Israel-Palestine Conflict History: From the Birth of Israel to the Gaza War and Its Uncertain Future
For decades, the Israel-Palestine conflict has appeared in the headlines as if every new crisis were a separate story.
A rocket is fired.
An airstrike follows.
A ceasefire is announced.
Negotiations begin.
The negotiations collapse.
And eventually, another war starts.
But behind every new explosion is a much older history.
The Gaza war that began after Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, was not created in a single morning. That attack was a dramatic turning point, but the political conflict surrounding Israel and Palestine had already been developing for more than a century.
It is a history shaped by two national movements claiming the same land, the creation of Israel, the displacement of Palestinians, wars between Israel and Arab states, military occupation, the rise of Palestinian armed groups, failed peace agreements, Israeli security fears and generations of civilians who have grown up surrounded by conflict.
And by 2026, another chapter has begun.
The large-scale war that devastated Gaza has moved into a fragile post-war and ceasefire phase. Yet Gaza is still unsafe, humanitarian needs remain enormous, and negotiations over Hamas’s weapons and Israel’s military withdrawal remain unresolved. Recent diplomatic efforts have focused on a difficult bargain: Hamas would eventually give up its weapons while Israel would withdraw from parts of Gaza, but the two sides continue to disagree over which step must come first.
To understand why this has become so difficult, we have to go back to the beginning.
The Land Claimed by Two Peoples
Long before the modern State of Israel existed, Palestine was home to an Arab population that included Muslims and Christians, alongside a smaller Jewish population.
The political situation began changing dramatically during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
European antisemitism had convinced many Jews that they needed a homeland of their own. The Zionist movement emerged with the goal of establishing a Jewish national home in the historic land of Israel.
At almost the same time, Arab nationalism was developing across the Middle East.
Palestinian Arabs increasingly saw themselves as a people with their own national and political rights.
This created a fundamental problem.
Two national movements were developing around the same territory.
For Zionists, the land represented a historic homeland and a potential refuge from persecution.
For Palestinian Arabs, it was the country in which their families had lived for generations.
The conflict therefore was never simply about religion.
It was also about land, identity, nationalism, political control and the future of two peoples.
British Rule Made the Conflict More Complicated
The First World War dramatically changed the region.
The Ottoman Empire collapsed, and Britain took control of Palestine under a League of Nations mandate.
During the British period, Jewish immigration increased significantly.
The rise of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust made the Jewish demand for a secure homeland even more urgent.
Millions of Jews had been murdered in Europe.
For survivors, the idea of having a state capable of protecting Jewish people was no longer simply a political dream. It had become a matter of survival.
But Palestinian Arabs were increasingly alarmed by demographic and political changes in their homeland.
Violence between Jewish and Arab communities increased.
Britain struggled to satisfy both sides.
Eventually, the British government decided that the problem had become too difficult to manage and handed the issue to the newly created United Nations.
That decision would lead to one of the most important moments in modern Middle Eastern history.
1947: The United Nations Partition Plan
In 1947, the United Nations proposed dividing Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem receiving a special international status.
Jewish representatives accepted the basic idea of partition, although there were reservations about the proposed borders.
Arab Palestinian leaders and surrounding Arab governments rejected the plan.
Their argument was straightforward: Palestinians constituted the majority of the population at the time and believed they were being asked to surrender too much of their homeland.
The disagreement soon became violent.
Then, in May 1948, Jewish leaders declared the establishment of the State of Israel.
The United States and several other countries recognized the new state.
Neighbouring Arab countries entered the war.
The first Arab-Israeli war had begun.
1948 and the Palestinian Nakba
Israel survived the war and ended up controlling more territory than had been allocated to the Jewish state under the UN partition proposal.
But the war created another tragedy that remains central to Palestinian identity.
Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homes.
Palestinians call this event the Nakba, or “catastrophe.”
Many families became refugees.
Some moved to the West Bank.
Others went to Gaza.
Others crossed into neighbouring Arab countries.
For Palestinians, the refugee question became one of the defining unresolved issues of the conflict.
For Israel, meanwhile, 1948 represented independence after centuries of Jewish persecution and the Holocaust.
These two memories independence and catastrophe became foundational narratives for the two societies.
And they still influence politics today.
1967: Another War Redrew the Region
Nineteen years later, another war transformed the map.
In June 1967, Israel fought Egypt, Jordan and Syria in what became known as the Six-Day War.
Israel captured the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights.
Egypt eventually regained Sinai through diplomacy.
But the West Bank and Gaza became central to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Millions of Palestinians came under Israeli military control.
The question of occupation would dominate international diplomacy for decades.
Israeli settlements began developing in territories captured in 1967, while Palestinians increasingly demanded independence.
The international community largely came to view a negotiated two-state solution as the most realistic answer.
But every attempt to create that solution encountered the same difficult questions.
What would happen to Jerusalem?
Where would the border be?
What would happen to Israeli settlements?
Would Palestinian refugees be allowed to return?
How could Israel guarantee its security?
And what would happen to Palestinian armed groups?
These questions were never fully resolved.
The Rise of the Palestinian Liberation Movement
During the second half of the twentieth century, the Palestine Liberation Organization became the internationally recognized political representative of the Palestinian national movement.
Yasser Arafat eventually became its most recognizable leader.
For years, Israel and the PLO were enemies.
Then something remarkable happened.
Both sides began talking.
The result was the Oslo peace process.
For a brief period, it appeared that the conflict might finally be moving toward a political solution.
Oslo: When Peace Suddenly Looked Possible
The Oslo Accords of the 1990s created the Palestinian Authority and established limited Palestinian self-rule in parts of Gaza and the West Bank.
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO leader Yasser Arafat became symbols of a new possibility.
The basic idea was that limited cooperation would eventually lead toward a permanent settlement.
But the peace process had powerful enemies.
Palestinian militants opposed negotiations with Israel.
Israeli extremists opposed territorial concessions.
Violence continued.
Then came the assassination that shocked Israel.
In November 1995, an Israeli Jewish extremist assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin after a peace rally in Tel Aviv.
The assassination was not simply the killing of a prime minister.
It became a symbol of how difficult compromise had become inside Israeli society.
The peace process weakened.
Eventually, the Second Intifada erupted.
Suicide bombings, shootings, military operations and mass arrests destroyed much of the trust that Oslo had created.
The two societies moved further apart.
Israel Leaves Gaza but Gaza Does Not Become Free
One of the most misunderstood chapters in the history of Gaza came in 2005.
Israel withdrew its soldiers and settlers from the Gaza Strip.
But the withdrawal did not bring political stability.
Hamas, an Islamist Palestinian movement founded during the First Intifada, had been gaining political influence for years.
In the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, Hamas performed strongly.
A year later, Hamas violently took control of Gaza after fighting with Fatah.
That created a political split that continues to shape Palestinian politics.
The Palestinian Authority, led by Fatah, remained dominant in parts of the West Bank.
Hamas controlled Gaza.
From that point forward, there were effectively two competing Palestinian political centres.
This division would later become one of the most important factors in the Gaza conflict.
The Blockade and the Gaza Wars
After Hamas took control of Gaza, Israel and Egypt imposed severe restrictions on movement and goods entering and leaving the territory.
Israel argued that restrictions were necessary to prevent weapons from reaching Hamas.
Critics argued that the restrictions also punished Gaza’s civilian population.
Meanwhile, Hamas and other armed groups continued firing rockets toward Israel.
Israel responded with airstrikes and military operations.
Major rounds of fighting took place in 2008–09, 2012, 2014, 2021 and other periods of escalation.
Each conflict ended with some form of ceasefire.
But none solved the underlying political problem.
Gaza remained under Hamas.
Israel remained concerned about rockets and weapons.
Egypt continued controlling its side of the border.
And ordinary Palestinians remained trapped between political isolation and worsening economic conditions.
By 2023, the situation had become extremely fragile.
Then came October 7.
October 7, 2023: The Day Israel’s Security System Failed
The morning of October 7 changed the conflict forever.
Hamas-led fighters broke through the heavily fortified Gaza-Israel border.
Thousands of rockets were launched toward Israel.
Armed groups attacked Israeli communities and military positions.
The Nova music festival became one of the most infamous scenes of the attack.
Approximately 1,200 people were killed in Israel, according to Israeli figures, and 251 people were taken hostage.
The scale of the attack stunned Israel.
A country famous for intelligence agencies, surveillance technology and military preparedness had failed to prevent an operation of enormous scale.
For Israeli society, October 7 became a national trauma.
For the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, the response was immediate.
The central objective was declared clearly:
Destroy Hamas’s military capabilities and bring the hostages home.
But accomplishing those objectives would require a war inside one of the most densely populated places on Earth.
Israel Declares War on Hamas
Israel launched a massive military campaign against Gaza.
Airstrikes hit areas across the territory.
The Israeli government said it was targeting Hamas’s military infrastructure, commanders, rocket systems and tunnel network.
As the campaign expanded, Israeli ground forces entered Gaza.
Israel argued that Hamas had built a sophisticated underground military system and operated from within densely populated areas.
The Israeli military later reported extensive tunnel networks and thousands of tunnel entrances.
But the problem was obvious.
Hamas did not exist in an empty desert.
It operated in a territory containing more than two million civilians.
Hospitals, schools, apartment buildings, refugee camps and residential neighbourhoods were all part of the environment in which the fighting occurred.
The result was catastrophic.
Gaza Became the Centre of a Global Humanitarian Crisis
The war quickly produced a humanitarian emergency.
Families were forced to leave their homes repeatedly.
Large areas were destroyed.
Hospitals struggled with shortages of equipment, fuel and medicines.
Water and sanitation systems were damaged.
Food insecurity became widespread.
The United Nations and humanitarian organizations repeatedly warned that Gaza’s civilian population was facing extraordinary hardship.
Even after the 2025 ceasefire, those problems did not disappear.
In August 2026, the UN humanitarian office continued to describe Gaza as a place of severe humanitarian need, with restrictions and funding shortages affecting relief operations.
The World Food Programme also reported that although food insecurity had improved somewhat, humanitarian conditions remained fragile and around 1.4 million people were still facing major needs.
This is why the word “ceasefire” can be misleading.
A ceasefire can reduce large-scale combat.
It does not instantly rebuild a destroyed hospital.
It does not bring back a demolished home.
It does not restore a family’s livelihood.
And it certainly does not erase trauma.
The Northern Gaza Evacuation
One of the most controversial moments of the war came when Israel ordered civilians in northern Gaza to move south.
Israel argued that the evacuation was necessary because it was preparing major military operations against Hamas in the north.
The United Nations and humanitarian organizations warned that moving such a huge population in the middle of a war was extremely difficult.
Hospitals faced an especially impossible situation.
Patients on ventilators could not simply be placed into cars.
Dialysis patients could not safely travel without medical support.
Pregnant women, elderly people, disabled people and children faced enormous challenges.
The evacuation therefore became another major point of international controversy.
For Israel, it was a security measure.
For humanitarian organizations, it raised serious concerns about civilian protection.
For Palestinians, many feared that leaving their homes could become another permanent displacement.
That fear had historical roots.
Palestinians had not forgotten 1948.
Rafah Became a Symbol of Escape
As fighting expanded, millions of Palestinians searched for somewhere safer.
But Gaza is geographically trapped.
The Mediterranean Sea lies to the west.
Israel surrounds much of the territory.
And Egypt controls the southern border.
That made Rafah extremely important.
For many Palestinians, Rafah was the potential exit route.
But Egypt was deeply concerned about a mass refugee movement into Sinai.
Egypt feared that if Palestinians left Gaza on a large scale, they might never be allowed to return.
That concern was not simply about the current war.
It was connected to the history of Palestinian displacement.
This is why the Rafah crossing became one of the most politically sensitive locations in the entire conflict.
The Hostages Became Israel’s Greatest Political Pressure Point
While Gaza’s humanitarian disaster dominated international attention, Israeli families were living through another nightmare.
Their relatives had been taken hostage.
For months, families of hostages demanded that the government do everything possible to bring them home.
This created an increasingly complicated political argument.
Some Israelis believed military pressure was the only way to force Hamas to release hostages.
Others argued that negotiations were more likely to save them.
The debate became deeply emotional.
Every hostage release brought relief.
Every announcement about a hostage death brought another wave of grief.
The hostage issue eventually became one of the biggest political pressures on Netanyahu’s government.
It also became central to every ceasefire negotiation.
Hezbollah and the Threat of a Regional War
The Gaza war never existed in isolation.
Israel’s northern border with Lebanon quickly became another danger zone.
Hezbollah, a powerful Iran-backed Lebanese armed group, exchanged fire with Israel.
The memory of the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war made the situation particularly frightening.
The fear was simple:
What if the Gaza conflict became a regional war?
Israel was already fighting Hamas.
A major Hezbollah offensive could open another battlefield.
Iran-backed groups in Iraq, Syria and Yemen could potentially become involved.
Iran itself could be pulled deeper into the crisis.
The United States could also become involved more directly.
This was one reason governments around the world repeatedly called for preventing the conflict from spreading.
Iran and the Wider Middle Eastern Power Struggle
Iran’s relationship with Hamas and Hezbollah added another layer to the conflict.
Iran has long supported groups that oppose Israel.
Israel considers Iran and its regional network one of its most serious strategic threats.
For Tehran, support for Palestinian armed groups is part of a broader regional strategy and ideological opposition to Israel.
This does not mean Iran directly controlled every decision made by Hamas or Hezbollah.
These organizations have their own leadership and interests.
But Iranian financial, military and political support has helped strengthen them.
That is why every Israel–Palestine crisis has the potential to become part of a much larger Middle Eastern power struggle.
How Did Israel Miss October 7?
One of the biggest questions after the attack was not simply how Hamas carried it out.
It was:
How did Israel fail to stop it?
Israel had extensive intelligence capabilities.
Gaza was closely monitored.
The border was heavily fortified.
Yet Hamas was able to prepare and execute a massive assault.
After the attack, reports emerged about warnings and unusual intelligence activity before October 7.
The debate quickly became political.
Was intelligence available but misunderstood?
Did officials underestimate Hamas?
Did Israel’s political leadership become too confident in its strategy of containing Hamas?
Did the security establishment fail to imagine that Hamas would attempt such a large operation?
These questions remain important.
The October 7 attack was not just a military failure.
It became a political failure as well.
And Israelis continue to demand answers.
Netanyahu’s Political Problems Before the War
October 7 also needs to be understood against the background of Israeli politics.
Before the attack, Israel had experienced intense political instability.
Benjamin Netanyahu had returned to power at the head of a right-wing coalition.
His government pursued controversial judicial reforms.
Large demonstrations took place across Israel.
Supporters said the reforms were necessary to rebalance power between elected politicians and the judiciary.
Opponents argued that they threatened democratic checks and balances.
The debate became so intense that Israeli society was deeply divided.
Then October 7 happened.
The political argument was suddenly replaced by a national emergency.
But after the initial shock, criticism returned.
Why had the government failed to protect the border?
Why had intelligence warnings not produced sufficient action?
Who was responsible?
And who would ultimately accept responsibility?
Netanyahu’s Corruption Cases
Netanyahu was already facing a separate political and legal challenge.
He has been on trial in corruption cases involving allegations of bribery, fraud and breach of trust.
Netanyahu denies wrongdoing.
The legal proceedings have been a major part of Israeli politics for years.
His supporters have described the cases as politically motivated.
Critics have argued that the allegations demonstrate why stronger checks on political power are necessary.
The war changed the political environment, but it did not erase these legal questions.
Instead, the conflict placed even greater attention on Netanyahu’s political survival.
Did Netanyahu’s Policy Help Hamas Grow?
Perhaps one of the most controversial arguments surrounding the war concerns Netanyahu’s long-term strategy toward Hamas.
Critics have argued that Netanyahu preferred dealing with Hamas-controlled Gaza as a separate political entity rather than supporting a unified Palestinian leadership.
Their argument is that maintaining the political division between Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank made a future Palestinian state more difficult.
There were also arrangements under which Qatari money was allowed to enter Gaza.
The Israeli government argued that humanitarian and economic assistance was necessary to prevent Gaza from collapsing.
Critics argued that these arrangements ultimately strengthened Hamas’s position.
This is one of the most controversial aspects of the pre-war strategy.
It would be too simplistic to say that Netanyahu “created Hamas.”
Hamas existed independently and had its own ideology, organization and military strategy.
But the argument that Israeli policy helped maintain the conditions in which Hamas could remain politically dominant is now a major part of the debate inside Israel.
And after October 7, that debate became much louder.
Israel’s Own Public Debate
It is important not to treat Israel as a single political voice.
Israeli society contains enormous disagreement.
Some Israelis believe the government must continue military operations until Hamas is completely dismantled.
Others believe the war has gone too far.
Some demand the resignation of Netanyahu.
Others believe removing him during a war would be dangerous.
Some prioritize the return of hostages.
Others prioritize eliminating Hamas.
And many Israelis simply want security and an end to the fighting.
That diversity matters.
Likewise, Palestinians are not politically identical.
Some support Hamas.
Some support Fatah.
Some support neither.
Many civilians simply want to survive.
A serious history of the conflict must distinguish governments and armed organizations from ordinary people.
The October 2025 Ceasefire Changed the Story
After almost two years of devastating warfare, the conflict entered a new phase with the October 2025 ceasefire framework.
The agreement created the basis for reducing fighting, addressing the hostage issue and beginning discussions about Gaza’s future.
But the hardest part was still ahead.
Who would control Gaza?
Would Hamas surrender its weapons?
Would Israeli forces withdraw?
Who would provide security?
Who would rebuild Gaza?
And who would pay for it?
The ceasefire therefore did not solve the conflict.
It moved the conflict from one battlefield to another from military operations to diplomacy.
Gaza in August 2026: A Ceasefire Under Pressure
Now we reach the present.
As of August 2026, the ceasefire framework remains in place, but it is extremely fragile.
Recent Israeli strikes have continued to kill Palestinians despite the ceasefire.
Mediators including Egypt, Qatar and Turkey have criticized the attacks and warned that continued violence could undermine the diplomatic process.
The United Nations has also continued documenting humanitarian needs and civilian risks in Gaza.
So the question is no longer simply whether the war can stop.
The bigger question is whether the ceasefire can become a genuine political settlement.
And that depends heavily on one issue:
Hamas’s weapons.
The Biggest Deadlock: Hamas Must Disarm
The current diplomatic framework places enormous importance on Hamas disarmament.
The United States-backed roadmap envisions Hamas giving up its military capabilities while Gaza moves toward a new political and security structure.
Hamas has indicated willingness to discuss disarmament under a broader political arrangement.
But Israel remains deeply skeptical.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has argued that Israeli forces cannot withdraw fully while Hamas remains armed.
That creates a classic deadlock.
Hamas says:
Israel must withdraw.
Israel says:
Hamas must disarm first.
Both sides fear that making the first move could leave them vulnerable.
This is why negotiations have repeatedly stalled.
Recent diplomatic efforts have tried to create a sequencing mechanism in which disarmament and Israeli withdrawal happen through a monitored process.
But as of August 2026, the disagreement remains unresolved.
The New Question: Who Will Govern Gaza?
The future of Gaza may ultimately depend on who replaces Hamas as the governing authority.
One possibility is a reformed Palestinian administration.
Another involves a technocratic Palestinian government supported by Arab and international actors.
There have also been proposals involving an international stabilization force.
The United States has committed more than $200 million toward infrastructure and operations for a proposed international stabilization force, according to Reuters.
But money alone cannot solve the political problem.
A government needs legitimacy.
A security force needs public acceptance.
And reconstruction requires a stable environment.
If Gaza remains politically divided and militarily unstable, reconstruction will be extraordinarily difficult.
Rebuilding Gaza Could Take a Generation
Imagine losing your home during a war.
Then imagine that your neighbourhood has lost its roads.
The nearest hospital is damaged.
The water system does not work properly.
Schools are destroyed.
Businesses have disappeared.
And the political situation remains uncertain.
That is the challenge facing Gaza.
Reconstruction is therefore not simply about pouring concrete.
It means rebuilding an entire civilian society.
Homes.
Hospitals.
Schools.
Electricity.
Water.
Sewage systems.
Roads.
Universities.
Businesses.
Government institutions.
And perhaps most importantly, people’s confidence that their rebuilt lives will not be destroyed again.
That is why reconstruction and security cannot be separated.
The Conflict Is Also a War of Memory
There is another reason this conflict is so difficult to resolve.
Israelis and Palestinians remember history differently.
For many Israelis, the central historical lesson is Jewish persecution and the need for a secure Jewish state.
For Palestinians, the central historical memory is displacement, occupation and the loss of their homeland.
Israel remembers wars fought for survival.
Palestinians remember the Nakba.
Israel remembers suicide bombings and rocket attacks.
Palestinians remember military checkpoints, settlements, blockade and destruction.
Both communities carry genuine trauma.
And political leaders often use those memories to strengthen their own positions.
That makes compromise extremely difficult.
Why Peace Has Been So Difficult
Every peace proposal eventually runs into the same fundamental issues.
Borders.
Jerusalem.
Israeli settlements.
Palestinian statehood.
Refugees.
Security.
Hamas.
Israeli military presence.
None of these questions has an easy answer.
And there is another problem that is perhaps even more important:
Trust.
After October 7, many Israelis ask:
“How can we trust a Palestinian state to protect us?”
After the Gaza war, many Palestinians ask:
“How can we trust Israel to respect our freedom and sovereignty?”
Without answers to both questions, peace remains extremely difficult.
What the World Should Learn From Gaza
There is a temptation in every war to choose one side completely.
But history is more complicated than slogans.
The October 7 attack was a devastating assault on Israeli civilians.
The Israeli military campaign caused enormous suffering and destruction among Palestinian civilians.
Both facts can be acknowledged at the same time.
Condemning the killing of Israeli civilians does not require ignoring Palestinian suffering.
Recognizing Palestinian suffering does not require defending attacks on Israeli civilians.
That distinction is essential.
A government is not the same thing as its civilians.
A militant organization is not the same thing as the entire population it claims to represent.
And ordinary people should never be reduced to the actions of political leaders or armed groups.
Israel and Palestine in 2026: What Happens Next?
The next chapter remains uncertain.
The current diplomatic process could eventually produce a demilitarized Gaza under new Palestinian administration.
An international stabilization force could help maintain security.
Reconstruction could begin on a much larger scale.
Israel could gradually reduce its military presence.
But there is another possibility.
The disarmament negotiations could fail.
Israel could resume large-scale military operations.
Hamas could refuse to surrender its remaining military capabilities.
The ceasefire could collapse.
And the region could return to war.
That is precisely why the current diplomatic moment matters so much.
The opportunity is fragile.
The Real History of the Israel Palestine Conflict
After more than a century, the conflict cannot be explained through one event.
It did not begin with Hamas.
It did not begin with Netanyahu.
It did not begin in 2023.
It did not even begin in 1948.
The modern conflict developed through decades of competing national aspirations, British rule, Jewish immigration, Palestinian nationalism, the Holocaust, the creation of Israel, the Nakba, Arab-Israeli wars, the occupation, the rise of the PLO, Oslo, the Second Intifada, Hamas’s rise and repeated wars in Gaza.
October 7, 2023, was therefore not the beginning of the story.
It was a dramatic explosion in a story that had been building for generations.
And the war that followed did not erase that history.
It added another devastating chapter to it.
Conclusion: The Story Is Still Unfinished
The history of Israel and Palestine is ultimately a story about people who want security, dignity, identity and a place they can call home.
Israelis want to live without fearing another October 7.
Palestinians want to live without occupation, blockade, displacement and the constant fear of war.
Those aspirations do not have to be mutually exclusive.
But achieving them requires political decisions that have repeatedly been postponed.
As of August 2026, Gaza is standing at a dangerous crossroads.
The ceasefire has created an opportunity, but the violence has not disappeared. Humanitarian needs remain severe, and the political dispute over Hamas’s disarmament and Israeli withdrawal continues to threaten the process.
The next phase will not be decided only by soldiers.
It will be decided by negotiators, politicians, Palestinians, Israelis, Arab governments, international organizations and perhaps most importantly, by whether both sides can accept that the future cannot simply be another version of the past.
Because military victories can destroy armies.
They can destroy weapons.
They can destroy buildings.
But they cannot, by themselves, solve the political questions that created a conflict in the first place.
And that is why the history of Israel and Palestine is still being written.
##Sources & References
- Associated Press (AP) – Latest Gaza and ceasefire developments
- Reuters – 2026 Gaza ceasefire, Hamas disarmament and Israeli withdrawal updates
- Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) – Israel-Palestine conflict history and timeline
- United Nations OCHA – Gaza humanitarian situation and latest 2026 updates
- World Health Organization (WHO) – Gaza healthcare and humanitarian situation
When Did the Israel–Palestine Conflict Begin?
The modern conflict developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as Jewish and Palestinian national movements grew.
The creation of Israel in 1948 became a major turning point in the Israel–Palestine conflict.
Why Did the Gaza War Begin in 2023?
The Gaza war began after the Hamas-led attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
Israel responded with a major military campaign against Hamas across the Gaza Strip.
What Happened on October 7, 2023?
Hamas-led fighters attacked southern Israel and launched thousands of rockets, killing about 1,200 people.
The attackers also took 251 hostages, triggering the major Gaza war.
Why Is Gaza So Important in the Israel–Palestine Conflict?
Gaza is home to more than two million Palestinians and has been controlled by Hamas since 2007.
Its security, governance and future remain central to the wider Israel–Palestine conflict.
What Is the Future of the Israel–Palestine Conflict?
The future depends on difficult issues including Palestinian statehood, Israeli security and Gaza’s governance.
A lasting solution will require a political agreement that addresses the rights and security of both peoples.
