Here's what you can read to better understand the Israel-Hamas war

Understanding the Israel-Hamas war is difficult, and social media isn’t always helpful, clear, accurate, or well sourced. We compiled five expert lists of recommended reading from diverse authors, viewpoints, and backgrounds to help explain the history, context, and experiences shaping the war.

Financial Times

Published on Oct. 9 , just days after Hamas’  Oct. 7 attack, this list by Financial Times editor Roula Khalaf is a selection of books recommended by Financial Times specialists, including:

A portrait of Netanyahu’s combative politics and his relationship with Palestinians and the two-state solution

A graphic novel that offers a nonfiction account of Israel’s 1956 killing of over 100 Palestinians in Rafah following armed Palestinian raids. Sacco’s illustrations make tangible the Gaza Strip’s isolation.

Explores the origin and evolution of Hamas and its  rivalry with other Palestinian political organizations

A look at why Palestinians did not get their own state as regional colonial rule collapsed during the 20th century. A nuanced analysis of how outside actors shaped Palestinians’ political futures, but the author – a Palestinian American historian – finds Palestinian leaders also bear responsibility. 

The Globe and Mail

This Canadian newspaper asked its foreign correspondents, reporters, and editors for their suggested reading to make sense of the history behind the Israel-Hamas war. Their list included:

A Palestinian American author and scholar explores sites of Palestinian memory through photography from Jean Mohr.

A child of Holocaust survivors, Hass was born in Jerusalem but stayed in Gaza for years. This book, released in 1996, chronicles her life.

An Israeli journalist explores how the Holocaust impacted the thinking of David Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin, and Nahum Goldmann and the formation of Israel.

This memoir tells the story of a Palestinian family forced to flee Jerusalem for the U.K. The family unknowingly moved to a predominantly Jewish suburb of London where Karmi wrestled with her sense of self and identity.

The Overview newsletter

The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.

 

Foreign Policy

Foreign Policy recently compiled a list designed to help readers understand the Israel-Hamas war, including these two books:

“In careful but compassionate prose, Roy, a political economist, chronicles the systematic immiseration of Gaza, the devastating consequences on the people trapped there, and the failed peace process that has enabled Hamas to endure and attract support.” — Stephen M. Walt, Foreign Policy columnist

“Elgindy served as an advisor to the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah on permanent status negotiations with Israel from 2004 to 2009 and thus had a front-row seat to Washington’s peacemaking efforts. His book provides a deeply researched historical examination of how U.S.-Palestinian relations shaped the peace process over the decades and contributed to the crisis of Palestinian leadership we see today.” —Jennifer Williams, Foreign Policy deputy editor

Middle East Institute

In 2022, the Middle East Institute’s book review editor shared recommended reading from books reviewed in The Middle East Journal, including these:

“Western readers hungry for didactic primers about Middle East politics confront bookshelves of forgettable volumes. What makes this offering notable is that the authors themselves are activists from the region and write as sensitive insiders rather than as foreign journalists or retired diplomats penning yet another screed.” —Sean Yom, Temple University

“Fred Hof, a retired military officer and experienced Middle East negotiator, tells the story of the last effort to reach an Israel-Syria peace agreement.” —Daniel Kurtzer, Princeton University

American Enterprise Institute

A former CIA officer turned Middle East scholar at AEI, Kenneth Pollack recommended the best books on Middle East military history, including:

“…Dupuy extensively interviewed nearly all of the major political and military leaders on both sides of every war … it is why his book remains the single best work on the subject and the foundation on which all later histories rest.”

Adan was a senior military official in the war. Pollack recommends this book as “...an outstanding first-hand account … Adan’s book is also distinguished by his ruthless honesty in pointing out his own mistakes as well as those of the larger Israel Defense Forces.”

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Donate
Read Time (minutes)
3 minute read

What's Qatar's role in the Israel-Hamas negotiations?

In short: Qatar, a small country in the Persian Gulf with “absurd” natural gas and oil wealth, told the U.S. it would discuss its relationship with Hamas. Despite its small size, Qatar has historically played an outsize role in negotiating with organizations or countries that the U.S. can't or won't deal with directly. Most recently, Qatar is helping to negotiate the release of hostages taken on Oct. 7 from Israel by Hamas.  

Where is Qatar?

Qatar, which is four times the size of Rhode Island with a population roughly the size of Kansas, sits on the southwest coast of the Persian Gulf. It has a gross domestic product of $235.5 billion, or roughly $81,970 per person. In comparison, while the U.S.’ GDP is $26.95 trillion, its GDP per person is slightly less than Qatar’s, at $80,410.

Most of Qatar’s wealth comes from oil and natural gas, which “account for more than 70% of total government revenue, more than 60% of gross domestic product, and roughly 85% of export earnings.”

Qatar has used its wealth to bolster its international profile and military. When Qatar hosted the World Cup in 2022, it spent $220 billion on building stadiums, airports, hotels, a train system, and other infrastructure necessary to host the teams and the fans attending the event. In all, Qatar spent “15 times more than Russia did in 2018 as the previous hosts.” 

Qatar also spends heavily on its military, spending more per person than any other country at $5,171 – doubling Israel, the second-largest spender.

What is the U.S.’ relationship with Qatar?

The U.S. and Qatar have what the U.S. calls a “strong” relationship, despite Qatar’s support of Hamas, cooperation with the Taliban government in Afghanistan, and past U.S. allegations that Qatar finances terrorist groups.

The Overview newsletter

The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.

 

The two countries established a relationship in 1972, a year after Qatar became independent from the U.K. Qatar is now home to the U.S.’ largest military base in the Middle East, Al-Udeid Air Base, which can accommodate about 10,000 military personnel, the U.S. Air Forces Central Command, and four other command centers.

The U.S. is also “Qatar’s largest foreign direct investor,” owning $3.9 billion in Qatari stock in 2022. In 2019, Qatar announced plans to invest $45 billion in the U.S. These investments have included buying stakes in Washington state’s NHL, NBA, and WNBA teams. Qatar also sold 4.18 million barrels of oil to the U.S. between January and July 2023.

In March 2022, the U.S. officially designated Qatar a “major non-NATO” ally. Countries with this designation can receive U.S. military training and become reserves for U.S. military stockpiles.

Iran asks other countries to stop weapons transfers to Israel

The Al-Udeid Air Base, which is Qatari-owned, has become a point of tension in the Israel-Hamas war, as Iran urges other countries in the region to stop weapons transfers from the U.S. to Israel that use U.S. bases as waypoints. 

Qatar also has often served as a middleman between the U.S. and countries or organizations the U.S. doesn’t have relations with. This fall, Qatar has helped negotiate the release of five Americans imprisoned in Iran and four Ukrainian children who had been taken to Russia.

What role is Qatar playing in Israeli hostage negotiations?

Qatar is once again a middleman, negotiating the release of over 200 hostages Hamas took from Israel on Oct. 7 – so far, four hostages have been released.

Why won't the U.S. talk directly with Hamas?

Since the U.S. has long held the position that it doesn’t negotiate with terrorists and since Hamas has been designated a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” since 1997, the U.S. won't directly negotiate the release of hostages.

Qatar is in a unique position to negotiate. While maintaining strong relations with the U.S., it also has a close relationship with Hamas. A Qatari official told NBC News that Qatar gave $1.49 billion in aid to Gaza between 2012 and 2021. But NBC News also notes, “Experts, enemies and Western governments have questioned whether Hamas mingles the money for its military operations with money meant for civilian use.”

Qatar says the money – which is overseen by Israel and the United Nations – has not been used for unapproved reasons, including to support Hamas.

Qatar has “paid the salaries of civil servants in the Gaza Strip, provided direct cash transfers to poor families and offered other kinds of humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza,” as part of past cease-fire agreements between Israel and Hamas, according to PBS.

Qatar lets an exiled Hamas leader operate an office in Doha, the Qatari capital.  

“Qatar has a 360-degree foreign policy,” former CIA official and Middle East scholar Bruce Riedel told The Washington Post. “They host senior Hamas political officials. They provide the United States with a huge air base. They talk to the Iranians. They cover all their bases, so they can communicate with anybody at any time in a low-key fashion.”

After the Oct. 7 Hamas attack and Israeli siege on Gaza that ensued, Qatar released a statement saying Israel is “solely responsible for the ongoing escalation due to its continuous violations of the rights of the Palestinian people…”

But Qatar has said it will “revisit” its relationship with Hamas after the hostages are returned, according to The Washington Post.

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Donate
Read Time (minutes)
4 minute read

What is a 'humanitarian pause' and how is it different from a 'cease-fire'?

Two resolutions to stop the Israel-Hamas war were vetoed by the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday.

The U.S.-backed resolution called for a “humanitarian pause” in the besieged Gaza Strip. The pause would allow for the delivery of essential goods like food, water, medical supplies, and fuel into the region. 

Other council members noted that a pause is not the same thing as a cease-fire, which is supported by U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres among others.

According to the U.N., a “humanitarian pause” is a “temporary cessation of hostilities” so that humanitarian aid can be carried out. A pause usually lasts for a defined period — it could be as short as a few hours — and occurs in a specific area.

A “cease-fire,” by contrast, is intended as a long-term cessation of fighting with the aim to “allow parties to engage in dialogue, including the possibility of reaching a permanent political settlement.”

On Friday, the U.N. General Assembly is expected to vote on an Arab states-backed resolution that calls for an immediate cease-fire.

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Donate
Read Time (minutes)
1 minute read

'Peace is possible'

"Only last week we were in Jerusalem, in the Dead Sea together, hundreds of Israeli and Palestinian women calling the leaders of both sides to begin negotiations before things escalated. We cannot live like this anymore. We deserve peace. All of us in this region." -Dr. Yael Braudo-Bahat, Women Wage Peace

Editor's note: On November 13, it was reported that Israeli officials had notified peace activist Vivian Silver's family that she had been killed in the Oct. 7 attack on Israel, not held hostage in Gaza as originally believed.

German public opinion on Israel-Palestinian conflict shifts after Hamas attack, new polling shows

Before Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, killing 1,400 people, most Germans thought Israelis were slightly more responsible than Palestinians for the conflict between them. But new polling shows that the recent violence has changed public opinion in Germany.

The survey of over 3,000 people was conducted both before and during Hamas’ attacks and Israel’s ongoing bombing campaign in the Gaza Strip, and captured Germans’ attitudes changing in real time as the violence unfolded. 

“Just completely randomly, that survey coincided with the recent Hamas attack,” said Anselm Hager, a political scientist and Humboldt University professor who conducted the online poll. He and his co-author, Miguel Pereira, were surveying German attitudes on antisemitism at the time, including a question asking respondents to rank on a 10-point scale: “Who do you think is more to blame for the Israel-Palestine conflict?” where a zero indicated that “Israelis are entirely to blame,” a five indicated that both sides were equally responsible, and a 10 indicated that “Palestinians are entirely to blame.” 

Hager told Blue Marble that the data has not yet been peer-reviewed and to not overinterpret the results. But he and Pereira decided to share their findings on X (formerly Twitter) to help audiences understand how public opinion was changing in “a chaotic situation,” Hager said.

Recent polling shows a snapshot of public sentiment in Germany from before the latest Israel-Hamas war. Polling from YouGov this summer found that 17% of Germans sympathized more with the ”Israeli side” and 15% sympathized more with the “Palestinian side.” Twenty-six percent sympathized with “both sides” equally while nearly half (43%) was unsure. 

Last year, polling from an independent German research group found that about one-third of Germans agreed that “what the state of Israel is doing to the Palestinians today is in principle no different than what the Nazis in the Third Reich did to the Jews.” Forty percent disagreed and one-quarter said they did not know. 

In Hager’s survey, just before the Oct. 7 attack, Germans said Israelis were slightly more responsible for conflict with Palestinians – scoring 4.5 on the 10-point scale. 

There was a one-point jump immediately after the attack — to about 5.5 — meaning the German public thought Palestinians were slightly more responsible. 

Hager said that people’s attitudes toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are usually “fairly stable” and would be hard to change. 

“So a one-point jump — that’s a lot,” Hager said. 

That’s also true in the U.S., where polling over two decades from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs has found little change in support for Israel and Palestinians over time. 

“Few people say it’s entirely Israel, it’s entirely Palestine,” Hager said. 

In response to the Oct. 7 attack, Israel declared war on Hamas and dropped at least 6,000 bombs on Gaza, killing thousands of residents.

During Israel’s bombing campaign, German public opinion blaming Palestinians for conflict continued to harden among Germans aged 24 and over. 

“If anything, the effect is stronger now,” said Hager. 

Attitudes shifted most among left-leaning Germans and older Germans, but the opinions of younger respondents aged 18-24 did not change: They continue to hold Israelis slightly more responsible than Palestinians. Among Germans over age 24 however, public opinion continued trending toward blaming Palestinians even as Israel escalated its bombing campaign in Gaza after Hamas’ attack.

Overall, Hager’s research has found that when German politicians see polling, they change their rhetoric to match public opinion. 

“Politicians listen to the polls,” Hager said. 

Lama El Baz contributed to reporting and data analysis for this story. 

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Donate
Read Time (minutes)
3 minute read

What to do when you don't know what to say — about Gaza, the Israel-Hamas War, or anything else

Since the recent war broke out in Israel and the Palestinian territories, students, universities, politicians, and companies have taken to social media to condemn the violence and express concern for those killed and injured.

Some have received pushback for what they have said. Others have received pushback for what they have left unsaid. Many more have sat in a mix of grief, rage, and confusion asking, “What do I say at a time like this?”

It is understandable to want to engage in what is going on in the world. In recent years, social media has become the primary vessel to do so. But pausing can be just as important as publishing.

“I think it's completely unrealistic to think that we ought or even could be adequately informed about everything,” Mónica Guzmán, author of “I Never Thought of It That Way: How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times” told Blue Marble. “It is very good, as an internal sort of self-awareness, to recognize when we have more questions about an issue than we have answers.”

Guzmán isn’t saying that we should log off, or even take a position of silence. Rather, she says that social media should be a starting point for engaging in global issues. She offers up the idea of ‘containment’— a more intentional “Can we take this offline?” — as a step toward more productive conversations.

She spoke with Blue Marble’s Christina Colón about the pressure to belong, the limitations of social media platforms, and how we can have more mindful conversations.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Mónica Guzmán: What we have to say becomes one of the most important things about who we are. A lot of folks have put into their Twitter [now X] profiles, or wherever they are, statements about what they believe and what they don't believe. And I think it feels like that's what we need to do in order to be anything in these spaces. It's closely tied to having a sense of identity, which at its core is about finding a sense of belonging.

Who are your people and who are not your people is a question that you're constantly negotiating when you're on social media. And the way to do that is to put your statement, put your stuff out there, and then maybe respond or judge everyone else's.

Christina Colón: This gets at the question of, ‘What do we do when we want to say something and we want to let people know who we are, but we don't feel informed enough about an issue to put something out there?’ How do we approach those moments?

I think what it takes to gain that perspective and confidence that you don't have to have a statement or an opinion on everything, and you don't have to feel like something is wrong with you if you are not informed enough on every single thing, is to spend some time off those platforms where you can reconnect to the moment, your setting, the people who are around you, and you feel the primacy of that presence.

You live in your own head. And in your own head, you're constantly being queried. You're constantly being put on the stand. What do you believe? Where do you stand? What do you do now? I think that it is very good as an internal sort of self-awareness to recognize when we have more questions about an issue than we have answers.

I would say that a lot of us miss recognizing that we feel the pressure to just belong. And so we feel the pressure to just say, to just repost, to just agree or disagree reactively, rather than say, ‘Well, I don't know a lot about this. What do I need to unlearn? Where can I go to ask some questions?’

But the other challenge is that even if you do that, it's not just about information. It's about concern, worry, hope, emotion. And we all have this radar, these gut senses, that we either like or don't like [something]. We cringe or we lean into issues. And you don't need to be informed for that reaction to come up. And sometimes that reaction is enough. And that's when we get rage, we get fear, we get all these things. So it also takes some mindfulness: 'I have this feeling, I have this revulsion to this. Let me get curious about where that comes from.'

That's a way of being informed as well.

And how do we approach those conversations when they are emotional — and for very good reasons. How do we know how to get in those spaces and have meaningful conversations? How do we know how to open those doors and not create more divisiveness or hostility in those moments?

The first thing is to check the context. So if you're coming into an Instagram or a TikTok comment thread, keep several things in mind. One is, if you comment, if you say something into this, it's public. Whatever you're saying and whatever people are saying back has this mass audience of indeterminate size – a sort of panopticon. And if your concern is belonging and coming off smart or morally right, then in those kinds of exposed spaces – especially where people cannot witness the listening of others – then what we do is we perform our perspectives instead of explore our perspectives. It's a theater.

Now, if what you want is to approach it productively, that can mean many things. But if part of your definition is, ‘I want to explore, along with somebody else, the questions that I have and sort of test my views against theirs and see what we can learn,’ an open, exposed space is not a great place to do that.

What I would do is encourage you to increase what I call ‘containment.’ The containment of a conversation is the degree to which it is contained to the people actually participating in it. If you're going back and forth with someone on one thread, but it's part of a larger conversation, which is part of this other post, it's so uncontained you don't know who is listening. That other person is not going to be candid and neither are you. So how useful is that really? Turn up the containment. Reach out to that person and say, ‘Hey, can we get on the phone? Can we go to a DM?’

And then the other that I'll mention is the context on social media is often asynchronous, which is a beautiful, incredible thing. It scales our conversation, our ability to have lots of conversations. But you don't have to answer right now. What will that do? Well, if we're having a stressful conversation, I'll be stressed out about what you're gonna say for an hour while I wait. I'm not there in presence with you to witness how you might struggle with what you'll say. And so we just stretch out this anxiety. And is it worth it? Is that really what we want to do?

Just because it starts on social media doesn't mean it has to stay on social media. And it probably shouldn't. Take it offline. Take it somewhere where the full toolbox of human communication can serve you.

How do you signal to someone on social media that you are coming from a place of curiosity and exploration? That you want to take this offline?

You can only use the tools at your disposal. [On] social media platforms, the number one thing is text. Take everything that your smile would have done for you and put it into text. You end up having to write a lot more words: ‘I know this is a really tough one. I think what I hear you saying is … I don't mean to press you if you don't want to answer this right now, but I am curious about what you have to say on this issue … I wonder if we could take this offline.’

A lot of folks, without meaning to, end up coming off kind of curt or short on social media because they're speaking as if they were on platforms where more of their gestures and their tone and their laughter and everything was doing work for them. But when all that is stripped away, you have to interpret all of that into words and put that in. And it can be awkward. But it’s not impossible.

Mónica Guzmán is the senior fellow at Braver Angels, the nation's largest grassroots cross-partisan nonprofit dedicated to political depolarization and the author of “I Never Thought of It That Way: How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times.” She is also the host of “A Braver Way,” a podcast that seeks to equip people with the tools they need to bridge the political divide in their everyday lives.

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Donate
Read Time (minutes)
7 minute read

What's inside the aid convoy trying to get lifesaving supplies into Gaza?

President Biden announced while in Israel this week that Egypt has agreed to allow 20 trucks filled with humanitarian aid to enter into the Gaza Strip.

Over 100 trucks have been stationed outside of Gaza for days, unable to deliver supplies since Israel closed the borders on Oct. 7.

“Every hour these supplies remain on the Egyptian side of the border, more girls and boys, women, and men, especially those vulnerable or disabled, will die while supplies that can save them are less than 12 miles away," the World Health Organization said in a press statement earlier this week.

This is what's in the aid convoy, according to the UN, as illustrated by Elizabeth Sokolich.

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Donate
Read Time (minutes)
2 minute read

A journalism expert on the language of war and how to get trustworthy news

On Oct. 12, the BBC released a statement explaining why the publication doesn’t refer to Hamas as terrorists. “We don’t take sides. We don’t use loaded words like ‘evil’ or ’cowardly.’ We don’t talk about ‘terrorists,’” it reads. “It’s simply not the BBC’s job to tell people who to support and who to condemn — who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.”

The statement came after criticism from journalists, Jewish leaders, and members of the British government over the BBC’s coverage of Hamas’s attack on Israel. Since the attack began on Oct. 7, Hamas has killed more than 1,400 people and kidnapped 200. In response, Israel has killed more than 2,778 people in Gaza. These numbers do not include the more than 500 people killed in the Oct. 17 explosion at a hospital in Gaza.

A study published in the journal "Media, War, and Conflict" examined The New York Times’s coverage of the first and second intifadas, or Palestinian uprisings (December 1987-September 1993 and September 2000-February 2005, respectively) and found that references to Palestine were more negative in tone, whereas references to Israel were more neutral.

“The language journalists use must be accurate, precise, and verifiable,” says Aly Colón, the John S. and James L. Knight Professor of Media Ethics at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia. He said that describing events, using as much detail as possible, is preferable to using language that may exaggerate or distort the intended meaning. “Show, don’t tell,” as the maxim goes.

Blue Marble spoke with Colón about language, how readers can get the most balanced coverage of a crisis like the Hamas-Israel war, and what “objectivity” means to him. 

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Do you feel that terms like “terrorist” or “terrorism” are always inappropriate for journalists to use?

It’s not the term necessarily that is a problem. But it’s how we apply the term. In what situations do we apply it, and does it describe clearly and accurately what it is that as journalists we want to report and have readers or viewers take in.

In general, I would say describe the event… The more clarity we have, the more details that we can use, the fuller the picture can be for our audience.

How can people ensure they’re getting balanced coverage of a crisis like this? 

Aly Colón, John S. and James L. Knight Professor of Media Ethics at Washington and Lee University
More people than I would want get attached to a particular publication. There’s not really anything wrong with that — if you trust the publication and they’ve done a good job. 

I do something a little more specific when I can, although there are publications that I follow. I read or scan around 15 or 18 news sites from one end of the spectrum to the other. I do that because, “Am I only getting the information that particular publication or website wants to convey on its own?”

When I find certain types of either websites or publications that I have repeatedly seen to be pretty accurate… I will usually and almost always read them or listen to them. Does it mean I don’t listen to others? No.

I’m also what I would call a byline reader. If I see a reporter on a regular basis and she gets it, and I can see that she is really concrete and concise and able to convey what I need to know, then when I see her byline, I read it.

When it’s possible, have a wide distribution of sources you can follow. And then identify particular reporters, journalists that over time you have seen they’ve been right there bringing the information in a way that has been reliable, confirmed, and true. Most journalists, I think, desire to do that. Some are just a lot better than others.

Given that people have very stubborn beliefs, and they go to outlets where they can have those justified and reinforced, how important do you think “objectivity” is to readers?

Here’s what I’m going to say, which is not the common thread. I don’t believe in objectivity. I just think it’s impossible. And I think the use of objectivity was probably a good thing in a way. It was, in my view, always a standard that you aspire to because objectivity means you don’t know anything. 

What I tell people is usually we have a leaning, and we need to know which way we lean and how far we lean. It’s human to have that. And we need, in recognizing that, [to determine] how we can amplify our understanding, increase it. So we’re closer to the center of what’s going on.

So for me, I think we should see objectivity as an aspirational thing and with a responsibility on our part to recognize that we’re not objective. But we can really work hard to bring as much information as we can to fill the picture up more.

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Donate
Read Time (minutes)
3 minute read
Subscribe to