view terrorism not just as a tactical method but as a strategic tool to advance their ideological goals. These include:

• Eradication of Israel:
  The destruction of Israel is central to Hamas’s charter and rhetoric, which frames the conflict as a religious obligation to reclaim Palestine for Islam.
• Global Islamist Dominance:
  By framing their struggle as part of a broader war against Zionism and Western imperialism, Islamist groups seek to galvanize support across the Muslim world.
• Undermining Israeli Morale:
  Attacks targeting civilians aim to create fear, chaos, and division within Israeli society.

The acts of terrorism against Israel reflect a deliberate and systematic strategy by Islamist groups to destroy the state and its people. The events of October 7, 2023, serve as a grim reminder of the brutality and ideological fervor driving these attacks. Documenting these events is essential for understanding the gravity of the threat and the resilience required to confront it. Let me know if more historical data or specific events need expansion.

---

APPENDIX 1 – List of massacres in Israel is a list of massacres that have occurred in Israel after the 1948 Palestine War.

Name	Date	Location	Responsible Party	Deaths	Notes
Ma’ale Akrabim massacre	16–17 March 1954	Scorpions Pass	Unknown; Arab Bedouins suspected[1]	11[2]	2 injured
Kafr Qasim massacre	29 October 1956	Kafr Qasim	Israel Border Police	47	23 children were among the victims. Israeli President Shimon Peres issued a formal apology in December 2007.[3]
Avivim school bus massacre	8 May 1970	near Avivim	Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command[4]	12[5]	25 wounded; 9 victims were children
Lod Airport massacre	30 May 1972	Lod	Three members of the Japanese Red Army, on behalf of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine	26[6]	80 injured
Kiryat Shmona massacre	11 April 1974	Kiryat Shmona, Israel	Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command	18[7]	8 victims were children; 15 injured
Ma’alot massacre[8]	15 May 1974	Ma’alot[9]	Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine[10]	29[11]	68 injured; victims were mostly children
Zion Square massacre	4 July 1975	Jerusalem	Palestinian Liberation Organization	15[12]	77 wounded
Coastal Road massacre	11 March 1978	near Tel Aviv	Palestinian Liberation Organization	38[13]	38 people were killed on bus. Victims include 13 children. Other people killed nearby. 71 wounded.
Rishon LeZion Massacre	20 May 1990	Rishon LeZion	Ami Popper, an Israeli citizen	7 [14]	Seven Palestinian workers were killed, 16 Palestinians were wounded. The perpetrator was a 21-year-old Israeli with an automatic weapon. 13 more Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces in subsequent demonstrations to protest the massacre in various parts of the territories.[15]
Dizengoff Street bus bombing	19 October 1994	Tel Aviv, Israel	Hamas	22	Suicide bomber blows himself up in a bus during the morning rush hour at Dizengoff street, Tel Aviv. Killing 22 people and injuring 50 others. Hamas claimed responsibility.
Beit Lid massacre[16][17][18][19]	22 January 1995	Beit Lid Junction	Palestinian Islamic Jihad	23[20]	death toll includes 2 perpetrators; 69 injured; first suicide attack by Palestinian Islamic Jihad
Sbarro restaurant massacre	9 August 2001	Jerusalem	Hamas	15[21]	130 injured; 7 victims were children
Dolphinarium discotheque massacre	1 June 2001	Tel Aviv	Hamas	21	100+ wounded
Hebrew University bombing	21 July 2002	Mount Scopus, Hebrew University of Jerusalem	Hamas	9	Around one hundred people were injured in the attack.
Bat Mitzvah massacre[22]	18 January 2002	Hadera	al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades	7[23]	33 wounded[23]
Yeshivat Beit Yisrael massacre[24]	2 March 2002	Beit Yisrael, Jerusalem	Fatah al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades	11[25]	Victims included 7 children, 2 of which were infants
Café Moment bombing	9 March 2002	Jerusalem	Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades	11[26]	54 wounded
Passover massacre[27]	27 March 2002	Netanya	Hamas[28]	30[29]	140 injured; some victims were Holocaust survivors; considered the deadliest single attack against Israeli civilians during the Second Intifada
Kiryat Menachem massacre	21 November 2002	Jerusalem	Hamas	11[30]	50+ wounded
Tel-Aviv central bus station massacre	5 January 2003	Southern Tel Aviv	Fatah al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades	23[31]	Over 100 injured
Shmuel HaNavi bus bombing	19 August 2003	Jerusalem	Hamas	24[32]	130+ wounded
Maxim restaurant bombing	4 October 2003	beachfront “Maxim” restaurant, Haifa	Palestinian Islamic Jihad female suicide bomber	21 civilians	60 civilians were injured.
Mercaz HaRav massacre	6 March 2008	Kiryat Moshe, Jerusalem	Arab gunman, Alaa Abu Dhein	8[33][34]	Attack took place at a school, and seven victims were students.[35]
2008 Jerusalem bulldozer attack	2 July 2008	Jaffa Road, Jerusalem	Hussam Taysir Duwait	3	Attack on motorists. Three people were killed and thirty injured.
2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre	18 November 2014	Har Nof, Jerusalem	Uday Abu Jamal and Ghassan Abu Jamal	5	Attack against a synagogue. Four rabbis and a police officer were killed.
June 2016 Tel Aviv shooting	8 June 2016	Sarona market, Tel Aviv	Khalid al-Mahmara and Muhammad Mahmara	4	Attack on restaurant guests in downtown Tel Aviv. Four civilians killed.
2022 Beersheba attack	22 March 2022	Beersheba	Mohammed Abu al-Kiyan	4	Stabbing and vehicle ramming attack.
2022 Bnei Brak shootings	29 March 2022	Bnei Brak	Diaa Hamarsheh	5	Attack on pedestrians. Four civilians and a police officer killed.
Re’im music festival massacre	7 October 2023	Re’im	Hamas	325+[36]	Deadliest massacre in Israeli history. At least 37 Israeli and foreign civilians kidnapped and taken into the Gaza Strip.[37] Part of the Israel–Hamas war.
Be’eri massacre	7 October 2023	Be’eri	Hamas	108+[38]	Part of the Israel–Hamas war.
Battle of Sderot	7 October 2023	Sderot	Hamas	20	Surprise attack on an Israeli police station. Part of the Israel–Hamas war.
Kfar Aza massacre	7 October 2023	Kfar Aza	Hamas	52	Part of the Israel–Hamas war.
Nir Oz massacre	7 October 2023	Nir Oz	Hamas	25	Part of the Israel–Hamas war.
Netiv HaAsara massacre	7 October 2023	Netiv HaAsara	Hamas	20+[39]	Part of the Israel–Hamas war.
Holit massacre	7 October 2023	Holit	Hamas	13+[40]	Part of the Israel–Hamas war.
Ein HaShlosha massacre	7 October 2023	Ein HaShlosha	Hamas	5+[41]	Part of the Israel–Hamas war.
Nahal Oz massacre	7 October 2023	Nahal Oz	Hamas	100+[42]	Part of the Israel–Hamas war.
Kissufim massacre	7 October 2023	Kissufim	Hamas	4+[43]	Part of the Israel–Hamas war.
Nirim massacre	7 October 2023	Nirim	Hamas		Part of the Israel–Hamas war.
Yakhini massacre	7 October 2023	Yakhini	Hamas		Part of the Israel–Hamas war.
Alumim massacre	7 October 2023	Alumim	Hamas	16/17[44][45]	Victims were foreign workers from Thailand and Nepal. Part of the Israel–Hamas war.
2024 Jaffa shooting	1 October 2024	Jaffa	Hamas	7[46]	Part of the Israel–Hamas war.

Source :wikipedia

---

Copyright of debuglies.com
Even partial reproduction of the contents is not permitted without prior authorization – Reproduction reserved