Outline
1. Introduction
2. An Overview of the Post-October 7th Gaza War and its Aftermath
2.1. Hamas's "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" (October 7, 2023)
- 2.1.1. An Unprecedented Surprise Attack launched by Hamas
- 2.1.2. Devastating Human Toll and Hostage Crisis
- 2.1.3. Shattering Israel's Doctrine of Deterrence
2.2. Israel's "Operation Swords of Iron"
- 2.2.1. Declaration of War and Stated Objectives
- 2.2.2. A "Complete Siege" and Overwhelming Force
2.3. The Current Situation in Gaza
- 2.3.1. Mass Casualties
- 2.3.2. Massive Displacement
- 2.3.3. Infrastructure Collapse
- 2.3.4. Health System Decimation
- 2.3.5. Famine and Disease
- 2.3.6. Psychological Trauma
2.4. Response of the International Community
- 2.4.1. "Ironclad" US Support and Shifting Rhetoric
- 2.4.2. Condemnation from the United Nations
- 2.4.3. Landmark International Legal Challenges
- 2.4.4. Role of Global South, China, and Russia
2.5. Response of the Muslim World
- 2.5.1. A Divided but Vocal Response
- 2.5.2. Condemnation from the Regional Powers
- 2.5.3. Activation of Iran and the "Axis of Resistance"
- 2.5.4. Grassroots Outrage and Boycott Movements
3. Israeli Motives Regarding Gaza
3.1. Overarching Security Motives
- 3.1.1. Eradication of Hamas's Military and Governing Capabilities
- 3.1.2. Restoration of Deterrence
- 3.1.3. Securing the Southern Border
- 3.1.4. Release of Hostages
3.2. Political and Strategic Motives
- 3.2.1. Preventing a Viable, Sovereign Palestinian State
- 3.2.2. Determining "The Day After" in Gaza
- 3.2.3. Domestic Political Survival
3.3. Economic and Geostrategic Motives
- 3.3.1. Control over Offshore Natural Gas Reserves
- 3.3.2. Eliminating a Potential Economic or Military Rival Port
- 3.3.3. The Ben Gurion Canal Project
4. Western, Primarily US Motives Regarding Gaza
4.1. Geostrategic and Regional Motives
- 4.1.1. Maintaining Israel as a Key Regional Ally
- 4.1.2. Countering Iranian Influence
- 4.1.3. Ensuring Regional Stability and Security of Energy Flows
- 4.1.4. Competition with Global Rivals
4.2. Domestic Political Motives
- 4.2.1. Appeasing the influential Pro-Israel Lobby
- 4.2.2. Electoral Considerations
- 4.2.3. The Military-Industrial Complex
4.3. Ideological and Normative Motives
- 4.3.1. The "War on Terror" Framework
- 4.3.2. Commitment to a Two-State Solution (Rhetoric vs. Reality)
5. Convergence and Divergence between the Interests of Israel and the West (US) in Gaza
5.1. Points of Convergence
- 5.1.1. Short-term goal of defeating Hamas
- 5.1.2. Countering the influence of Iran in the Middle East
5.1.3. Maintaining Israel's Qualitative Military Edge
5.2. Points of Divergence
- 5.2.1. Disagreement over "The Day After" in Gaza”
- 5.2.2. Humanitarian Concerns & Proportionality
- 5.2.3. Pace and Scale of Military Operations
6. Challenges in the pursuit of Israeli and Western motives
- 6.1. Humanitarian Catastrophe
- 6.2. Violation of International Law
- 6.3. Erosion of Western Soft Power
- 6.4. Fueling Future Radicalization
7. Proposed Solutions and a Framework for Peace
7.1. Immediate or Short-Term Imperatives
- 7.1.1. Secure a Sustainable Ceasefire
- 7.1.2. Comprehensive Hostage and Prisoner Exchange
- 7.1.3. Unfettered Humanitarian Access and Relief
- 7.1.4. Deployment of an International Protection Force
7.2. Medium-Term Governance and Reconstruction Plan (The "Day After")
- 7.2.1. Establish an Interim Technocratic Palestinian Government for Gaza
- 7.2.2. A "Marshall Plan" for Gaza
- 7.2.3. Security Sector Reform and Demilitarization
7.3. Long-Term Political Solution regarding Reviving the Peace Process
- 7.3.1. Recommit to a Viable Two-State Solution
- 7.3.2. A Paradigm Shift in US and Western Policy
- 7.3.3. Empower Regional Diplomacy and Intra-Palestinian Reconciliation
- 7.3.4. Uphold International Law and Accountability
8. Conclusion
1. Introduction
The unprecedented Hamas assault on October 7th, 2023, shattered a decades-old paradigm, provoking a devastating military response from Israel that has spiralled into one of the most severe humanitarian crises of the 21st century. At the heart of this maelstrom are key actors with complex motives: an enraged Israel, its sense of invincibility pierced; Hamas, whose violent gambit sought to shatter the status quo; the Gazan population, subjected to unparalleled destruction; and the United States, whose "ironclad" support is tested by the mounting catastrophe. The conflict has exposed deep global fissures, with the international community fractured between staunch solidarity for Israel and vehement condemnation, including accusations of genocide. Analyzing the layered motives of the belligerents and their allies reveals the urgent need to move beyond mere conflict management towards a sustainable solution demanding a robust framework for de-escalation, accountability, and a definitive political resolution to the conflict's root causes.
Follow CPF WhatsApp Channel for Daily Exam Updates
Cssprepforum, led by Sir Syed Kazim Ali, supports 70,000+ monthly aspirants with premium CSS/PMS prep. Follow our WhatsApp Channel for daily CSS/PMS updates, solved past papers, expert articles, and free prep resources.
2. An Overview of the Post-October 7th Gaza War and its Aftermath
2.1. Hamas's "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" (October 7, 2023)
2.1.1. An Unprecedented Surprise Attack launched by Hamas
On the morning of October 7, 2023, a day that coincided with the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah, Hamas unleashed "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood," an attack of stunning scale and sophistication that caught Israel's formidable military and intelligence apparatus completely off guard. The multi-pronged surprise assault from the Gaza Strip was unprecedented. It commenced with a massive barrage of thousands of rockets, providing cover for a coordinated infiltration by land, sea, and air by Hamas militants who breached the heavily fortified security fence.
2.1.2. Devastating Human Toll and Hostage Crisis
The fighters swarmed into more than 20 Israeli communities and military bases, including the town of Sderot and several kibbutzim. The immediate result, as confirmed by Israeli official sources like the National Information Directorate, was the death of approximately 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals, a significant majority being civilians. Furthermore, the attack led to the capture of around 240 hostages -including soldiers, civilians, women, and children- who were forcibly taken back into the Gaza Strip, creating a deep national trauma.
2.1.3.Shattering Israel's Doctrine of Deterrence
For Israel, the attack did more than inflict a grievous loss of life; it shattered the nation's long-held doctrine of deterrence and its carefully cultivated image of military and intelligence invincibility. The failure to anticipate and prevent the assault led to a profound crisis of confidence and a national resolve for a response of unprecedented magnitude.
2.2. Israel's "Operation Swords of Iron"
2.2.1. Declaration of War and Stated Objectives
In the immediate aftermath, a shell-shocked and furious Israel declared a state of war. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared, "We are at war, and we will win it." The government swiftly launched "Operation Swords of Iron" with clear objectives: the complete eradication of Hamas's military and governing capabilities, securing the unconditional release of all hostages, and ensuring Gaza could never again pose a similar threat.
2.2.2. A "Complete Siege" and Overwhelming Force
The Israeli response was immediate and overwhelming. It began with one of the most intense and sustained aerial bombardment campaigns in modern history, followed by a full-scale ground invasion. Concurrently, Israel imposed a "complete siege," with Defense Minister Yoav Gallant announcing on October 9, 2023, "There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly." This combination of intense military action and a tightened blockade set the stage for a humanitarian crisis of catastrophic proportions.
2.3. The Current Situation in Gaza: A Humanitarian Catastrophe
2.3.1. Staggering Mass Casualties
The consequences of the war have plunged Gaza into what the head of UNRWA, Philippe Lazzarini, described in early 2025 as a "zone of utter annihilation." According to the Gaza Health Ministry, whose figures are deemed reliable by the WHO, the death toll has surpassed 51,000 as of June 2025, with the vast majority being women and children.
2.3.2. Permanent Mass Displacement
The war has solidified a massive displacement crisis. Reports from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in January 2025 indicate that nearly 90% of Gaza's 2.3 million residents remain displaced. Many are living in makeshift camps or among the ruins of northern Gaza, after Israeli operations in Rafah led to a chaotic reverse migration into areas already destroyed and lacking any basic services.
2.3.3. Systematic Infrastructure Collapse
The physical infrastructure of Gaza has been systematically dismantled. A joint World Bank and UN report released in February 2025 estimated the cost of damage to critical infrastructure in Gaza has soared to over $25 billion. Satellite imagery analysis confirms the destruction of over 70% of Gaza's housing stock, rendering the entire territory functionally uninhabitable without a multi-decade reconstruction effort.
2.3.4. Decimation of the Health System
The health system remains in a state of total collapse. The WHO confirmed in early 2025 that fewer than ten of Gaza’s 36 original hospitals are operating in any capacity, mostly as first-aid stations or field hospitals struggling with severe shortages of all medical supplies amid overwhelming numbers of trauma patients and a rampant spread of disease.
2.3.5. Declared Famine and Uncontrolled Disease
The siege has resulted in a declared famine. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) officially declared that famine conditions were fully established in northern Gaza in late 2024. Aid delivery remains severely restricted; OCHA reported in January 2025 that ongoing logistical hurdles and security issues meant that less than a third of the required aid was reaching the population, leading to acute malnutrition and uncontrolled outbreaks of cholera and hepatitis.
2.3.6. Enduring Psychological Trauma
Beyond the physical destruction, an entire generation of Palestinians is suffering from profound and complex psychological trauma. A UNICEF report from February 2025 warned of a "lost generation," with virtually every child in Gaza exhibiting symptoms of severe post-traumatic stress disorder, creating a mental health crisis that will challenge the region for decades.
2.4. Response of the International Community
2.4.1. "Ironclad" US Support and Shifting Rhetoric
The United States initially provided "ironclad" support for Israel's "right to self-defense." President Joe Biden visited Israel on October 18, 2023, to show solidarity. The US expedited munitions deliveries and used its UN Security Council veto on at least three occasions to block resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire. However, by March 2024, facing mounting international pressure, the US abstained on a resolution that demanded an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan, marking a significant, albeit temporary, shift in its public posture.
2.4.2. Condemnation from the United Nations
The United Nations has been a vocal critic of the war's conduct. UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated in November 2023 that Gaza was becoming a "graveyard for children." UN agencies, particularly UNRWA, have been the principal actors leading the desperate aid effort, losing over 190 of their own staff by mid-2024, the deadliest conflict for the UN in its history.
2.4.3. Landmark International Legal Challenges
The conflict spurred significant action within international legal bodies. On December 29, 2023, South Africa filed a case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing Israel of genocide. In its provisional ruling on January 26, 2024, the court ordered Israel to prevent genocidal acts. Subsequently, on May 20, 2024, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Karim Khan, announced he was seeking arrest warrants for leaders of both Hamas and Israel for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
2.4.4. Response of the Global South, China, and Russia
A significant portion of the Global South, along with China and Russia, has been highly critical of Israel's campaign, consistently pointing to Western "double standards" when comparing the response to Gaza with that to Ukraine. They have been united in their consistent calls for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire.
2.5. Response of the Muslim World
2.5.1. A Divided but Vocal Response
The response from the Muslim world to the Israel-Hamas conflict has been notably divided, though consistently vocal. On one hand, nations such as Iran and organizations like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation have issued strong condemnations of Israel's military actions, framing the conflict as a struggle against occupation and urging international intervention. This sentiment has been echoed by powerful non-state actors and religious bodies who have called for active support of the Palestinian cause. Conversely, another bloc of Muslim-majority countries, including some that have normalized relations with Israel like the United Arab Emirates, has taken a more measured approach. These nations have condemned the violence on both sides and emphasized the need for de-escalation and a return to negotiations for a two-state solution. This divergence highlights a significant geopolitical schism, reflecting varied national interests and a lack of a unified stance on how to address the long-standing conflict.
2.5.1. Condemnation from the Regional Powers
Regional Arab powers, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and Jordan, have all strongly condemned the scale of the violence. The war halted the momentum towards Saudi-Israeli normalization, with Riyadh making it clear that any future progress would be contingent on irreversible steps towards a Palestinian state.
2.5.2. Activation of Iran's "Axis of Resistance"
The conflict fully activated Iran and its network of regional allies. In Lebanon, Hezbollah began daily cross-border fire on October 8, 2023, leading to a low-intensity war that has displaced tens of thousands on both sides. In Yemen, the Houthis began attacking international shipping in the Red Sea in November 2023, claiming solidarity with Gaza and disrupting global trade.
2.5.3. Grassroots Outrage and Boycott Movements
Across the Muslim world, from Morocco to Malaysia, massive and sustained popular protests have demanded an end to the war. This public outrage has also fueled a powerful and growing global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, targeting corporations, like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, KFC, and McDonald's, perceived as complicit in Israeli policies.
3. Israeli Motives Regarding Gaza
Israel's actions in the post-October 7th era, while publicly framed almost exclusively through the lens of self-defense, are driven by a deeper and more complex set of motives. These motives extend beyond the immediate goal of eliminating Hamas and encompass a broader, long-term strategy aimed at managing the Palestinian population, re-establishing regional dominance, and securing its strategic and economic interests, all while navigating a volatile domestic political landscape.
3.1. Overarching Security Motives (The Primary Justification)
3.1.1. Eradication of Hamas's Military and Governing Capabilities
The primary and most forcefully articulated justification for Israel's military campaign is rooted in security. The first and foremost stated objective is the complete eradication of Hamas's military and governing capabilities. After the shock of October 7th, the Israeli political and military establishment concluded that the long-standing policy of "mowing the grass" -periodically degrading Hamas's capabilities while allowing it to continue governing Gaza- had failed catastrophically. The new doctrine demands the complete dismantlement of Hamas's command-and-control structure, the destruction of its extensive rocket arsenals, and the neutralization of its vast and sophisticated underground tunnels network, which the IDF has dubbed the "Gaza Metro."
3.1.2. Restoration of Deterrence
Flowing directly from this is the imperative of restoring deterrence. The concept of deterrence is a core tenet of Israeli military doctrine, predicated on the idea that any attack on Israel will be met with a disproportionately powerful response that inflicts an unacceptable cost on the aggressor. The October 7th attacks shattered this deterrence. Therefore, the sheer scale of destruction wrought upon Gaza is, from an Israeli strategic perspective, not merely a byproduct of war but a central objective. A June 2025 analysis by the Al-Zaytouna Centre of Canada noted a strategic shift from “deterrence by threat” in favour of “deterrence by destruction.” It is intended to send an unmistakable message not just to any future iteration of Hamas, but more broadly to Hezbollah in Lebanon, to Iran, and to other regional adversaries, demonstrating the devastating consequences of challenging Israeli sovereignty.
3.1.3. Securing the Southern Border
A more concrete security motive is securing the southern border to prevent any future infiltration. This involves more than just rebuilding the breached fence. The Israeli military has been actively working to establish a one-kilometre-deep "buffer zone" inside the Gaza Strip, clearing all buildings and agricultural land in that area. This plan, confirmed by satellite imagery and statements from Israeli officials, is aimed at creating a kill zone that would prevent militants from approaching the border. It also involves the systematic destruction of all cross-border tunnels originating from Gaza.
3.1.4. Release of Hostages
The release of hostages remains a significant driver of the military operation. The fate of the hostages taken on October 7th is a deeply emotional and politically charged issue within Israeli society. The government has consistently stated that military pressure is the only means to compel Hamas to agree to a hostage release deal on terms acceptable to Israel, a stance that has found fluctuating support among the public. For instance, a poll conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute in early 2024 found that while a majority of Jewish Israelis prioritized the goal of defeating Hamas, a significant portion still viewed securing the release of hostages as the top priority, highlighting the internal division over the war's primary objectives. While this objective is a genuine moral and political imperative, it also serves as a powerful public justification for the continuation and intensity of the military campaign. This dual-track approach has been analyzed by organizations like the International Crisis Group, which has reported on the inherent tension between Israel's war aims of dismantling Hamas and rescuing the captives. The hostages' families themselves further underscore this tension. At the same time, the government pursues its military strategy, advocacy groups like the Hostages and Missing Families Forum have organized mass protests, often arguing that a negotiated ceasefire, not continued military action, is the only viable path to bring their loved ones home safely.
3.2. Political and Strategic Motives
3.2.1.Preventing a Viable, Sovereign Palestinian State
Beyond the immediate security calculus, Israel's strategy in Gaza is deeply intertwined with long-term political and strategic goals, chief among them preventing the establishment of a viable, sovereign Palestinian state. For years, a cornerstone of Prime Minister Netanyahu's strategy has been a "divide and rule" approach to the Palestinians. By allowing Hamas to retain control in Gaza, it created a deep political schism between the Strip and the West Bank, which is governed by the rival Palestinian Authority (PA). This division has allowed Israel to argue that it has no unified Palestinian partner for peace negotiations. The destruction of Hamas's governing capacity, while framed as a security need, also serves this political goal by ensuring that no strong, unified Palestinian leadership emerges. Any post-war plan is scrutinized through the lens of how it might affect the prospects of Palestinian statehood, an outcome that the current Israeli government and a significant portion of its society vehemently oppose.
3.2.2. Determining "The Day After" in Gaza
This leads directly to the critical issue of determining "The Day After" in Gaza. Israeli leaders, particularly Prime Minister Netanyahu, have been adamant that Israel will maintain "overall security control" over the Gaza Strip indefinitely after the war. This insistence fundamentally precludes the possibility of true Palestinian sovereignty. While there have been discussions about installing local clans or an international force, Israel's bottom line is to ensure that any future governing body in Gaza is completely demilitarized and poses no conceivable threat. The outright rejection of proposals from the US and Arab states to install a "revitalized" Palestinian Authority in Gaza underscores this motive. The goal is to create a new status quo where Gaza is managed and controlled but not governed by a body that could form the basis of a future state.
3.2.3. Ensuring Domestic Political Survival
The strategy is also inextricably linked to domestic political survival. The October 7th attack represented a colossal failure for Prime Minister Netanyahu's government, which had built its reputation on guaranteeing national security. For the far-right coalition government, which includes ultranationalist and religious Zionist parties, prosecuting a hardline, uncompromising war is essential for its political survival. A decisive "victory" -however defined- is seen as the only way to deflect blame for the initial intelligence and security failures. The rhetoric of total victory appeals to a traumatized and angry Israeli public that has shifted significantly to the right in the wake of the attacks. Any perceived "softening" or premature end to the war without achieving the maximalist goals would likely lead to the immediate collapse of the governing coalition and the end of Netanyahu's political career.
3.3. Economic and Geostrategic Motives
3.3.1.Control over Offshore Natural Gas Reserves
While less frequently discussed in mainstream discourse, significant economic and geostrategic motives also factor into Israel's long-term calculus for controlling Gaza. One of the most critical is the issue of control over offshore natural gas reserves. The Gaza Marine gas field, discovered in the 1990s, lies approximately 36 kilometers off the coast of the Gaza Strip. This field is estimated to hold over 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, a resource that, if developed by and for an independent Palestinian state, could provide it with significant economic self-sufficiency and energy independence. Reports from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) have highlighted the immense economic potential of these resources for the Palestinian people. By maintaining security control over Gaza and its coastline, Israel ensures that it can manage, control, and potentially benefit from the exploitation of these reserves, while crucially preventing an independent Palestinian entity from leveraging this wealth to bolster its own sovereignty and international standing.
3.3.2. Eliminating a Potential Economic and Military Rival Port
Furthermore, a related geostrategic goal is eliminating a potential economic and military rival port. A fully functioning and independent deep-water seaport in Gaza would be a game-changer for the Palestinian economy. It would grant the Palestinians direct, unmediated access to the world for trade and travel, bypassing the land crossings controlled by Israel and Egypt. This economic autonomy is seen as a strategic threat, as it would reduce Palestinian dependence on Israel and strengthen its claim to statehood. An independent port could also, from an Israeli security perspective, become a potential entry point for weapons. Therefore, neutralizing the possibility of an autonomous Palestinian-controlled port has long been a strategic objective, ensuring that Israel remains the dominant economic gateway to the region.
3.3.3. Materializing the Ben Gurion Canal Project
Finally, while often categorized as speculative, the Ben Gurion Canal Project is a strategic consideration that exists in the background of regional planning. This long-proposed, ambitious project envisions an alternative to the Suez Canal, a waterway running through Israeli territory from the Gulf of Aqaba to the Mediterranean Sea. While numerous routes have been considered over the decades, several proposed paths for the canal's Mediterranean exit point are in close proximity to the northern border of the Gaza Strip. For such a massive and strategically vital infrastructure project to be viable, absolute stability and security control over the surrounding territory would be a prerequisite. While not a direct cause of the current war, ensuring long-term Israeli control over the Gaza envelope fits neatly into the broader geostrategic logic that would be required ever to make such a project a reality, removing a potential source of instability from the vicinity of a critical future economic artery.
4. Western (Primarily US) Motives Regarding Gaza
The unwavering support extended to Israel by the United States, particularly in the initial and most intense phases of the war, is driven by a deeply entrenched set of motives that are often less about the specific dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and more about upholding a critical strategic alliance, projecting American power in a contested region, and navigating powerful domestic political currents.
4.1. Geostrategic and Regional Motives
4.1.1. Maintaining Israel as a Key Regional Ally
The cornerstone of US policy in the Middle East is maintaining Israel as a key regional ally. For decades, across both Democratic and Republican administrations, Israel has been viewed as a stable, reliable, technologically advanced, and pro-Western "strategic asset" in a historically volatile and strategically vital region. It is seen as an extension of American power, an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" in the Middle East. The US Department of State consistently refers to the "unshakeable bond" between the two nations. This deep-seated belief means that supporting Israel, particularly when it is under attack, is seen as being synonymous with upholding US credibility and projecting American influence in the region.
4.1.2. Countering Iranian Influence
A major driver of this support in the current context is the goal of countering Iranian influence. The United States and its allies view Iran and its network of proxies -the "Axis of Resistance," which includes Hezbollah in Lebanon, various militias in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas- as the primary threat to US interests and regional stability. Since Iran is a key backer of Hamas, providing it with funding, weapons, and training, the US frames Israel's war in Gaza as part of a larger proxy battle against Tehran. Supporting Israel's campaign to dismantle Hamas is, therefore, seen as a strategic imperative to weaken Iran's regional network and push back against its influence.
4.1.3. Ensuring Regional Stability and Security of Energy Flows
This leads to the broader objective of ensuring regional stability and the security of energy flows. While seemingly contradictory given the immense instability caused by the war itself, the US fears a much wider regional conflagration. A prolonged, high-intensity conflict that draws in Hezbollah, and potentially Iran directly, could destabilize key American allies like Jordan and Egypt and threaten global energy supplies, particularly the flow of oil through the critical chokepoint of the Strait of Hormuz. US diplomatic efforts have therefore been focused on "de-escalation" on other fronts, particularly the Israel-Lebanon border, even while facilitating the continuation of the war in Gaza. The goal is to contain the conflict and manage its fallout to protect the broader status quo of American dominance.
4.1.4. Competition with Global Rivals
Finally, unwavering support for a key ally is also a function of competition with global rivals. In an era of renewed great-power competition, the Middle East remains a critical arena for influence. By demonstrating steadfast support for Israel, the United States sends a clear message to its strategic competitors, primarily China and Russia, that it remains the indispensable power broker in the region. An analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) highlights that both Russia and China are leveraging the conflict diplomatically to critique U.S. policy and court Arab states, framing Washington's support for Israel as a sign of a biased and unreliable world order. Any perceived wavering in the U.S. commitment to an ally could therefore be interpreted by rivals as a sign of American decline, potentially emboldening them to expand their own influence with other regional actors.
4.2. Domestic Political Motives
4.2.1. Appeasing the influential Pro-Israel Lobby
The formulation of US Middle East policy cannot be understood without acknowledging the powerful influence of domestic political motives. The pro-Israel lobby, most notably the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is one of the most powerful and effective interest groups in Washington. Through significant campaign contributions, extensive lobbying efforts, and grassroots organization, AIPAC and other similar groups have fostered overwhelming bipartisan support for Israel in the US Congress. This influence ensures that providing substantial military and financial aid to Israel is often seen as a political necessity for lawmakers from both parties, making any significant conditioning of that aid a politically risky endeavor.
4.2.2. Electoral Considerations
Electoral considerations also play a crucial role. A key and highly motivated voting bloc, particularly within the Republican Party, is that of Evangelical Christians. A significant portion of this group holds pro-Israel eschatological beliefs, viewing the modern state of Israel as the fulfilment of biblical prophecy. This translates into fervent and unconditional political support for Israel. While support among Democratic voters, particularly younger ones, has seen a significant decline as documented by polls from institutions like the Pew Research Center, the party leadership and older demographics have traditionally maintained a strong pro-Israel stance. In a closely divided political landscape, alienating these key constituencies is a risk that many politicians are unwilling to take.
4.2.3. The Military-Industrial Complex
The cycle of conflict also feeds the military-industrial complex. Israel is one of the largest recipients of US foreign military financing and a major customer for high-end American military hardware. Companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon (RTX), and Boeing are major suppliers to the Israeli military. The war in Gaza, which has seen the extensive use of US-supplied munitions, fuels a continuous cycle of production and sales that benefits the powerful US defense industry and the congressional districts where these companies operate, creating a powerful economic incentive to maintain the flow of weaponry.
4.3. Ideological and Normative Motives
4.3.1. The "War on Terror" Framework
The public justification for US policy often rests on a simplified ideological and normative framework. A key element of this is framing the conflict through the lens of the post-9/11 "War on Terror". By defining Hamas, which is officially designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the US State Department, as the sole aggressor, the conflict is presented to the American and Western public as a clear-cut battle between a democratic state (Israel) and a ruthless terrorist organization. This narrative, powerfully invoked by President Biden who compared the October 7th attacks to "pure, unadulterated evil," helps to simplify a deeply complex political and historical issue, marginalize Palestinian narratives of occupation and resistance, and justify a forceful military response.
4.3.2. Commitment to a Two-State Solution (Rhetoric vs. Reality)
Furthermore, the United States publicly maintains its commitment to a Two-State Solution as the only viable path to lasting peace. This has been the stated policy of every US administration for decades. However, a significant contradiction exists between this rhetoric and the reality of US actions. The consistent use of its veto power at the UN Security Council to shield Israel from resolutions calling for ceasefires or accountability, the failure to exert meaningful pressure on Israel to halt illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank, which the State Department itself has acknowledged is inconsistent with international law, and the provision of unconditional military aid have all, according to critics, actively undermined the viability of the very solution the US purports to support. This creates a significant gap between the public narrative of peacemaking and the practical policy of alliance management, a contradiction that has become increasingly difficult to sustain in the face of the current crisis.
3.5-Month Extensive Compulsory Subjects Course for CSS Aspirants
Struggling with CSS Compulsory subjects? Crack Pakistan Affairs, Islamiat, GSA & Current Affairs in just 3.5 months with Howfiv’s expert-led course. New batches every April, August & December! Secure your spot now – WhatsApp 0300-6322446!
5. Convergence and Divergence between the Interests of Israel and the West (US) in Gaza
While a deep strategic alliance binds Israel and the United States, their interests in the context of the Gaza war are not perfectly aligned. The conflict has illuminated areas of strong convergence, particularly in the short term and on broader regional strategy, but it has also exposed significant points of divergence regarding the endgame in Gaza and the acceptable humanitarian cost.
5.1. Points of Convergence
5.1.1. Short-term goal of defeating Hamas
The most immediate and powerful point of convergence is the short-term goal of defeating Hamas. Both the Israeli government and the US administration view Hamas as a destabilizing terrorist organization and a proxy for their shared adversary, Iran. In the wake of October 7th, there was complete agreement in both Washington and Tel Aviv that Hamas could not be allowed to retain military or governing control over the Gaza Strip. The US has provided the military hardware, intelligence support, and diplomatic cover necessary for Israel to pursue this objective, reflecting a shared belief that the group's dismantlement is a prerequisite for any future stability.
5.1.2. Countering the influence of Iran in the Middle East
A significant area of converging viewpoints between Israel and the United States during the Israel-Hamas war is the shared strategic goal of countering Iran's regional influence. Both nations see the conflict as an opportunity to weaken Tehran's network of proxies, which they view as a primary source of instability. Israeli leadership has consistently framed the war in this broader context, with official government statements often describing the fight not just against Hamas but against an "Iranian axis of evil." This perspective is largely shared by Washington, where reports from the White House National Security Council have affirmed that the U.S. holds Iran responsible for enabling its proxies, including Hamas, and have detailed actions taken to disrupt Iranian support networks. According to analysis from think tanks such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, this strategic alignment has translated into tangible cooperation, evidenced by the United States' deployment of significant naval assets to the Eastern Mediterranean to deter Hezbollah and Iran from widening the war. While the U.S. prioritizes preventing a larger regional conflagration and Israel focuses on the tactical elimination of Hamas, both view the degradation of Iran's proxy capabilities as a critical, shared long-term objective of the conflict.
5.1.3.Maintaining Israel's Qualitative Military Edge
This shared goal is nested within the most significant point of strategic alignment: countering Iran. This is the geopolitical glue that binds the US-Israel relationship. Both nations view Iran's nuclear ambitions and its "Axis of Resistance" as the principal long-term threats to security in the Middle East. Weakening Hamas is seen as a direct blow to Iran's regional power projection. This shared strategic priority ensures that even when tactical disagreements arise, the overarching commitment to confronting Iranian influence keeps the alliance intact.
5.2. Points of Divergence
5.2.1.Disagreement over "The Day After" in Gaza
Despite these strong areas of agreement, the conflict has exposed growing and increasingly public points of divergence. The most significant is the disagreement over "The Day After" in Gaza. The United States, fearing a power vacuum that could be filled by even more radical elements or lead to perpetual chaos, has consistently pushed for a post-war plan centered on a "revitalized" Palestinian Authority assuming governance of both the West Bank and Gaza. The Biden administration views this as a necessary step towards reviving a political horizon for a two-state solution. Israel's current government, under Prime Minister Netanyahu, has flatly and repeatedly rejected this vision, fearing it would be a stepping stone to Palestinian statehood. Israel's insistence on maintaining indefinite security control over Gaza with no clear political endgame has become a major source of friction with Washington.
5.2.2. Humanitarian Concerns and Proportionality
Next, there is also a significant divergence on humanitarian concerns and the principle of proportionality, although it manifests differently under the Trump administration. As the war has progressed, the scale of civilian death and destruction in Gaza has continued to draw condemnation from international bodies. While the Trump administration has provided more unequivocal public support for Israel's military objectives compared to its predecessor, it is not immune to the strategic consequences of the humanitarian crisis. The core divergence emerges not from public U.S. pressure, but from the immense practical and diplomatic challenges the situation creates. For instance, a May 2025 report from Human Rights Watch detailed the "unprecedented levels of destruction" and obstacles to aid delivery, directly challenging the operational conduct of the war that the U.S. staunchly supports. This places the Trump administration in a difficult position; it attempts to balance its ironclad support for Israel's goal of dismantling Hamas with the need to manage diplomatic fallout with key Arab partners and prevent the crisis from further destabilizing the region, a balance Israel's leadership may view as an unwelcome constraint on its path to total victory.
5.2.3. Pace and Scale of Military Operations
Finally, there is a divergence on the pace and scale of military operations. From a US strategic perspective, a prolonged, high-intensity conflict carries the immense risk of triggering a wider regional war. An all-out war with Hezbollah, for example, would be far more devastating than the Gaza conflict and could directly threaten US personnel and interests across the Middle East. Washington has therefore privately and publicly urged Israel to transition to lower-intensity operations. For Israel, however, the immediate security calculations are different. The military believes that sustained, high-intensity pressure is necessary to dismantle Hamas and secure the release of hostages, viewing US calls for de-escalation as potentially premature and detrimental to achieving its core war aims. This difference in risk assessment -the US fears a regional war, while Israel fears an incomplete victory- creates a persistent tension in the alliance.
6. Challenges in the pursuit of Israeli and Western motives
The pursuit of Israeli and Western motives, centered on security and strategic alliance, has unleashed a series of profound and cascading challenges that have not only created a humanitarian disaster but have also damaged international legal norms, eroded geopolitical soft power, and sowed the seeds for future conflict.
6.1. Humanitarian Catastrophe
The most immediate and devastating outcome has been the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. The scale of death, displacement, and destruction, driven by a military strategy enabled by Western arms and diplomatic cover, has led to widespread and credible accusations of collective punishment against the entire population of Gaza. The "complete siege" and the severe restrictions on humanitarian aid have been labeled by top UN officials, including the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Michael Fakhri, as a campaign of deliberate starvation. The sheer volume of 2,000-pound bombs dropped on one of the most densely populated areas on Earth has created a level of devastation that experts at the World Bank and the UN estimate will take decades and tens of billions of dollars to rebuild. This pursuit of security has come at a human cost that has shocked the conscience of much of the world.
6.2. Violation of International Law
This has naturally led to serious questions regarding the violation of international law. The entire conflict is now under scrutiny by the world's highest legal bodies. The case brought by South Africa at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing Israel of genocide, and the ICJ's subsequent orders for Israel to prevent genocidal acts and ensure aid delivery, represent a historic legal challenge to the conduct of the war. Similarly, the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor's pursuit of arrest warrants for both Israeli and Hamas leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity underscores the view held by many legal experts that the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution, which are central to International Humanitarian Law (IHL), have been consistently violated. The targeting of hospitals, the killing of aid workers and journalists in record numbers, and the rhetoric used by some Israeli officials have all been cited by organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as evidence of potential war crimes.
6.3. Erosion of Western Soft Power
For the West, particularly the United States, the conflict has led to a significant erosion of Western soft power and credibility. The staunch support for Israel's campaign has given rise to widespread accusations of a "double standard." Across the Global South, leaders and publics have pointedly contrasted the West's swift condemnation and sanctioning of Russia for its invasion of Ukraine with the provision of weapons and diplomatic immunity for Israel's actions in Gaza. This perception has severely damaged the West's ability to claim the mantle of leadership on human rights and the rules-based international order. It has undermined diplomatic efforts on other global issues and provided a powerful narrative for rivals like Russia and China, who have eagerly highlighted Western hypocrisy to advance their own geopolitical interests.
6.4. Fueling Future Radicalization
Perhaps the most dangerous long-term consequence is the potential for fueling future radicalization. The immense destruction, the loss of entire families, and the collective trauma inflicted upon a young population, where nearly half of the residents are children, risks creating a new generation of Palestinians whose lives have been defined by war and loss. According to a May 2025 report from the European Training Foundation, humanitarian agencies estimate that over 520,000 children in Gaza currently require psychosocial support. Historical precedents show that such large-scale military actions and occupations often become powerful recruiting tools for extremist groups. The logic that destroying the current iteration of Hamas will end the threat ignores the reality that the political conditions of occupation, blockade, and now mass devastation, create fertile ground for the emergence of new, and possibly more radical, forms of resistance. By failing to address the root causes of the conflict, the current strategy risks ensuring that the cycle of violence will continue, creating a legacy of bitterness and grievance that will endanger the security of both Palestinians and Israelis for generations to come.
7. Proposed Solutions and a Framework for Peace
Moving beyond the perpetual cycle of violence that has defined the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires a multi-pronged approach that addresses the immediate humanitarian catastrophe while simultaneously reviving a credible political horizon to resolve the conflict's root causes. This framework must be sequential yet integrated, starting with urgent de-escalation and culminating in a just and lasting political settlement.
7.1. Immediate or Short-Term Imperatives
7.1.1. Secure a Sustainable Ceasefire
The immediate priority must be to move beyond temporary "humanitarian pauses" and secure a durable, internationally monitored ceasefire. This requires intense and sustained diplomatic pressure on both the Israeli government and Hamas leadership. Key regional actors who have established communication channels, primarily Egypt and Qatar, must continue their mediation efforts, strongly backed by the United States. A sustainable ceasefire must include robust and clearly defined mechanisms to monitor and report violations from either side, potentially involving neutral, third-party observers on the ground to prevent a rapid return to hostilities.
7.1.2. Comprehensive Hostage and Prisoner Exchange
A durable ceasefire is inextricably linked to resolving the hostage crisis. The most viable path forward is a comprehensive exchange, likely phased, that secures the release of all Israeli hostages held in Gaza in return for the release of a significant number of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails. An "all-for-all" exchange, while politically difficult, would serve as a crucial confidence-building measure. It addresses a core Israeli war aim and a deeply felt Palestinian grievance, creating a foundation of mutual, if painful, concession upon which further steps can be built.
7.1.3. Unfettered Humanitarian Access and Relief
Concurrent with a ceasefire, there must be a demand for the immediate, unconditional, and full opening of all land crossings into Gaza, including Kerem Shalom, Rafah, and a fully operational Erez crossing, for the massive influx of humanitarian aid. This requires establishing a UN-led, large-scale logistical operation, managed by agencies like the WFP and OCHA, to ensure the systematic and safe distribution of food, water, medicine, fuel, and shelter materials throughout the entire Strip, including the devastated north. A core component must be legally binding guarantees for the safety and security of all humanitarian aid workers, as mandated by international humanitarian law.
7.1.4. Deployment of an International Protection Force
To ensure civilian protection and stabilize the post-ceasefire environment, the international community should consider the deployment of a UN-mandated protection force, a "Blue Helmet" mission. This force would require a clear and robust mandate from the UN Security Council to protect civilians, secure humanitarian corridors, monitor the ceasefire, and prevent a security vacuum. Composed of troops from neutral countries, preferably with backing from Arab nations, such a force would act as a neutral buffer, helping to build a semblance of trust and creating the stable conditions necessary for the commencement of reconstruction and political dialogue.
7.2. Medium-Term Governance and Reconstruction Plan
7.2.1. Establish an Interim Technocratic Palestinian Government for Gaza
In the medium term, a viable alternative to both Hamas rule and Israeli re-occupation must be established. The most promising model is the formation of a government composed of independent, qualified Palestinian technocrats, unaffiliated with the political leadership of either Hamas or Fatah. This government's mandate would be purely administrative: to manage the daily affairs of Gaza, oversee reconstruction, and restore basic services. To be legitimate, it must be empowered by a broad Palestinian consensus and receive strong financial and political backing from the international community, including key bodies like the Arab League, the European Union, and the UN.
7.2.2. A "Marshall Plan" for Gaza
The sheer scale of destruction necessitates a massive, multi-decade international reconstruction fund, akin to a modern "Marshall Plan" for Gaza. This effort should be led by international financial institutions like the World Bank and the Islamic Development Bank, with primary funding coming from wealthy Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar), the EU, and the US. Critically, to break the cycle of "destroying and rebuilding," this reconstruction aid must be explicitly and formally linked to tangible progress on a parallel political track. Aid tranches could be conditioned on steps taken by both sides towards a final status agreement, ensuring that the international investment in rebuilding Gaza also serves as an investment in peace.
7.2.3. Security Sector Reform and Demilitarization
The demilitarization of Gaza is a non-negotiable demand for Israel, but it cannot happen in a vacuum. The interim technocratic government, with significant technical and financial support from regional partners like Egypt and Jordan and international bodies, would need to oversee a gradual process of disarmament and the dismantling of militant infrastructure. This process must be paired with the establishment of a professional Palestinian security force for Gaza, trained to international standards, whose role is policing and maintaining public order. Crucially, this must be accompanied by robust security guarantees for the Palestinian population, ensuring their protection from both internal chaos and external Israeli military actions.
7.3. Long-Term Political Solution Regarding the Revival of Peace
7.3.1. Recommit to a Viable Two-State Solution
The ultimate goal must be the revival of a credible political process aimed at achieving a Two-State Solution, which remains the only internationally recognized framework for a lasting peace. The international community, led by the US, must reaffirm its core parameters with renewed clarity and urgency in the following ways: First, borders should be based on the pre-1967 lines, with minor, reciprocal, and mutually agreed-upon land swaps. Second, there should be a shared capital for the two states, with West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and East Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine. Third, a truly sovereign, contiguous, and viable Palestinian state should be established, which would be demilitarized by agreement, not an archipelago of disconnected cantons under Israeli security control. Lastly, there should be a just, fair, and agreed-upon solution to the Palestinian refugee issue based on UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which could include a combination of compensation, resettlement, and a symbolic right of return to the State of Palestine.
7.3.2. A Paradigm Shift in US and Western Policy
For any peace process to be credible, US and Western policy must undergo a fundamental paradigm shift from one of unconditional support for one side to one of genuine, balanced mediation. This requires moving from providing a "blank check" to leveraging its considerable influence. Military aid to Israel should be conditioned on its compliance with international law and a complete halt to all settlement expansion activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which is the single greatest physical obstacle to a two-state solution. The US should use its UN Security Council veto constructively to protect the peace process itself, not to shield any party from accountability for actions that undermine it. A crucial step would be for the US to join the 140+ countries that have already done so and formally recognize the State of Palestine, creating parity of esteem and leverage in future negotiations.
7.3.3. Empower Regional Diplomacy and Intra-Palestinian Reconciliation
The role of Arab states is critical. The momentum of the Abraham Accords should be leveraged, with key players like Saudi Arabia making it clear that further normalization with Israel is contingent on tangible, irreversible progress towards the establishment of a Palestinian state. This provides a powerful incentive for Israel to engage seriously. Simultaneously, the international community must support regional, Arab-led efforts, particularly by Egypt and Algeria, to foster intra-Palestinian reconciliation. Healing the rift between Fatah and Hamas (or their successor political movements) and reforming the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to be a truly representative body is essential for creating a unified Palestinian leadership that can negotiate with a single, legitimate voice on behalf of all Palestinians.
7.3.4. Uphold International Law and Accountability
Finally, there can be no lasting peace without justice and accountability. The international community must fully support the independent work of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in investigating alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by all parties to the conflict. Accountability is not an obstacle to peace; it is a fundamental prerequisite. Ending the culture of impunity is essential for breaking the cycle of violence and building the minimum level of trust required for any lasting political settlement to take hold. It signals that the era of operating outside the bounds of international law is over for everyone.
CSS Solved Current Affairs Past Papers
Unlock the power of insight with CSS Solved Current Affairs (2010 – To Date) by Sir Ammar Hashmi; your ultimate guide to mastering CSS with precision, clarity, and confidence!
8. Conclusion
The war that erupted after October 7th, 2023, has served as a brutal exposé of the catastrophic failure of "managing" the Israeli-Gaza conflict, as Israel's quest to restore deterrence, backed by its Western allies, has produced a military response of such intensity that it has generated a powerful global outcry. The only viable path forward requires a decisive break from this cycle of violence, demanding a comprehensive framework that begins with an immediate, internationally monitored ceasefire, the release of all hostages and prisoners, and sustained humanitarian action. The reconstruction of Gaza must follow this under an interim Palestinian government, all inextricably linked to a reinvigorated political process aimed squarely at a just, two-state solution based on international law, a goal that requires the US and its allies to shift from partisan support to genuine mediation. The sheer scale of suffering has delivered a terrible verdict: true security for Israelis cannot be built upon the occupation and denial of Palestinian rights, nor can Palestinian liberation be achieved through terror. The international community now faces a historic choice: either continue enabling a flawed status quo and risk a wider regional conflict, or finally exert the political will to enforce a genuine peace process that ensures accountability, security, and dignity for both Israelis and Palestinians, as the cost of indecision is written in the ashes of Gaza and the blood-soaked soil of southern Israel.
Potential Exam Questions
Question 1
Critically analyze the multifaceted motives, encompassing security doctrines, political imperatives, and long-term strategic objectives, that have underpinned Israel's military strategy in Gaza since October 2023. How do these motives align with or deviate from the strategic interests of the United States in the Middle East?
Question 2
The 2023-2024 Gaza conflict has laid bare significant schisms within the global order. Elucidate the divergent responses of key Western powers versus those of the Muslim world and the Global South. Evaluate the broader implications of this diplomatic division for regional stability and the future of global governance.
Question 3
"Lasting security for Israel cannot be achieved through the continued occupation and subjugation of Palestinians; equally, Palestinian statehood cannot be realized through violence." In light of this assertion, construct a multi-pronged and phased roadmap for a durable peace, addressing immediate de-escalation, medium-term reconstruction and governance in Gaza, and a long-term political settlement.
Question 4
Critically evaluate the implications of the recent Gaza conflict for the sanctity and enforcement of international humanitarian law (IHL). Discuss the role played by international judicial bodies, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the challenges they face in ensuring accountability amidst great-power politics.
Question 5
"The post-October 7th war in Gaza is not an isolated event, but a violent and acute manifestation of the unresolved seventy-five-year-old Palestinian question." Discuss this statement by analyzing the historical root causes of the conflict. Furthermore, evaluate how the current military and political strategies employed by the primary actors are shaping the future viability of a two-state solution.
