Chapter 2: Gaza in the Israel-Palestine
Conflict: A Deeper Historical Perspective
This chapter provides an in-depth historical analysis of the conflict surrounding Gaza, tracing
its evolution from a component of the broader Arab-Israeli struggle to the epicenter of the
more focused Israel-Palestine conflict. It examines the pivotal events and long-term
processes that have shaped the geopolitical landscape of the region, including the
transformative Six-Day War, the sustained occupation of the Palestinian territories, the mass
popular uprisings of the First and Second Intifadas, the ultimately unsuccessful Oslo Accords,
and the strategic implications of the Gaza disengagement, which culminated in the rise of
Hamas. A thorough understanding of these historical trajectories is indispensable for
comprehending the deep-seated grievances, political dynamics, and strategic calculations
that define the contemporary Israel-Hamas war.
2.1 From a Pan-Arab Struggle to a National Conflict: The
Shifting Identity of the Israel-Palestine Dispute
The conflict in the Middle East, often perceived as a singular, monolithic struggle, has
undergone significant transformations in its nature and primary actors. Initially, the conflict
was largely framed as an Arab-Israeli confrontation, characterized by interstate wars and a
sense of pan-Arab solidarity against the nascent State of Israel. However, over several
decades, the focus has increasingly shifted towards a more localized and specific Israel-
Palestine conflict, emphasizing the struggle for self-determination, land, and statehood by
the Palestinian people. This evolution is critical for understanding the current complexities
surrounding Gaza and the broader region.
The origins of the broader Arab-Israeli conflict are deeply rooted in the late 19th and early
20th centuries, stemming from the concurrent rise of two powerful nationalist movements:
Zionism and Arab nationalism. Zionism, as a modern political movement, was formally
established by Theodor Herzl and others in the late 19th century. It emerged as a direct
response to centuries of antisemitic persecution and discrimination against Jewish
communities in Europe, arguing that the only viable solution was the establishment of a
sovereign Jewish homeland in their ancestral land, Palestine [1]. This ideology spurred waves
of Jewish immigration (Aliyah) to Palestine, which was then a province of the Ottoman
Empire [2]. Simultaneously, the seeds of Arab nationalism were being sown across the Middle
East, fostering a collective identity among Arabic-speaking peoples and a growing desire for
independence from Ottoman and, subsequently, European colonial domination [3].
The British Mandate for Palestine, established by the League of Nations after World War I,
became the crucible in which these two national movements collided. The Balfour
Declaration of 1917, a public statement of policy from the British government, expressed
support for the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” This
declaration was viewed by the Zionist movement as a historic victory, but it was seen by the
Arab population as a profound betrayal of promises of independence made to them by the
British in exchange for their support against the Ottomans during the war [4]. This dual and
contradictory commitment by the British authorities fueled deep-seated Arab resentment
and resistance to the growing Jewish presence and land acquisition, leading to escalating
inter-communal violence throughout the Mandate period, including the Arab Revolt of 1936–
1939 [5].
The pivotal moment that solidified the conflict as a full-fledged Arab-Israeli confrontation
was the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Following the UN General Assembly’s adoption of Resolution
181, which recommended the partition of Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states, the
State of Israel was declared on May 14, 1948. The following day, the armies of five
neighboring Arab states—Egypt, Transjordan (now Jordan), Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq—
invaded the territory of the former Mandate, officially launching the war [6]. This conflict,
known to Israelis as the War of Independence and to Palestinians as the Nakba (the
Catastrophe), resulted in a decisive Israeli military victory. It also led to the mass
displacement of over 700,000 Palestinians, who fled or were expelled from their homes and
became refugees in neighboring Arab countries and within the territories that would become
the West Bank and Gaza Strip [7].
Following the 1948 war, the Gaza Strip came under Egyptian military administration, while
the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, was annexed by Jordan. For the next two decades,
the conflict was primarily characterized by large-scale military confrontations between Israel
and its Arab neighbors. The Suez Crisis of 1956, the Six-Day War of 1967, and the Yom Kippur
War of 1973 were defining moments of this era, shaping the geopolitical map of the Middle
East and reinforcing the narrative of a regional, interstate Arab-Israeli struggle [8]. Pan-
Arabism, championed by leaders like Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, presented the conflict
with Israel as a collective Arab cause, uniting disparate nations against a common adversary
[9].
However, the focus of the conflict began to narrow significantly in the late 20th century. The
signing of the Camp David Accords in 1978 and the subsequent Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty in
1979 marked a critical turning point. By neutralizing the largest and most powerful Arab state,
the treaty effectively fractured the pan-Arab front against Israel and significantly reduced the
likelihood of another full-scale interstate war [10]. This diplomatic realignment, followed by
the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty in 1994, increasingly isolated the Palestinian issue from the
broader regional context.
This shift brought the Palestinian struggle for self-determination to the forefront,
transforming the conflict into one that was increasingly defined as an Israel-Palestine
dispute. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), established in 1964 under the
leadership of Yasser Arafat, gradually gained international recognition as the “sole,
legitimate representative of the Palestinian people” [11]. The First Intifada, a spontaneous
popular uprising that began in 1987, further underscored the centrality of the Palestinian
struggle. This grassroots rebellion against Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
demonstrated that the core of the conflict was not merely about interstate rivalries, but about
the unresolved political status, national rights, and daily realities of the Palestinian people
living under military rule [12]. This transition from a pan-Arab to a national conflict
framework is essential for understanding the specific historical trajectory of Gaza.
2.2 The Six-Day War and the Enduring Occupation of Gaza
Strip and the West Bank
The Six-Day War of June 1967 represents a watershed moment in the history of the Arab-
Israeli conflict, fundamentally reshaping the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East and
directly leading to the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the
Sinai Peninsula, and the Golan Heights. This swift and decisive victory for Israel had profound
and lasting consequences, particularly for the Palestinian people and the future trajectory of
the Israel-Palestine conflict [13].
Prior to the 1967 war, the Gaza Strip had been under Egyptian military administration since
the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, while the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, was under
Jordanian control. These territories, along with the Sinai Peninsula (Egyptian) and the Golan
Heights (Syrian), were captured by Israel during the six days of intense fighting. The war was
precipitated by a rapid escalation of regional tensions. Key triggers included Egypt’s
demand for the withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai
Peninsula, the subsequent massing of Egyptian troops on Israel’s border, and Egypt’s
closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, an act Israel considered a casus belli [14]. In
response to these perceived threats, Israel launched a preemptive aerial strike on June 5,
1967, targeting Egyptian airfields, which quickly expanded into a full-scale regional conflict
involving Jordan and Syria [15].
The military outcome was swift and overwhelming. Within six days, Israel had defeated the
combined forces of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, expanding its territory threefold. The
occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank placed a significant Palestinian population—
including hundreds of thousands of refugees from the 1948 war—under direct Israeli military
rule. In Gaza, which was already one of the most densely populated areas in the world, the
occupation meant comprehensive Israeli control over all aspects of civilian life, including
movement, economic activity, and security [16]. Similarly, in the West Bank, a military
administration was established, and shortly thereafter, the Israeli government began to
facilitate the establishment of Israeli settlements in the newly occupied territories. These
settlements, built on land captured in 1967, are considered illegal under international law by
the vast majority of the international community, including the United Nations, as they
violate the Fourth Geneva Convention’s prohibition on an occupying power transferring its
own population into occupied territory [17].
The 1967 occupation fundamentally transformed the nature of the conflict. It shifted the
primary focus from interstate disputes over borders and recognition to a struggle centered on
occupation, self-determination, and human rights for the Palestinian people living under
military rule. The daily realities of occupation—including checkpoints, restrictions on
movement, land confiscation, and the expansion of settlements—became central to the
Palestinian experience and a constant source of friction and resistance [18].
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, adopted in November 1967, became the
foundational document for subsequent peace efforts. It called for the “withdrawal of Israeli
armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and the “termination of all
claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty,
territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live
in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force” [19].
While Resolution 242 provided a framework for a potential land-for-peace solution, its
deliberate ambiguity regarding the extent of withdrawal (i.e., “territories” versus “the
territories”) allowed for differing interpretations by Israel and the Arab states, contributing to
the prolonged nature of the occupation. Despite this foundational resolution, the occupation
continued, leading to decades of Palestinian resistance, international diplomatic efforts, and
the enduring challenge of achieving a lasting peace based on the principle of land for peace
and the right to self-determination for the Palestinian people.
2.3 The Intifada and the Oslo Accords: The Elusive Search
for Peace
The prolonged Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, coupled with the absence of a
clear political pathway towards self-determination, eventually ignited widespread popular
uprisings known as the Intifadas. These periods of intense civil disobedience and, at times,
armed resistance profoundly reshaped the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, compelling both sides
towards direct negotiations. Most notably, these efforts led to the Oslo Accords, a series of
agreements that, despite their initial promise, ultimately failed to achieve a comprehensive
and lasting peace, leaving many core issues unresolved.
2.3.1 The First Intifada (1987-1993): A Popular Uprising
The First Intifada, an Arabic term meaning “shaking off,” commenced in December 1987 in
the Jabalia refugee camp in the Gaza Strip and rapidly spread across the entire occupied
Palestinian territories, including the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This uprising was largely
a spontaneous, grassroots movement, driven by decades of accumulated frustration, anger,
and despair under Israeli military rule [20]. Its immediate catalyst was a traffic accident in
Gaza involving an Israeli military vehicle that killed four Palestinians, but the underlying
causes were far deeper, rooted in the daily realities of occupation: land confiscation, the
expansion of Israeli settlements, economic hardship, restrictions on movement, and the
perceived humiliation of military administration [21].
The characteristics of the First Intifada were distinct. It was predominantly a civilian-led
movement, characterized by mass demonstrations, commercial strikes, boycotts of Israeli
products, refusal to pay taxes, and the widespread throwing of stones by Palestinian youth
against Israeli soldiers [22]. Women, students, and workers played crucial roles in organizing
and sustaining the resistance through popular committees. While largely non-lethal in its
early stages, the Israeli response, which included mass arrests, deportations, and the use of
live ammunition, led to significant Palestinian casualties and further intensified the conflict
[23].
The First Intifada was profoundly significant for several reasons. Firstly, it brought the
Palestinian issue back to the forefront of international attention, demonstrating the resilience
and determination of the Palestinian people to resist occupation. The images of unarmed
Palestinians confronting heavily armed Israeli soldiers garnered widespread international
sympathy for the Palestinian cause and put considerable pressure on Israel to seek a political
solution [24]. Secondly, it highlighted the limitations of Israel’s military control over a
civilian population and the unsustainability of the status quo. Thirdly, it fostered a renewed
sense of Palestinian national identity and unity, transcending geographical divisions and
challenging the traditional leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which
was then based in Tunis [25]. The uprising ultimately compelled both Israel and the PLO to
reconsider their long-held positions and engage in direct negotiations.
2.3.2 The Oslo Accords (1993-1995): A Flawed Framework for Peace
The momentum generated by the First Intifada, coupled with shifts in the international
geopolitical landscape following the end of the Cold War, created a window of opportunity
for peace negotiations. Secret talks between Israel and the PLO, held in Oslo, Norway,
culminated in the signing of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government
Arrangements (Oslo I) in September 1993, famously sealed with a handshake between Israeli
Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn [26].
This was followed by the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip (Oslo II) in September 1995. The Oslo Accords represented a historic breakthrough,
as they involved mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO, and laid the groundwork for
a phased transfer of authority to a Palestinian interim self-governing authority, the
Palestinian Authority (PA) [27].
The core concept behind Oslo was a gradual, incremental approach to peace, based on the
principle of “land for peace.” It envisioned a five-year interim period during which final
status issues—such as borders, the status of Jerusalem, Israeli settlements, the right of return
for Palestinian refugees, and security arrangements—would be negotiated. The Accords led
to the establishment of the PA and granted limited Palestinian self-rule in designated areas
(Areas A and B) of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and facilitated the return of PLO
leadership to the Palestinian territories [28]. For many, Oslo offered a glimmer of hope for a
future two-state solution, where an independent Palestinian state would exist alongside
Israel.
However, the Oslo Accords ultimately failed to achieve a lasting peace, and their legacy
remains highly contentious. Several critical factors contributed to this failure:
Continued Israeli Settlement Expansion: Despite the spirit of the Accords and the
ongoing negotiations, Israel continued to expand its settlements in the West Bank and
East Jerusalem. This expansion was perceived by Palestinians as a deliberate
undermining of the peace process and a clear indication that Israel was not committed
to the creation of a viable, contiguous Palestinian state. The growth of settlements
eroded Palestinian trust and made the prospect of a future territorial compromise
increasingly difficult [29].
Lack of a Clear End-Game and Ambiguity: The Accords deliberately postponed the
most contentious final status issues, hoping that trust and cooperation would build over
the interim period. However, this ambiguity allowed both sides to interpret the
agreements differently and avoid difficult compromises. Without a clear and binding
framework for resolving core issues, the process became susceptible to political
pressures and a lack of decisive leadership [30].
Asymmetrical Power Dynamics: Critics argue that the Oslo framework perpetuated an
inherent power imbalance. Israel retained ultimate control over borders, airspace, water
resources, and security, thereby limiting the PA’s true sovereignty and its ability to
govern effectively. This asymmetry meant that the PA was often seen as a subcontractor
of the occupation rather than a genuine step towards independence, leading to
disillusionment among Palestinians [31].
Internal Opposition and Violence: Both Israeli and Palestinian societies experienced
significant internal opposition to the peace process. On the Israeli side, right-wing
factions and settler movements vehemently opposed territorial concessions,
culminating in the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 by a Jewish
extremist [32]. On the Palestinian side, groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad rejected the
Accords outright, viewing them as a capitulation to Israel and advocating for continued
armed resistance. Their attacks, including a series of suicide bombings, further
undermined public confidence in the peace process on both sides [33].
Economic Deterioration in Palestinian Territories: Despite promises of economic
prosperity, the Palestinian economy, particularly in Gaza, continued to suffer under
Israeli restrictions and closures. This economic hardship fueled resentment and
contributed to the sense that Oslo had not delivered tangible benefits to the average
Palestinian [34].
2.3.3 The Second Intifada (2000-2005): The Collapse of Hope
The cumulative failures of the Oslo process, coupled with growing frustration and despair, led
to the eruption of the Second Intifada in September 2000. The immediate trigger was a
provocative visit by then-opposition leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount/Haram al-
Sharif in Jerusalem, a highly sensitive holy site for both Jews and Muslims [35]. This act was
widely perceived by Palestinians as a deliberate provocation and a challenge to their claims
over East Jerusalem.
Unlike the largely civilian-led First Intifada, the Second Intifada was characterized by
widespread armed clashes, suicide bombings carried out by Palestinian militant groups
(including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah-affiliated Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades), and large-
scale military incursions and targeted assassinations by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) [36].
The violence escalated rapidly, resulting in thousands of casualties on both sides, with a
disproportionate number of Palestinian deaths and injuries. The IDF reoccupied many
Palestinian areas that had been under PA control, imposed severe curfews, and began the
construction of the Separation Barrier (often referred to as the
“security fence” by Israel, and the “apartheid wall” by Palestinians) in the West Bank [37].
The Second Intifada effectively dismantled much of the limited progress made during the
Oslo years. It led to a severe deterioration of the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian
territories, particularly in Gaza, which faced increasing restrictions on movement and
economic activity. The violence deepened mutual distrust and polarization between Israelis
and Palestinians, pushing the prospect of a negotiated two-state solution further out of
reach. The period was marked by a profound sense of disillusionment and a hardening of
positions on both sides, setting the stage for future unilateral actions and continued conflict
[38].
2.4 The Gaza Disengagement and the Ascendancy of
Hamas
The early 2000s witnessed a series of pivotal events that dramatically reshaped the political
landscape of the Gaza Strip, culminating in Israel’s unilateral disengagement and the
subsequent rise to power of Hamas. These developments have had profound and lasting
implications for the governance of Gaza, its relationship with Israel, and the broader Israeli-
Palestinian conflict, transforming Gaza into a distinct and often isolated entity within the
larger dispute.
2.4.1 Israel’s Unilateral Disengagement from Gaza (2005): A Strategic
Withdrawal
In 2004, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, a long-time proponent of Israeli settlement,
announced a controversial plan for Israel’s unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip
and the dismantling of all 21 Israeli settlements within the territory, along with four small
settlements in the northern West Bank. The disengagement was completed in August 2005,
involving the forced evacuation of approximately 9,000 Israeli settlers and the complete
withdrawal of the Israeli military from inside Gaza [39]. This move marked the first time Israel
had completely removed its settlements from occupied Palestinian territory.
The motivations behind the disengagement were complex and subject to considerable
debate. Sharon argued it was a necessary step to improve Israel’s security by reducing
friction with Palestinians and allowing the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to focus on other
threats, particularly in the West Bank. Some analysts viewed it as a strategic move to
consolidate Israeli control over larger settlement blocs in the West Bank while shedding the
demographic and security burden of governing a densely populated and volatile Gaza Strip
[40]. This perspective suggested that the disengagement was not a step towards a two-state
solution but rather a means to solidify Israel’s hold on other territories. Critics, however,
argued that the disengagement was a unilateral act that did not involve negotiations with the
Palestinian Authority, thereby undermining the prospect of a negotiated two-state solution
and effectively turning Gaza into an isolated entity, cut off from the West Bank and under
continued Israeli control from outside [41].
While Israel withdrew its ground forces and settlements, it maintained comprehensive
control over Gaza’s airspace, territorial waters, and all land crossings (except the Rafah
crossing with Egypt, which was later also subjected to severe restrictions). This continued
external control, coupled with subsequent restrictions on the movement of goods and
people, effectively transformed Gaza into what many international observers and human
rights organizations describe as an “open-air prison” [42]. This situation laid the
groundwork for the severe humanitarian crisis that would later engulf the Strip, as its
economy and population became increasingly dependent on external aid and vulnerable to
Israeli restrictions.
2.4.2 The Rise of Hamas and the 2007 Takeover: A New Political Reality
The vacuum created by Israel’s disengagement, coupled with growing disillusionment
among Palestinians with the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its Fatah leadership—perceived as
corrupt and ineffective—provided fertile ground for the ascendancy of Hamas. Hamas, an
acronym for Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah (Islamic Resistance Movement), emerged
during the First Intifada in the late 1980s. Its ideology combines Palestinian nationalism with
Islamic principles, advocating for armed resistance against Israeli occupation and the
establishment of an Islamic state in historic Palestine [43]. Unlike the secular PLO, Hamas
also focused significantly on providing social services, education, and welfare programs to
the Palestinian population, particularly in marginalized areas, thereby gaining significant
popular support, especially in Gaza [44].
In January 2006, Hamas made a strategic decision to participate in the Palestinian legislative
elections, a move that surprised many. Against expectations, Hamas secured a decisive
majority of seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council, winning 74 out of 132 seats. This
electoral victory sent shockwaves through the international community, as many Western
countries, including the United States and the European Union, had designated Hamas as a
terrorist organization [45]. In response to Hamas’s victory, the international community, led
by the U.S. and Israel, imposed a severe political and economic boycott on the Hamas-led
government, demanding that it recognize Israel, renounce violence, and accept past
agreements. This boycott exacerbated the already dire economic situation in the Palestinian
territories and deepened the internal political crisis [46].
The political tensions between Hamas and Fatah, which had long been simmering, escalated
into violent clashes in Gaza in June 2007. After several days of intense fighting, Hamas forces
decisively defeated Fatah loyalists, taking full military and administrative control of the Gaza
Strip. This internal Palestinian division effectively created two separate political entities: the
Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip and the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority in the West Bank,
further complicating efforts towards Palestinian unity and statehood [47].
The Hamas takeover of Gaza led to an intensified Israeli and Egyptian blockade of the Strip,
severely restricting the flow of goods, aid, and people. This blockade, imposed ostensibly for
security reasons by Israel and Egypt, has had a devastating and widely documented impact
on Gaza’s economy and humanitarian situation. It has resulted in chronic shortages of
electricity, clean water, medicine, and basic necessities, leading to a profound and ongoing
humanitarian crisis [48]. The rise of Hamas and the subsequent blockade have transformed
Gaza into a persistent flashpoint for repeated military confrontations with Israel, each
resulting in significant casualties and destruction, and further entrenching the cycle of
violence and despair. This historical trajectory underscores how Gaza, initially a component
of a broader regional conflict, became the epicenter of the Israel-Palestine struggle, marked
by occupation, resistance, internal divisions, and a deepening humanitarian crisis. The events
of 1967, the failures of the peace process, the disengagement, and the rise of Hamas are
critical milestones in understanding the contemporary challenges and the ongoing Israel-
Hamas war.
References
[1] Herzl, Theodor. The Jewish State. Dover Publications, 1988.
[[Link]
[2] Laqueur, Walter. A History of Zionism. Schocken, 2003.
[3] Cleveland, William L., and Martin Bunton. A History of the Modern Middle East. Westview
Press, 2016.
[4] Fromkin, David. A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation
of the Modern Middle East. Holt Paperbacks, 2001.
[5] Khalidi, Rashid. The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood. Beacon
Press, 2006.
[6] United Nations General Assembly. Resolution 181: The Partition Plan. November 29, 1947.
[[Link]
[7] Pappé, Ilan. The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oneworld Publications, 2006.
[8] Smith, Charles D. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2016.
[9] Nasser, Gamal Abdel. The Philosophy of the Revolution. Public Affairs Press, 1959.
[10] Quandt, William B. Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Since 1967. Brookings Institution Press, 2005.
[11] Sayigh, Yezid. Armed Struggle and the Search for State: The Palestinian National
Movement, 1949–1993. Oxford University Press, 1999.
[12] Lockman, Zachary, and Joel Beinin (Eds.). Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising Against
Israeli Occupation. South End Press, 1989.
[13] Oren, Michael B. Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East.
Oxford University Press, 2002.
[14] Shlaim, Avi. The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World. W. W. Norton & Company, 2001.
[15] Segev, Tom. 1967: Israel, the War, and the Year That Transformed the Middle East.
Metropolitan Books, 2007.
[16] Roy, Sara. Failing Peace: Gaza and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict. Pluto Press, 2007.
[17] B'Tselem. Israeli Settlement Policy in the West Bank.
[[Link]
[18] Said, Edward W. The Question of Palestine. Vintage Books, 1992.
[19] United Nations Security Council. Resolution 242. November 22, 1967.
[[Link]
[20] Shlaim, Avi. The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World. W. W. Norton & Company, 2001.
[21] Khalidi, Rashid. The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood.
Beacon Press, 2006.
[22] McDowall, David. Palestine and Israel: The Uprising and Beyond. I.B. Tauris, 1989.
[23] Nassar, Jamal R., and Roger Heacock (Eds.). Intifada: Palestine at the Crossroads.
Praeger, 1990.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Sayigh, Yezid. Armed Struggle and the Search for State: The Palestinian National
Movement, 1949–1993. Oxford University Press, 1999.
[26] Rabin, Yitzhak, and Yasser Arafat. Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government
Arrangements (Oslo I). September 13, 1993. [[Link]
dop93]
[27] Ross, Dennis. The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace.
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2004.
[28] Playfair, Emma. The Palestinian Authority: A Critical Assessment. Middle East Policy,
2000.
[29] B'Tselem. Israeli Settlement Policy in the West Bank.
[[Link]
[30] Pundak, Ron. The Secret Road to Oslo: Lessons in Diplomacy from the Back Channel. I.B.
Tauris, 2013.
[31] Said, Edward W. Peace and Its Discontents: Essays on Palestine in the Middle East Peace
Process. Vintage Books, 1996.
[32] Rabinovich, Itamar. Waging Peace: Israel and the Arabs, 1948-2003. Princeton University
Press, 2004.
[33] Milton-Edwards, Beverley. Hamas: The Islamic Resistance Movement. Polity Press, 2013.
[34] Roy, Sara. Failing Peace: Gaza and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict. Pluto Press, 2007.
[35] Hroub, Khaled. Hamas: Political Thought and Practice. Institute for Palestine Studies,
2000.
[36] Human Rights Watch. Israel, the Occupied Territories, and the Palestinian Authority: The
Second Intifada. 2002.
[37] United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). The
Humanitarian Impact of the Israeli Occupation of the Palestinian Territories.
[[Link]
[38] Chomsky, Noam. Middle East Illusions: Including Peace in the Middle East?. Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, 2003.
[39] Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Disengagement Plan.
[[Link]
[40] Harel, Amos, and Avi Issacharoff. 34 Days: Israel, Hezbollah, and the War in Lebanon.
Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
[41] Roy, Sara. Failing Peace: Gaza and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict. Pluto Press, 2007.
[42] Amnesty International. Gaza: The Humanitarian Impact of the Blockade.
[[Link]
blockade/]
[43] Milton-Edwards, Beverley. Hamas: The Islamic Resistance Movement. Polity Press, 2013.
[44] Roy, Sara. Hamas and Civil Society in Gaza: Engaging the Islamist Social Sector. Princeton
University Press, 2011.
[45] Council on Foreign Relations. Hamas. [[Link]
africa/hamas]
[46] Erlanger, Steven. “U.S. and Israel Block Aid to Palestinian Government.” The New York
Times, April 8, 2006.
[47] Hroub, Khaled. Hamas: A Beginner's Guide. Pluto Press, 2010.
[48] United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Gaza Strip:
Humanitarian Overview. Updated December 2023. [[Link]
strip-humanitarian-overview-december-2023]