On Jan. 27, Claremont McKenna College’s (CMC) Open Academy and Keck Center Institute for International and Strategic Studies hosted a discussion facilitated by professors Heather Ferguson, Jon Shields and Hilary Appel titled “The War in Gaza.” The conversation, which was initially held at the Kravis Center, continued at Appel’s home later that evening over a Syrian dinner of fattoush salad, pita, hummus and falafel provided by Claremont Canopy.
UCLA Professor James Gelvin initiated the discussion by providing some context for the conflict in Gaza, referencing Palestinian militant group Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack in Israel.
“We can only guess about Hamas’s motivations on what it has done,” he said. “One of the reasons Hamas did this might have been to keep the Palestinian issue on the front burner of international affairs. Secondly, [it could have been] to prevent any remit that might undercut Palestinian aspirations.”
Gelvin explained that, since the Oct. 7 attack, Israel’s retaliatory siege has resulted in mass-scale destruction and death in Gaza.
“Now, there are 5,000 homeless in Gaza, 70 percent of the housing stock is fabricated and 96 percent of the water supply is unfit for consumption,” he said. “Unless things change dramatically, it is expected that there will be approximately 500,000 deaths of violence, hunger and disease.”
Hicham Bou Nassif, Weinberg Associate Professor of International Relations and the Middle East at CMC, had a different set of concerns. According to Nassif, Israel’s controversial response to the events of Oct. 7 has inflicted harm on civilians, but has also been — in some ways — necessary.
“[Israel is] punishing the population, most of which is anti-Hamas or certainly not very sympathetic to Hamas,” he said. “It’s very difficult to fight a war in the current world without killing civilians. But yes, Israel should hit back, Israel should hit back militarily because the target of destroying Hamas is legitimate.”
Gelvin then challenged Nassif’s perspective by suggesting that perhaps it was not the act of defending oneself as a state, but the manner in which Israel was doing so that was the problem.
“Obviously there’s a military strategy, but there’s also a sense of revenge and hate and a lack of sensibility to children and women being killed en masse,” Gelvin said. “I believe you’re right, that [Hamas is] so enmeshed in the civilian population that it’s impossible not to kill civilians, but I would say it’s very, very possible to drastically reduce the number of civilians that were to be killed.”
Melanie Kallah CM ’25, during the Q&A, also challenged Nassif’s perspective, specifically addressing his earlier comment about the legitimacy of Israel’s attack.
“I understand the need to obliterate Hamas after killing Israelis,” Kallah said. “The question is, what’s the point of obliterating mosques?”
The conversation then shifted into an evaluation of the forms of governance used by actors in the conflict. Nassif opened with his own assessment.
“It seems that jihadi organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah and their systems, focus on war and focus on jihad — they focus on terrorist attacks,” Nassif said. “But once they get into power via these kinds of tactics, they have no idea how to govern.”
Kallah used her experiences from her time abroad in Jordan, a country east of Israel, to reflect on this topic and touch on the importance of language.
“We shouldn’t use absolutes to say every case in which you have Muslim rule in a country is gonna be harmful to the minority,” she said. “I just spent five months in Jordan and I can tell you, Jordan is a perfect example that should be used more in these conversations. To me, I find hope in a case where you can see more harmony amongst different religions.”
As the event drew to a close, Nassif stressed the importance of understanding how complex the conflict in Gaza is, urging students to remain critical of what the media curates for citizens and reflecting on his own exposure to recent news coverage.
“I’m reading about all these students over different campuses in the United States presenting Hamas as some kind of anti-imperialist resistance,” Nassif said. “The liberal order must not be so naive. Stop romanticizing what should not be romanticized. If Israel is committing a human rights violation, that does not mean Hamas is a good guy.”
Instead, Nassif encouraged students to be realistic when approaching current conflicts and to “stop harboring daydreams.”
During the last few minutes of conversation, Eli Jobrack Lundy CM ’27, an audience member at the event, stated a reflection.
“We have to recognize, especially when we’re trying to reduce the human suffering involved, that Israel has a legacy of being hurt by people surrounding them,” he said. “We need to ensure that, in moving forward, we are not delegitimizing the struggle of the Jewish people and the Israeli people in ensuring a peace for the region.”
Facebook Comments