Abstract: The October 07, 2023, attack on Israel, initiated by Hamas from Gaza, led to hundreds of Israeli casualties and hostages, sparking a war with global repercussions. Israel announced the killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, describing it as a justified action against terrorism. However, U.S. President Joe Biden later framed the event as a broader victory for global stability. This raises questions about the U.S.’s role in supporting Israel during the conflict and whether deeper strategic objectives are at play. Experts debate whether this reflects a coordinated effort to address perceived threats from “Gaza” or is their broader geopolitical considerations.

Problem statement: To what extent has Hamas’ history of attacks on Israel influenced Israel’s justification for the current conflict?

Bottom-line-up-front: Calls for a ceasefire have grown globally as the conflict between Israel and Hamas escalates. Hamas, designated as a terrorist organisation by nations and entities such as the U.S. and EU, has faced accusations of repeated attacks. At the same time, Israel argues it is acting in self-defence after years of unresolved disputes and hostilities. The humanitarian toll on civilians in Gaza, compounded by limited access to safe zones, has drawn widespread condemnation. Experts debate potential paths to peace, with some suggesting international mediation to address both security concerns and the rights of Palestinians. Israel has stated it is open to negotiations contingent on the release of hostages, emphasising the need for mutual concessions in an otherwise intractable conflict.

So what?: While Israel describes its operations as a necessary response to Hamas-led attacks, critics question the scale of its actions and their humanitarian consequences. Historically, Israel has sought international support for its policies, raising questions about the timing and scope of its current offensive. The killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar has drawn global attention, with countries like the U.S. and India expressing varying degrees of support for Israel. Analysts debate whether this conflict represents a broader international effort to counter terrorism or if deeper historical tensions are driving the escalation. As calls for a ceasefire grow, the international community faces pressure to mediate a path forward.

Hamas’s Attacks on Isreal

On October 07, 2023, Hamas launched a large-scale attack on Israel, killing approximately 1,200 people and taking over 250 hostages, including attendees of a music festival, which triggered a massive Israeli military response in Gaza. The conflict has resulted in significant casualties among Palestinians, with reports suggesting tens of thousands of deaths, though figures remain contested.[1] Hamas, designated as a terrorist organisation by Israel, the U.S., and the European Union (EU), described the attack as a response to what it calls decades of Israeli oppression and a blockade of the Gaza Strip. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Israel’s objectives are to destroy Hamas, secure the release of hostages, and ensure the country’s future security against similar threats. At the same time, international concern continues to grow over the humanitarian toll and regional stability.[2]

The conflict has resulted in significant casualties among Palestinians, with reports suggesting tens of thousands of deaths, though figures remain contested.

Hamas has also said that the attack was a reaction to what it claims are Israeli efforts to take over the al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem- Islams third holiest site. In the year leading up to the attack, fighting broke out, totalling 505 Palestinians killed by Israeli soldiers and settlers. In the same year, 30 Israelis were also killed in the West Bank due to conflict.[3] To date, Hamas and Israel have engaged in five significant conflicts, including the 2023 escalation. Hamas has conducted bombings, rocket attacks, and shootings targeting civilians and soldiers in Israel. In response, Israel has carried out military operations against Hamas in Gaza and its cells in Jerusalem and the West Bank, often resulting in casualties among both fighters and civilians. The last major conflict occurred in May 2021, lasting 11 days and ending in a ceasefire brokered under international pressure from the U.S., the UN, Qatar, and Egypt.[4]

Even before the current war, Gaza faced one of the highest unemployment rates globally, with most residents living below the poverty line and reliant on international food aid. Israel controls Gaza’s airspace, coastline, and shared border, imposing restrictions on the movement of people and goods.[5] As the conflict continues, regional tensions have escalated, with clashes reported between Israel and Hezbollah along the Lebanon-Israel border. The Israeli military has stated that its operations aim to neutralise Hezbollah’s threat to civilians in northern Israel. Historically, Israel and Hezbollah have engaged in several major conflicts, most notably between 2006 and 2014. Meanwhile, the decades-long Israel-Palestinian conflict continues to provoke accusations of oppression in Gaza, further complicating efforts to resolve the crisis.[6]

Who Benefits from Isreal Fighting Gaza?

While Israel argues that its actions aim to address long-standing security threats and protect its citizens, questions arise about the broader implications of the conflict. Some analysts suggest that the attack and subsequent war could impact geopolitical dynamics. One of them is the potential derailment of Saudi Arabia’s recognition of Israel, a process that was reportedly progressing prior to the conflict. Historically, past confrontations between Israel and Hamas have drawn international scrutiny, including opposition from organisations such as the United Nations and criticism from allies like the U.S. over the humanitarian toll in Gaza. The conflict underscores the complexity of addressing security concerns while navigating international relations and public sentiment on both sides.[7]

The conflict underscores the complexity of addressing security concerns while navigating international relations and public sentiment on both sides.

The year leading up to the October 7 attack was one of the deadliest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the West Bank, according to rights groups.[8] Palestinian factions and parties oppose Israel’s presence in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, seeking to establish an independent state—a goal broadly supported by the international community.[8] Israel’s settlements in these areas are considered illegal under international law, including by the International Court of Justice, though these rulings are advisory and contested by Israel. The Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, argues that a Palestinian state would pose a significant security threat.[9]

Following the October 07 attacks, tensions in the West Bank have escalated, with reports of increased violence by Jewish settlers against Palestinian residents. Local analysts have described these actions as part of a broader effort by some to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. Allegations include harassment, forced evictions, and the involvement of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) in supporting settlement expansion. Critics argue that such actions undermine any potential for a two-state solution, while supporters of these policies assert they are necessary for Israel’s security.[10]

From Hamas’s perspective, the ongoing conflict is seen as a continuation of decades of political instability in Gaza, which several regimes have governed over the past 56 years. Each leadership shift has contributed to widespread frustration as Gaza continues to struggle with poverty and limited autonomy under Israeli control.[11], [12] Despite the socio-economic challenges, Hamas remains committed to opposing Israeli policies, which it sees as a direct threat to Palestinian sovereignty. While Hamas has been criticised for its violent tactics, including targeting civilians, reports from The Washington Post reveal that some Hamas fighters were instructed to “kill as many people and take as many hostages as possible.”[13] Hamas is designated as a terrorist organisation by Israel, the U.S., Canada, and several other countries due to its history of violent attacks on Israeli civilians and its refusal to renounce armed resistance. However, the broader political and humanitarian context in Gaza remains deeply complex, with ongoing debates about the path forward for both Israelis and Palestinians.[14]

The broader political and humanitarian context in Gaza remains deeply complex, with ongoing debates about the path forward for both Israelis and Palestinians.

The ongoing conflict between Hamas and Israel has drawn significant international attention, with the U.S. and several European capitals aligning strongly with Israel. This has led to calls for military retaliation and victory, often with little consideration for the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza. Critics argue that such a stance risks further entrenching negative perceptions of Palestinians, potentially labelling them collectively as terrorists and sidelining efforts for peaceful conflict resolution and co-existence.[15] U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan recently remarked that the Middle East region is ‘quieter today than it has been in two decades,’ a statement that some see as overlooking the broader consequences of the war. The destruction in Gaza, many argue, could radicalise future generations in both the Middle East and the West.[16]

In the aftermath of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar’s death, President Joe Biden stated, ‘This is a good day for Israel, for the United States, and for the world. Sinwar was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Israelis, Palestinians, Americans, and citizens from over 30 countries. He masterminded the October 07 massacres, rapes, and kidnappings. Today proves that no terrorist anywhere in the world can escape justice.’ This statement highlights the U.S. government’s firm stance against Hamas, which is recognised as a terrorist organisation by the U.S. and other nations.[17]

In response to the October 07 attacks, Former President Biden stated, I directed special operations personnel and our intelligence professionals to work side-by-side with their Israeli counterparts to help locate and track Sinwar and other Hamas leaders hiding in Gaza. Israel had every right to eliminate the leadership of Hamas, and it is no longer capable of carrying out another October 07.[18] Biden expressed strong support for Israel’s actions, highlighting the devastating nature of the terror attack. The U.S. response, he said, was rooted in the fight against terrorism, drawing parallels with previous U.S. efforts, such as the elimination of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi during the Obama administration. Analysts have suggested that U.S. involvement in the conflict could also be linked to broader regional security concerns, including Israel’s actions against Iranian military targets, with both countries sharing interests in neutralising terrorism across the Middle East.[19]

The U.S. and Israel have shared close ties since the 1980s, with the U.S. “providing $3 billion in annual aid and establishing a free trade agreement in 1985. Since then, the relationship has deepened, with Israel receiving $205 million in funding for the Iron Dome Defence system under President Obama”.[20] Obama also intervened personally to help avert catastrophe when a violent mob stormed the Israeli embassy in Cairo. Following the incident, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu remarked, ‘I requested his assistance at a critical moment, and he assured me he would do everything possible.[21] Ten years later, U.S. military aid to Israel has reached a record $17.9 billion since October 07, 2023. At the time of the Hamas attack, the U.S. had 34,000 troops in the Middle East, a number that rose to 50,000 by August. The U.S. military has also deployed to counter strikes by the Houthis, a militant group in Yemen allied with Hezbollah, which has targeted critical trade ships. This campaign has become one of the most intense naval operations the U.S. Navy has faced since the Second World War.[22]

The main goal of surrounding groups and nations, such as Syria’s government forces, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, the Palestinian Hamas, and Yemen’s Houthis, appears to be recruiting new fighters and expanding their ranks. These groups are capitalising on the war, claiming their campaign aims to pressure Israel and the West by targeting shipping routes in the Red Sea corridor. Analysts and observers have suggested that a wider conflict could strengthen the Houthis’ military capabilities and further expand their influence in the region despite retaliatory strikes by Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom.[24]

Analysts and observers have suggested that a wider conflict could strengthen the Houthis’ military capabilities and further expand their influence in the region despite retaliatory strikes by Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

For a delve into the issue, The Houthis have intensified their campaign in the Red Sea, targeting commercial shipping with small boats, short-range missile launchers, and hit-and-run tactics.[25] In response, Israel launched airstrikes on rebel bases following a deadly drone attack in Tel Aviv attributed to the Houthis. Reports also suggest that Russia has been supporting Houthi efforts by facilitating weapon shipments.[26]

Meanwhile, in Lebanon, tensions continue to escalate between Israel and Hezbollah, with both sides accusing each other of violating the ceasefire.[27] Israel has warned that it may expand its operations to target the Lebanese state if provocations persist. Supported by Iran, Hezbollah has been actively rebuilding its military infrastructure, signalling no intent to cease its campaign against Israel.[28] In support, the Houthis movement commented on Hezbollah’s attack, “a courageous attack carried out by the resistance this morning against the Israeli enemy”.[29] Highlight how regional actors leverage the ongoing conflict to boost their military capabilities and influence.

The Effects and Aftermath of an AI-Driven War

One of the primary cybersecurity measures used by Israel is the Iron Dome, which was developed in 2011 to protect the country from the constant threat of short- to mid-range missiles and drones. On October 01, 2023, Iran reportedly launched more than 180 missiles at Israel, most of which were intercepted by Israel’s air defence systems and U.S.-led allied forces. Israel has vowed to retaliate, although it has not disclosed when or how.[30] Another key defence measure is Israel’s use of AI targeting systems, which have made this conflict one of the first ‘AI Wars.’ In 2021, Israel reportedly employed AI technology during its brief conflict with militant groups in the Gaza Strip. The AI system, known as ‘Habsora’ or ‘Gospel,’ analyses intelligence to identify actionable targets, including the locations of militants, and provides estimates of potential civilian casualties.[31] Despite some uncertainty regarding the technology, Israel’s military has a legal framework in place that requires its lawyers to approve all targeting decisions, whether human- or AI-generated.[32]

One year into Israel’s war on Gaza, evidence suggests that the incorporation of AI tools in military operations has prioritised speed over accuracy.[33] The sheer volume of intelligence data—such as raw data from cameras, radar systems, phone records, and other sensors—can overwhelm traditional analysis methods. This data must be sorted, cleaned, and categorised, a process that would be impossible without automated assistance. AI is typically employed at this stage to reduce reliance on human analysts and minimise fatigue-induced errors. Machine learning models help identify patterns in the data, providing analysts with a comprehensive view of the battlespace and identifying potentially relevant information for decision-making.[34]

Machine learning models help identify patterns in the data, providing analysts with a comprehensive view of the battlespace and identifying potentially relevant information for decision-making.

In response to criticisms about civilian deaths from airstrikes, the IDF claims it uses precision-guided munitions (PGMs), which are intended to destroy specific targets while minimising collateral damage. However, precision does not always equate to minimising civilian harm.[35], [36] A recent Gaza airstrike, reportedly using a precision-guided munition, killed a group of children playing foosball, following earlier fatalities. Grief-stricken, Awda Talla, the mother of one of the victims, told CNN, ‘There is no Shahed now. Every time she came in, she said, ‘Mom,’ and I would say, ‘My soul, my soul.’ Now, my soul is gone.’”. AI in military operations, such as in targeting, is designed to process large amounts of data and provide actionable insights. However, AI operates without the empathy or judgment of human operators, focusing solely on calculating variables to fulfil its objectives.[37]. This should raise concerns to countries and organisations with great military might regarding the ethics of how AI tools are used in war and their effects, especially in scenarios of identifying targets or making decisions, accuracy, and whether they can fully replace human judgment.

The use of AI in military operations has raised significant concerns due to its devastating impact, particularly on civilian lives. In the case of Yahya al Sinwar, the former Hamas leader in Gaza, reports suggest that he often appeared at public events with children, possibly using them as human shields to deter attacks, knowing that the IDF would avoid targeting civilians. While the death of innocent civilians, including children, is universally tragic, the practice of using civilians to protect combatants complicates the ethical considerations of military targeting.[38] The deployment of AI in airstrikes, while improving speed and precision, also brings forward complex ethical dilemmas about accountability and the potential for unintended civilian harm.

As the conflict in Gaza progresses, relations within the Middle East are becoming increasingly strained, leading to significant shifts in foreign policy. Iran and Israel, once having some diplomatic engagement, are now considered arch-enemies. The ongoing hostilities in Gaza have further deepened this divide, with Iran predicting Israel’s eventual downfall. In 1979, following the Islamic Revolution, Iran severed all official relations with Israel, adopting an anti-Israel foreign policy that included cutting diplomatic ties, closing Israeli institutions, and boycotting Israeli events.[39] Iran’s involvement in the conflict is partially driven by the confiscation of property belonging to over 2,000 Iranian citizens by the Israeli military during the war, part of Israel’s “periphery doctrine,” which has long fueled tensions in the region.[40]

Iran’s involvement in the conflict is partially driven by the confiscation of property belonging to over 2,000 Iranian citizens by the Israeli military during the war.

The Changing Landscape of U.S. Immigration and Foreign Policy

Similarly, like Israel, the shift in U.S. policy under recent administrations, particularly regarding immigration, has sparked debates about the country’s commitment to its foundational ideals of inclusivity and openness. Despite being a nation built by immigrants, the U.S. has increasingly embraced more restrictive immigration policies. This shift is often seen as contradictory, given the U.S.’s historical reliance on immigration, capitalism, and foreign trade. Under President Donald Trump, policies aimed at limiting immigration and foreign influence, whether for security reasons or political ambition, have drawn comparisons to the tactics used by other countries, such as Israel, in its dealings with Gaza and its settlement disputes with the Palestinians.

These shifts in U.S. policy are concerning to many, especially given its role as a global leader in promoting democracy and freedom. As the U.S. moves toward more conservative stances on borders and immigration, its approach mirrors the more hardline policies seen in Israel’s dealings with Iran and other neighbouring countries. This trend should not be viewed as a mere shift in policy but rather as a signal to neighbouring countries in the Middle East to reassess their foreign relations strategies in the context of changing global dynamics.

Iran, the second largest country in the Middle East, has significantly used its vast natural resources, contributing to its relative economic stability. However, Iran’s nuclear program remains a source of significant international controversy. The Iranian government claims that its nuclear efforts are peaceful and intended for energy generation, although many countries, including the United States, have expressed concerns about the potential for weaponisation.

On October 18, 2023, a key milestone was reached when all remaining nuclear-related sanctions on Iran, under UN Security Council Resolution 2231, expired. This included lifting restrictions on ballistic missile technology and other sensitive military technologies. A year later, on October 01, 2024, Iran launched nearly 200 ballistic missiles toward Israel, escalating tensions in an already volatile region.[41], [42]

On October 01, 2024, Iran launched nearly 200 ballistic missiles toward Israel, escalating tensions in an already volatile region.

Jordan’s relationship with Israel has become increasingly strained, following a pattern like that of Iran. While Israel, Jordan, and the U.S. worked together in the 1960s to create a vision for peace, cooperation, and prosperity, tensions began to rise in subsequent decades. Some Israeli right-wing groups argued that Israel was making too many concessions to Jordan without receiving sufficient returns. These claims were further fueled by Israeli settler violence in the West Bank, as well as military actions that contributed to the ongoing deterioration of relations between the two countries.

The situation has raised concerns in Jordan, where there is fear that growing anti-Israel sentiment could lead to instability within the country. Some analysts warn that this could exacerbate tensions and potentially spark violent protests or other forms of unrest, though the situation remains fluid.[43]

A Ceasefire Remains a Global Priority Amidst Complex Challenges

A ceasefire remains a priority for many nations, but the situation is complicated by Hamas’s leadership, which continues to reject negotiations in Favor of a militant agenda. While Israel defends its right to self-defence, the conflict has deepened existing grievances and highlighted issues of systemic injustice, fuelling ongoing tensions. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza underscores the urgent need for a resolution that addresses both security concerns and the Palestinian people’s aspirations for self-determination.

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza underscores the urgent need for a resolution that addresses both security concerns and the Palestinian people’s aspirations for self-determination.

The path to peace requires not only a ceasefire but also a comprehensive approach that tackles the root causes of the conflict. While military action has dominated the response, long-term stability will depend on sustained international diplomacy and efforts to recognise the rights and security of all parties involved. The road to peace remains uncertain, but a balanced approach to addressing both sides, including the Muslim community, is crucial for any meaningful resolution.

 

---

Joshua Paul-Mendoza is a dedicated Homeland Security major with a focus on Cyber Security and Social Work at Roberts Wesleyan University in the U.S. His passion for service is reflected in his previous volunteer work as a firefighter and his participation in AFJROTC. Motivated by a commitment to combat human trafficking and address issues of corrupt politics, Joshua aims to contribute to creating a more just and equitable world. Currently, he is furthering his professional journey through an internship with The Defence Horizon Journal to achieve his dream career in the FBI. The views contained in this article are the author’s alone.

---

[1] BBC News, “What is Hamas and why is it fighting with Israel In Gaza?,” October 21, 2024, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67039975.

[2] Idem.

[3] Idem.

[4] Aljazeera, “Isreal and Hamas agree Gaza ceasefire after 11 days of fighting,” May 20, 2021, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/20/israel-and-hamas-annouce-gaza-ceasefire.

[5] BBC News, “What is Hamas and why is it fighting with Israel In Gaza?,” October 21, 2024, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67039975.

[6] William Christou, Bethan McKernan, “Positive progress made in Hezbollah-Israel ceasefire talks, US envoy says,” The Guardian, November 20, 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/20/us-envoy-says-positive-progress-made-in-hezbollah-israel-ceasefire-talks.

[7] BBC News, “What is Hamas and why is it fighting with Israel In Gaza?,” October 21, 2024, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67039975.

[8] Idem.

[9] Idem.

[10] Idem.

[11] Yolande Knell, Toby Luckhurst, “Israeli settlers are seizing Palestinian land under cover of war- they hope permanently,” BBC News, August 27, 2024, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c624qr3mqrzo.

[12] Mohammed Samhouri, “Understanding Gaza: Lessons for the “day after” and beyond,” Middle East Institute, October 04, 2024, https://www.mei.edu/publications/understanding-gaza-lessons-day-after-and-beyond.

[13] Idem.

[14] Shira Rubin, Jobi Warrick, “Hamas envisioned deeper attack aiming to provoke an Israeli war,” October 13, 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/12/hamas-planning-terror-gaza-israel/.

[15] Richard Heidman, Joseph Tipograph, David Matas, “International court of justice submission,” January 09, 2024, https://bnaibrith-org-wpom.nyc3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/International-Court-of-Justice-Submission.-January-9-2024.pdf.

[16] Judy Dempsey, “Judy Asks: Does Anyone Benefit From the Israel-Hamas War?,” Carnegie Endowment, October 12, 2023, https://carnegieendowment.org/europe/strategic-europe/2023/10/judy-asks-does-anyone-benefit-from-the-israel-hamas-war?lang=en.

[17] Idem.

[18] US Embassy in Israel, “Statement from President Joe Biden on the Death of Yahya Sinwar,” U.S. Embassy in Israel, October 17, 2024, https://il.usembassy.gov/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-the-death-of-yahya-sinwar/.

[19] Idem.

[20] Raffi Berg, “Why has Israel attacked Iran,” BBC News, October 26, 2024, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68811276.

[21] The White House, “President Obama: Advancing Israel’s Security and supporting Peace,” July 27, 2012, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/advancing-israels-security.

[22] Idem.

[23] Ellen Knickmeyer, “US Spends a record $17.9 billion on military aid to Israel since last Oct.7,” AP News, October 07, 2024, https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-us-military-spending-8e6e5033f7a1334bf6e35f86e7040e14.

[24] Fatma Khaled, “Yemen’s Houthi rebels are looking to gain from continuing conflict in the Middle East,” AP News, October 02, 2024, https://apnews.com/article/yemen-houthis-gaza-israel-defe499e9df870381f078ad3e3b667b5.

[25] Idem.

[26] Wafaa Shurafa, Ahmed Al-Haj, Jack Jeffery, “Israeli military says it has struck Houthi targets in Yemen in response to attacks,” AP News, July 21, 2024, https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-baby-strike-survive-786ff10ee4c3534024833ebbf586fadc.

[27] Idem.

[28] Mark Reynolds, “Israel warns Hezbollah of widening of the war against entire Lebanese state,” MSN, December 04, 2024, https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/israel-warns-hezbollah-of-widening-of-the-war-against-entire-lebanese-state/ar-AA1vgq4G?ocid=BingNewsSerp.

[29] BBC News, “Hezbollah says ‘first phase’ of its attack is over after exchange of strikes with Israel,” August 24, 2024, Israel Hezbollah latest: Hezbollah says ‘first phase’ of its attack is over after exchange of strikes with Israel – BBC News.

[30] Raffi Berg, “Why has Israel attacked Iran,” BBC News, October 26, 2024, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68811276.

[31] Noah Sylvia, “Israel’s Targeting AI: How Capable is it?,” RUSI, February 08, 2024, https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/israels-targeting-ai-how-capable-it.

[32] Idem.

[33] Noah Sylvia, “The Israel Defence Forces’ Use of AI in Gaza: A Case of Misplaced Purpose,” RUSI, July 04, 2024, https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/israel-defense-forces-use-ai-gaza-case-misplaced-purpose.

[34] Idem.

[35] Idem.

[36] CRS Reports, “Defence Primer: U.S. Precision- Guided Munitions,” Congressional Research Service, August 25, 2020, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11353/4.

[37] Jeremy Diamond, Sebastian Shukla, Mohammad Al-Sawalhi, Abeer Salman, and Kareem Khadder, “Israeli Precision-Guided munition likely killed group of children playing foosball in Gaza, weapons experts say,” CNN World, May 03, 2024, https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/02/middleeast/israeli-precision-guided-munition-maghazi-deaths-intl/index.html.

[38] Richard Heidman, Joseph Tipograph, David Matas, “International court of justice submission,” January 09, 2024, https://bnaibrith-org-wpom.nyc3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/International-Court-of-Justice-Submission.-January-9-2024.pdf.

[39] Maziar Motamedi, “Iran and Israel: From allies to archenemies, how did they get here?,” Aljazeera, November 06, 2023, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/6/iran-and-israel-from-allies-to-archenemies-how-did-they-get-here.

[40] Idem.

[41] Claire Mills, “What is the status of Iran’s nuclear programme and the JCPOA,” UK Parliament, October 04, 2024, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9870/.

[42] Raffi Berg, “Why has Israel attacked Iran,” BBC News, October 26, 2024, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68811276.

[43] Nimrod Goren, “Strained Israel-Jordan ties are further tested by Gaza but a turnaround is possible,” Middle East Institute, November 08, 2024, https://www.mei.edu/publications/strained-israel-jordan-ties-are-further-tested-gaza-turnaround-possible.