Why is israel fighting in gaza
Executive summary
Israel is fighting in Gaza primarily in response to the Hamas-led surprise attack of 7 October 2023, which killed about 1,195 people and left 251 hostages, and to the continuing threat that Israeli leaders say Hamas poses to Israeli civilians and territory [1]; Israeli authorities and many Western officials frame military action as aimed at destroying Hamas’s military capabilities, securing the return of hostages, and preventing future attacks [2]. Critics and many rights groups counter that Israel’s campaign has produced massive civilian devastation, displacement and deaths in Gaza and that some actions meet standards cited by scholars and UN bodies as constituting crimes up to allegations of genocide, making the fighting equally about coercion, territorial control and political aims [1] [3].
1. The immediate trigger: October 7 and the hostage crisis
The war began when Hamas carried out a large-scale surprise assault on Israeli towns on 7 October 2023 that Israeli and other sources say killed roughly 1,195 people and resulted in 251 people taken hostage, a shock that set Israel’s political and military strategy for the months that followed [1]; recovering hostages — including operations to retrieve the remains of the last captive — has repeatedly been presented by Israeli leaders as a central motivation for continued operations inside Gaza [4] [5].
2. Stated Israeli objectives: degrade Hamas, neutralize threats, and change Gaza’s balance of power
Israeli officials and many allied diplomats have articulated goals of dismantling or substantially degrading Hamas’s armed capacity, preventing future cross-border attacks, and creating conditions in which “there will be no future in Gaza as long as Hamas possesses weapons,” language reflected in international plans and UN-discussed frameworks tied to ceasefire arrangements [2] [6]; analysts also point to a strategic aim of imposing long-term deterrence and reshaping Gaza’s internal balance through security arrangements and external policing proposals [7].
3. The humanitarian and legal counterargument: scale, proportionality and allegations of atrocities
Humanitarian reporting and rights organizations documented enormous civilian harm — massive displacement, widespread destruction and tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths by official Gaza figures — and some scholars and UN inquiries have concluded that Israel’s conduct meets thresholds for the gravest accusations, including allegations of genocide and severe violations of international humanitarian law, a framing that shapes global criticism of the campaign [1] [3].
4. Ceasefire diplomacy, phased plans, and the role of external patrons
Diplomatic efforts framed around U.S.-backed “Comprehensive” or twenty-point plans sought phased ceasefires, hostage exchanges, IDF withdrawals to set lines and increased aid flows, and while those plans have occasionally produced temporary pauses and a formal “phase two” declaration, many promised elements (full aid access, lasting withdrawals) have not been realized and disputes over implementation have sustained intermittent fighting [6] [2] [8].
5. Political drivers and competing narratives — security, domestic politics and regional strategy
Israeli decision-making is filtered through acute domestic political pressures, strategic rivalry with Iran and regional actors, and a desire to demonstrate “escalation dominance,” while some commentators warn that Israeli objectives risk entrenching a cycle of limited but persistent conflict rather than a durable settlement; conversely, proponents argue that military pressure is necessary to force a new security architecture in Gaza and to prevent renewed large-scale attacks [9] [10] [7].
6. The impasse: neither decisive victory nor stable peace
As multiple analysts and timelines show, the fighting has achieved major damage to Hamas’s infrastructure but failed to eliminate the broader political conflict or reconstruct Gaza in a way that resolves security dilemmas, producing a likely “new normal” of intermittent violence, fragile ceasefires and contested reconstruction that leaves core grievances unresolved [9] [7] [11].