Israel and Hamas: Major Conflict After Surprise Attacks

Israel and Hamas: Major Conflict After Surprise Attacks

link to page 2

INSIGHTi

Israel and Hamas: Major Conflict After
Surprise Attacks
October 10, 2023
Overview
On October 7, 2023, Gaza Strip-based militants led by the Palestinian Sunni Islamist group Hamas (a
U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization, or FTO) engaged in a series of surprise attacks by land,
sea, and air against Israel (see Figure 1). The assault targeted Israeli military bases and civilian areas
during the final Jewish high holiday, almost exactly 50 years after the Egypt-Syria surprise attack that
sparked the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The Biden Administration and Israel have stated publicly that they do
not have evidence that the Iranian government had a planning role, but are looking at the question. Some
figures from Hamas and the Iran-backed Shia Islamist group Lebanese Hezbollah (also an FTO) have
claimed that Hamas received support for the attacks from Iran, though a senior Hamas official has denied
an Iranian planning role. Iranian officials have praised the assault publicly. The attacks’ scope and
lethality against Israel have no precedent in the 16 years Hamas has controlled Gaza. The nature of the
violence stunned Israelis; apparent intelligence and operational failures in preventing the assault surprised
Israeli, U.S., and other Western officials.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN12262
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
Figure 1. Map of Areas Involved in Surprise Attacks

Source: CNN
In response, Israel’s cabinet formally declared war on Hamas, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
asserting that Israel will win a long and difficult campaign. As it seeks to push militants out of Israeli
territory, target them in densely populated Gaza, and recover hostages, the Israeli government has
announced a total siege on Gaza—described as a halt on the supply of electricity, food, water, and fuel.
Features similar to past rounds of Israel-Hamas conflict include indiscriminate Hamas rocket fire into
Israel, regular Israeli air strikes in Gaza, humanitarian concerns on both sides, and Israel’s deployment of
the Iron Dome anti-rocket system.
Reportedly, more than 900 Israelis (and at least 11 American civilians) and 680 Palestinians in Gaza have
died as of October 10, with Israel claiming that the bodies of around 1,500 dead militants have been found
in southern Israeli areas recaptured by its military. Additionally, militants are reportedly holding more
than 100 persons hostage in Gaza, and Hamas has reportedly threatened to kill hostages in the event of
Israeli strikes on civilian targets in Gaza.

Congressional Research Service
3
Hamas and Gaza
Hamas emerged in Gaza in the late 1980s, and established itself as an alternative to the secular Fatah movement in the
1990s by violently attacking Israeli targets after Fatah had entered into a peace process with Israel. Aside from those living in
Gaza and the West Bank, some Hamas leaders and personnel may live in Arab countries and Turkey. Hamas’s political
leader, Ismail Haniyeh, is supposedly based in Qatar. Hamas reportedly receives much of its funding, weapons, and training
from Iran.
After Israel withdrew military forces from Gaza in 2005, Hamas forcibly seized it from the Fatah-control ed Palestinian
Authority (PA) in 2007. Since then, Gaza has faced crisis-level economic and humanitarian conditions, partly owing to broad
restrictions that Israel and Egypt—citing security concerns—have imposed on the transit of people and goods. Before the
current violence, Hamas and other militants engaged in four major conflicts with Israel (2008-2009, 2012, 2014, and 2021).
Egypt and Qatar have helped mediate conflict and provide basic resources, but Gaza has not experienced broader economic
recovery or reconstruction.
Many Palestinians and people in other countries in the region have expressed support for the Hamas
attacks. Hamas’s military leader alleged Israeli encroachments on Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem, and
called on all Arabs to “expel the (Israeli) occupiers.” West Bank-based Palestinian Authority (PA)
President Mahmoud Abbas has emphasized “Israeli aggression” in Gaza and the well-being and defense
of Palestinians. Some analysts have described the PA as “wanting to see Hamas fail but unable to openly
cheer for Israel,” facing a “Catch 22.” Other Arab governments have called for an end to violence, with a
statement from Saudi Arabia calling for restraint and protection of civilians while pointing to longtime
Israeli policies as potentially provocative.
The following factors may affect the conflict’s trajectory:
• Hamas’s motivation and timing. Factors possibly driving the Hamas attacks include the
potential to disrupt U.S.-brokered diplomacy aimed at Saudi-Israeli normalization (and
the Abraham Accords more broadly); bolster Hamas’s domestic political position vis-à-
vis the aging Abbas and struggling PA; take advantage of Israeli domestic turmoil; and
use hostages to compel Israeli concessions (perhaps including prisoner releases). A
former senior U.S. official has speculated, “Hamas’s intention is to get Israel to retaliate
massively and have the conflict escalate: a West Bank uprising, Hezbollah attacks, a
revolt in Jerusalem.”
• Hezbollah’s role. Hezbollah exchanged fire with Israel across the Lebanese border “in
solidarity” with Hamas on October 8. It did so again on October 9 in supposed retaliation
for lethal Israeli cross-border shelling, after Israeli forces engaged in a deadly standoff
with several militants—possibly from Palestine Islamic Jihad (another FTO)—who came
over the border. Escalation with Hezbollah would likely present major challenges for
Israel and its population centers, given Hezbollah’s capabilities and arsenal of rockets and
missiles.
• Israeli leadership and domestic concerns. With its conventional military superiority,
Israel’s decisions on how to conduct air and potential ground operations in Gaza may
affect the conflict’s length, severity, and humanitarian and political outcomes—including
who effectively controls Gaza. Israel’s opposition has called for national cohesion amid
reported discussions about a possible emergency unity government.
U.S. Policy and Congress’s Role
President Joe Biden offered “all appropriate means of support to the Government and people of Israel,”
and discouraged “any other party hostile to Israel” from seeking advantage. Per a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) that runs through FY2028, Congress has appropriated $3.3 billion a year for Israel
in Foreign Military Financing and $500 million in joint missile defense from FY2019 to FY2023. The

Congressional Research Service
4
MOU also allows for more missile defense funding under exceptional circumstances if the United States
and Israel agree. Following the 2021 Israel-Hamas conflict, Congress appropriated $1 billion in additional
FY2022-FY2024 missile defense funding. These appropriations have supported U.S.-Israel coproduction
of Iron Dome’s Tamir interceptors.
Congress may consider whether or not to provide additional support for Israel, with Israel’s requests of
the Administration reportedly including precision-guided small-diameter bombs and more Iron Dome
funding. Israel also may seek arms withdrawals from the U.S. stockpile in Israel. Secretary of Defense
Lloyd Austin ordered the deployment of a carrier strike group to the Eastern Mediterranean to bolster
“deterrence posture” in the region, and the provision of munitions and other security assistance to Israel.
U.S. officials and lawmakers also may consider whether or not to provide humanitarian support for the
Palestinians. After the 2021 conflict, the Biden Administration provided bilateral aid to the Palestinian
people and contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the
Near East (UNRWA).

Author Information

Jim Zanotti
Jeremy M. Sharp
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

IN12262 · VERSION 1 · NEW