In March of this year, The Granite Tower (GT) featured an article citing the concerns expressed by political analysts in relation to the re-election of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel and the perception of a “significantly more extreme” agenda. Back then, commentators were suggesting that an escalation of the Israel–Palestine conflict might be on the horizon. Fast-forward to October and armed groups operating from the Gaza Strip launched an attack on Israel – a development interpreted by some Palestinian factions as being linked to recent shifts in the surrounding state’s political direction. In the wake of these events, a fresh and bloody confrontation has erupted, giving rise to a dire humanitarian crisis marked by a distressing number of civilian victims. 

It may not seem like it, but the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has a relatively short history. The start of the conflict dates back to 1947, when the United Nations (UN) adopted Resolution 181, also known as the partition plan. The Palestinian land that was under Britain’s command back then was divided among the local Arab population and the Jewish community. This sparked the first Arab–Israeli war in 1948, which ended with Israel’s victory. Accordingly, the Palestinian land was divided into three areas: the State of Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. With Israel winning the wars that followed, they gained more approval from neighboring countries. Consequently, the surveillance of and discrimination against Palestinians, especially those in the Gaza Strip, has worsened throughout the years. 

On October 7, 2023, Israeli citizens in Jerusalem were warned by blaring sirens that they were under attack and that citizens should immediately evacuate. It was later revealed that the Hamas militants fired more than 2,000 rockets towards southern and central Israel. Hamas is an independent organization from the central Palestinian government – the Palestinian Authority (PA) – which has controlled Gaza since 2006 and used force to fight against the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Shortly after the attack, Mohammed Deif, the commander-in-chief of Hamas, released a video stating that his organization was responsible for the attack. “Israel is at war,” Netanyahu stated after a strike on Gaza by Israeli jet fighters. On October 14, according to CNN, the IDF declared that they would conduct an “integrated and coordinated attack from the air, sea and land” on Gaza City, with an emphasis on a “significant ground operation;” they then added that “all residents of Gaza City should evacuate their homes” and “move south for their protection.” 

However, it is necessary to consider that Hamas’s attack against Israel did not happen in a vacuum, especially given that the current Israeli government, which was inaugurated in December 2022, is seen as the most conservative and religious government in the nation’s history. According to CBS News, Hamas has stated that they were motivated to launch the attack as a culmination of long-building anger over Israeli policy. Additionally, an anonymous KU student told GT that the organization initially targeted military targets and intended to kidnap hostages in exchange for the over 5,000 Palestinian detainees in Israeli jails. A specific episode that triggered the renewed belligerence was also the recent outbreaks of violence at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, a holy place from which Arab Muslims are often barred. 

The Impact on Civilians 

Despite the targeting of several Israeli citizens and hostages, Israel’s retaliation in Gaza has had a quantifiably greater impact on the local Palestinian population, as indicated by the official list of victims published by the Palestinian Ministry of Health. However, even before recent hostilities, the Gaza Strip, a small territory of approximately 360 square kilometers, was already grappling with a humanitarian emergency that has been widely attributed to the sixteen- year-long blockade imposed by Israel. As a result, nearly 95 percent of the population lacks access to clean water, with over half of Gaza reliant on international assistance for basic services. Notably, around 80 percent of Gaza’s residents are considered refugees under international law, and – as reported by NPR News – nearly half of them are under the age of 18. 

Following Hamas’s assault on Israel, a significant number of casualties occurred on both sides, but statistically, the relentless bombardment by the IDF has claimed the most victims. These attacks have caused enormous damage to civilian infrastructure, including medical facilities, residential buildings, and sanitation facilities, resulting in a tragic loss of lives. To make matters worse, CNN explained that, on October 7, Israeli Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant declared a “complete siege” on Gaza, affecting the delivery of electricity, food, fuel, and water. Additionally, Israeli Energy Minister Israel Katz indicated that these supplies would remain cut off until the hostages held by Hamas were released. The siege naturally exacerbated the previous humanitarian struggles within the Gaza Strip, with concerns over the risk of starvation due to Israel enforcing increasingly harsh restrictions. The World Health Organization (WHO) responded to the emergency by issuing a somber warning about an impending “public health catastrophe” in Gaza, emphasizing that healthcare facilities and other crucial public services were facing the threat of collapse due to shortages of fuel and medical supplies. 

The targeting of public facilities, including hospitals, has raised complex ethical concerns. In defense of its strategies, the IDF released an infographic claiming that Hamas was operating its command headquarters under a hospital, potentially explaining the targeting of these facilities. According to their explanation, Gaza’s unique densely populated urban environment consequently made it more likely for Hamas to operate within civilian areas. Regardless of the veracity of these claims, several headlines and public figures vehemently pointed out international laws which mandates that, even if an armed force misuses civilians as shields, its enemy is still required to protect civilians from disproportionate harm. 

The blockade of Gaza’s borders and restrictions on humanitarian aid have further complicated the situation. Israel shut off the crossing between Egypt and Gaza for an extended period – as did the Egyptian government initially – limiting the flow of essential humanitarian aid. Although some relief deliveries were allowed to resume on October 21, they fell short of meeting the required amount. According to the UN, at least 100 trucks a day are needed to supply urgently required provisions, including food, water, medicine, and fuel. On a positive note, selected foreign visitors, dual citizens, and severely wounded individuals have been allowed to leave Gaza since November 1. 

Western Countries’ Response and Underlying Relations 

According to UN News, the United States (U.S.) vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that included “humanitarian pauses” to provide aid for those in Gaza on October 18. U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield explained the country’s veto in the Council chamber stating, “This resolution did not mention Israel’s right of self-defense.” If any of the five permanent members of the Council – China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom (UK), and the U.S. – votes against a resolution, it cannot be implemented by any means. The veto by the U.S. is also closely related to President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel on the same day. NPR News reported that Biden’s visit was intended to reassure Israel that the U.S. would provide support and warn other Arab countries, such as Iran and Hezbollah, not to join the conflict. 

Biden, however, stated that there should be a “humanitarian pause” in the Israel–Hamas war after making a campaign speech in Minneapolis on November 1, when a protester called for a cease-fire. Like the UN Security  Council, the White House has also refused a cease-fire, but has sent signals that Israel should consider pausing their hostilities so assistance can be given to the victims of the war in the Gaza Strip. AP News noted that President Biden is under pressure from human rights groups, fellow world leaders, and even the liberal members of his own Democratic Party, who insist that it is time for a cease- fire. These pressures have intensified and prompted the Director of the New York Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Craig Mokhiber to leave his post. Mokhiber stated in his resignation letter, “Once again we are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes and the organizations we serve appear powerless to stop it.” According to The Guardian, he stated that “the U.S. and most of Europe were not only denying their obligations under the Geneva Convention but also arming Israel’s assault and providing political and diplomatic cover for it.” 

Professor Kim Jong-do, current chief of the Korea University (KU) Middle East–Islam Center, commented that the “pause” Biden referred to did not represent the true intentions of the U.S. Professor Kim explained that the U.S. would never let the Palestinians fulfill their desires for several reasons. The most direct and superficial explanation is that the U.S. has conventionally been friendly toward Israel due to the influence and power of Jewish people in U.S. politics and finance. However, the U.S.’s experience with terrorism inflicted by the Taliban and their failed Middle East policies, such as the withdrawal from Afghanistan, must also be considered in its stance in the Israel–Hamas confrontation.

Europe is also more hesitant to act with regard to the Israel–Hamas war than it was with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, where it was unanimous in its condemnation. In particular, European Union (EU) aid for the Palestinians has been suspended and then restored again and ambiguous messaging regarding the need for Israel to defend itself within the limits of international humanitarian law has been disseminated. 

The Response of Middle-Eastern Countries 

Countries neighboring Israel and Palestine are also struggling to adopt a clear position on the war. Arab countries and Israel have traditionally been hostile to each other but, since the signing of the Abraham Accords peace treaty between the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the U.S., and Israel in 2020, there had been no direct conflict between the two sides before this most recent war. Professor Kim explains that Arab countries that are close to the U.S. are being pressured to condemn Hamas, and other countries that were originally close to Palestine are hoping that the war would be as short as possible. According to Reuters, the UAE, a well-known ally of the U.S., described the attacks by Hamas as a “serious and grave escalation”, stating that “civilians on both sides must always have full protection under international humanitarian law and must never be a target of conflict.” Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt are reluctant to deal with the negative consequences of the war, such as refugees or economic damage. Lebanon and Syria have also not directly intervened or backed Hamas, stating their support for the central Palestinian government (PA) in the West Bank. Only Iran has directly shown support for Hamas. Professor Kim concludes, “The current situation in the Middle East shows that the union of Arab countries is not as easy as it was before.” 

The stance of the current Korean administration is relatively neutral. On October 7, the Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced through a statement from a spokesperson that they condemned the indiscriminate attacks by Gaza on Israel, adding that Hamas should immediately stop these attacks. They added that they were deeply regretful of the civilian casualties and were sorrowful for the victims and their bereaved families. Although it may have appeared that Korea was supportive of Israel, the stance of the Korean administration cannot be interpreted as hostile to Palestine or the Arab countries that support Hamas. Professor Kim thinks that the conflict will never cease, and Korea is being careful not to become an enemy of either side. He says, “Korea has no debt to either side,” and that the Korean administration has accordingly “adopted a rather theoretical stance, expecting the war to be over quickly.” 

Professor Kim also believes that this war could cause more damage than expected. He explains that this is because the Israel government has failed to get the international community on their side, thus “in this war, the damage that the Israelis have incurred has not been made known to the international audience, whereas the ground war in Gaza and the anti- humanistic conduct of the Israelis have been widely broadcast. This may represent the instinctive trait of mankind to favor the weak.” Professor Kim continues that the effect of the public turning their backs on Israel could lead to “a rise in anti-Westernism and anti-Americanism, offering a pretext for Arab countries to restructure based on Islamic ideologies. Muslim monarchies regulate domestic politics via strict rules. Economically, the price of oil would surge, and this would not only be a catastrophe for Korea’s economy but will also severely damage the global economy.” 

A War Fought Online 

With each passing year, the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) technology and social media on society is expanding, and politics is not an exception. Similar to the Russo– Ukrainian war in 2022, online engagement has emerged as a critical avenue for expressing solidarity with the affected parties, which attracts everyday users to the conversation. As described in Time, “Palestinian children covered in ash, their bodies shaking, blood dripping down their faces” have become a disquietly common sight on homepages during this crisis. Concurrently, social media giant Meta has been facing allegations of intentional censorship of content originating from openly pro-Palestine accounts. 

The widespread nature of the discussion has led to some netizens claiming that peer pressure forces them into taking a public stance, especially for users with a large following. In addition, even in the face of substantial evidence or persuasive arguments, many people are still reluctant to make an absolute judgment due to clashing ties with both parties. “You’re a human being. It is okay to sit in silence between Instagram stories,” posted Matt Bernstein, a popular Jewish content creator, who later chose to condemn Israel’s government after demanding space away from the public eye. 

GT spoke with a Palestinian student at KU, and with Professor Shin Haerin (School of Media and Communication) to ask about their perceived role of social media in the conflict.

GT: What are your thoughts regarding social media use in relation to this issue? 

Student: There are pros and cons regarding everything. Right now, there are many people who recognize what is happening for the first time through the eyes of social media. The same people who would ask me [about Palestine] are now posting about it. However, there is also a negative side to the internet, where users can use AI to create fake images and spread them everywhere. Silly as it sounds, Israel’s official Twitter account has also been exposed for attacking or mocking public figures who speak against their policy. However, I believe more truth is coming out thanks to social media and more people are speaking about it. 

GT: How do you feel about the use of AI-generated content on social media and how could it be controlled? 

Professor Shin: As we know from the scandals involving Cambridge Analytica during the 2016 U.S. elections, bots populate our social mediascape to a startlingly heavy degree. Also, algorithmically controlled curations of social media platform content can instill implicit bias in many ways, or serve the interests of those who have control over them. [...] There are various ways to make concrete interventions. On the technical level, it is crucial to audit data effectively and fairly, and AI models should be aligned to ensure their fairness. In terms of policy making, collaborative efforts on the parts of governments, such as the Hiroshima Proceedings, could be institutionalized. On a corporate level, big companies are already installing AU ethics boards, although they haven’t always proven to be effective, as we see in the case of Google. Lastly, on a user level, it is important to cultivate media literacy and remain wary of prejudices that become engrained in our media environment. 

Aside from deep-fake content, gruesome images and videos of killings committed by both the IDF and Hamas have contributed to heightened attention to the immoral use of social media platforms and the ambiguous involvement of social media companies in the handling of sensitive content. Several videos have circulated on Tik-Tok depicting Israeli citizens openly mocking and disrespecting the dignity of suffering Palestinians or singing military chants celebrating the devastation in Gaza. On the other side, Hamas has not remained silent, sharing videos of its first attack on Israel on October 7. Raw footage from the militants’ body cams shows indiscriminate killings, stacks of corpses, and brutality, which has received harsh condemnation from PA President Mahmoud Abbas. 

The ongoing war between Israel and Hamas has resulted in a devastating loss of life, with over a thousand Israelis and more than ten thousand Palestinians losing their lives since the attacks on October 7. The situation has raised concerns for the future of the region and sparked renewed interest in a long-forgotten two-state solution. As the war spirals on, the words of one interviewee come to mind – when the prophet of Islam witnessed a child’s funeral, he uttered, “he is a bird in heaven now.” This reference should serve as a reminder that, regardless of which adults are at fault, there is no such thing as a wicked infant, and too many are becoming martyrs for decisions they never made. While governments have been deficient in safeguarding their youth and citizens, GT hopes that these events can serve as a reason to avoid similar conflicts in the future.