What is the Truth Behind Israel’s Incursions into the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, West Bank, and Syria?

The historical foundation goes back to 1947, when the United Nations proposed two states in Palestine. Jewish leaders accepted, but Arab leaders rejected the proposal. A regional war followed Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948, creating refugees and armistice lines but no agreed final borders. Following the conflict, Egypt administered Gaza; Jordan controlled the West Bank and East Jerusalem; and Syria held the Golan Heights. In short, the current “incursions” into Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria are rooted in unresolved borders and repeated wars, not a single decision made by the current Israeli government.

In the Six‑Day War in 1967, Israel captured the Gaza Strip, West Bank (including East Jerusalem), Sinai, and Golan Heights from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Following the conflict, The UN Security Council set out the “land for peace” principle. The principle allowed for the withdrawal of troops from Israeli controlled territories in exchange for recognition and security for the region’s inhabitants (Occupation [land] for troop withdrawal [peace]). In this agreement the territories of Gaza, West Bank, and Golan were considered as occupied, but not a part of Israel. However, Israel has viewed the West bank as a disputed, rather than occupied.

Gaza

In 2005,due to international pressure to recognize Palestinian autonomy, Israel removed settlements and permanent ground forces from Gaza, but kept control over airspace, maritime access, and most borders. As a result, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN General Assembly, and the Security Council still treated Israel as the occupying power. Tensions continued and then increased further when Hamas took control of the region in 2007. Rocket fire and cross‑border attacks intensified. Israel responded with repeated military operations. Since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks, Israel has re‑entered and re‑occupied large parts of Gaza, with extensive destruction and civilian casualties. Israel now controls most of the strip’s territory.

Israel’s stated rationale, considering the October 7 attack, has been to neutralize Hamas, stop rocket fire, free hostages, and prevent future attacks. While the initial retaliation was viewed by most of the world as justified, the continued attacks have been viewed as an unlawful, long‑term occupation and siege amounting to collective punishment (and possibly crimes) under international law. Israel now exercises decisive military and economic control over Gaza; that control is widely classified as occupation.

West Bank

In the West Bank, Israel has established the longest-running occupation and settlement project in recent history. Israel has maintained military control over the West Bank since 1967, with a dense network of settlements, roads, and checkpoints. Interestingly, the Israeli Supreme Court calls this a “belligerent occupation,” by their own government.

Why has Israel continued to occupy the West Bank? Although viewed as illegal by the UN, Israel conducts frequent raids, arrests, and targeted operations against armed groups, citing terrorism and protection of settlers. Settlement expansion and infrastructure effectively fragment this Palestinian territory, making a contiguous sovereign state harder to realize.

Most states and international bodies view the settlements as illegal, and the occupation is contrary to international law. in 2024, the ICJ called the occupation unlawful and urged rapid withdrawal and reparations. Israel’s incursions in the West Bank, as viewed by most of the world, are part of a continuous system of control (military, legal, and demographic) rather than isolated events.

Lebanon

In 1982Israel entered Lebanon to expel the PLO, eventually occupying a “security zone” in the south until 2000. The security zone held until 2006. In that year, triggered by Hezbollah’s cross‑border raid and rocket fire, Israel launched a major campaign in Lebanon. As the conflict in Gaza escalated, Hezbollah militants in Lebanon supported their Hamas allies by attacking Israel. Attacks on Israel by Hezbollah resulted in Israel (again) invading parts of southern Lebanon. Israel has maintained military outposts and an expanded occupation area, citing ongoing Hezbollah threats. While Israel has a right to defend against rocket attacks and cross‑border raids, most international opinion criticizes Israel for repeated violations of Lebanese sovereignty, civilian harm, and risk of regional escalation. Israel has responded with continued incursions that have become a prolonged presence, which in turn fuels further resistance.

Syria and the Golan Heights

in 1967, Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria and effectively annexed it in 1981. This annexation has not been recognized by most of the international community. In 2024, Israel occupied an additional UN buffer zone east of the Golan, expanding its control in Syrian territory. Israel argues that the region is needed as a deterrent against Syria and Iranian‑aligned forces. The area is considered occupied Syrian territory. Thus, annexation is viewed as contrary to UN resolutions and international law.

Involvement by the United States

U.S. policy began as early ambivalence and strategic caution (1947–1972). It evolved to strong, institutionalized support beginning in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, driven by Cold War strategy, domestic politics, and the rise of organized pro‑Israel lobbying.

Before Israel’s founding, the U.S. government opinion was divided. The State Department opposed a Jewish state, fearing conflict with Arab states and threats to oil access. However, President Truman personally sympathized with Jewish refugees after the Holocaust and supported partition.Truman recognized Israel merely minutes after its declaration of independence. His recognition was symbolic and did not include military support. Aid was tied to economic issues and was relatively modest. The U.S. supported Israel diplomatically but did not yet treat Israel as a strategic ally.

In 1973, during the Yom Kippur War, U.S. policy decisively shifted. President Nixon, fearing the collapse of Israel, launched a massive resupply operation to prevent Israel’s defeat. This cemented Israel as a Cold War ally against Soviet‑backed Arab states. Thus, 1973 marked the beginning of large-scale, ongoing military assistance.

At the same time the American Israel Public Affairs Committee started to grow its political influence with the American Congress.Their lobbying efforts increased congressional involvement in supporting Israel. U.S. support became bipartisan and strategic. Israel soon became one of the largest recipients of U.S. military aid. Presidents from both parties deepened cooperation, though with occasional tensions.

By the 1980s, Israel was widely viewed as a key U.S. strategic partner in the Middle East. This alignment was seen as a foil to Arab states increasingly aligned with the Soviet Union. Supporting Israel helped counter Soviet influence. U.S. leaders saw Israel as a reliable, militarily capable partner in a volatile region.

What is the “fact driven truth”?

If you strip away propaganda from all sides, a few hard points remain. Incursions are rooted in wars dating back to 1948, and especially 1967, when Israel came to control Gaza, West Bank, Golan, and later parts of Lebanon. International law overwhelmingly classifies these areas as occupied territories with Israel as the occupying power, regardless of Israeli political terminology. Israel consistently frames its actions as self‑defense and security, responding to attacks from the Palestinian Liberation Army, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other groups. Critics argue that these security claims mask a long‑term project of territorial control and demographic engineering, especially via settlements in the West Bank and entrenched control over Gaza and the Golan.

The human cost, displacement of the population, civilian casualties (Lancelot Health estimates over 75,000 deaths since 2025), and entrenched hostility, are massive and cumulative, making each new incursion both a reaction to past violence and a cause of future violence.

South Africa has alleged genocide by Israel in Gaza. It has been joined by Malaysia, Turkey, Jordan, Bolivia, the Maldives, Namibia, Pakistan, the Arab League, Colombia, and Brazil. Brazil took an additional formal legal step by filing a declaration of intervention under Article 63 of the International Court of Justice statute, which is a distinct legal engagement beyond mere political support.

Meanwhile, a UN Commission of Inquiry issued a report in mid-September 2025 concluding that Israel had committed genocide in the Gaza Strip, urging states to fulfill legal obligations to end the genocide and hold perpetrators accountable. The commission’s chair and the report’s language framed the situation as a genocidal campaign that requires international action. The UN finding is not itself a binding legal judgment like the ICJ’s eventual ruling. But it is a formal UN investigative body’s determination that influences diplomatic pressure, calls for sanctions, and arguments before international courts and national governments seeking to determine recognition or obligations under the Genocide Convention.

The cycle needs to end. However, to date no one seems to have a workable solution.

What is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)?

The AIPAC is the largest and most influential pro-Israel lobby organization in the United States. This lobby’s total dollars invested in political influence dwarfs spending by most other lobby groups. AIPAC’s stated mission is to encourage and persuade the U.S. government to adopt policies that ensure a strong and lasting partnership with Israel. This includes lobbying for specific pro‑Israel policies, including security assistance, countering Iran, combating terrorism, and opposing anti‑Israel discrimination. The group also promotes cooperation in areas like cybersecurity, energy, agriculture, and water security.

The AIPAC spent over $100 million in the 2024 election (Federal Election Commission) to defeat candidates who were critical of Israel. This makes It was the biggest single-issue spender. In the 2024 cycle, 96% of AIPAC‑backed candidates won their general elections, demonstrating its influence. The AIPAC is the dominant pro-Israel lobby group in the United States, with direct contributions and other expenditures used to influence congressional races. Both Republicans and Democrats have received support from the group. In a 30-year period, key legislators have received millions of dollars. Former President Joe Biden benefited from over $4 million, Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz received almost $2 million each. Chuck Schumer was the recipient of $1.3 million. While the AIPAC is not a direct donor, it legally operates the AIPAC PAC, as well as the super PAC, United Democracy.

How much does Congress appropriate for Israel each year? How much is for defense? Congress appropriates about $3.8 billion per year for Israel in normal (non‑emergency) funding, and virtually all of it is defense‑related ($3.3 billion on Foreign Military Financing (FMF)). The remaining $500 million is for the Israel missile defense program (Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow). Emergency supplementals have added several additional billions on top of the baseline.

Since the October 7, 2023 attacks, Congress has passed multiple emergency packages above the $3.8 billion baseline. For example, in FY 2024 Congress appropriated an addition FMF aid of $5.5 billion, $4 billion for the Iron Dome, and $1.2 billion for the new Iron Beam laser defense system. Also, while not dollars directly appropriated for Israel, the current Iran war has cost America over $30 billion dollars in military expenditures!

It is interesting to note that almost all the Israeli appropriated funds return to the United States. Under the 2016 U.S.- Israel Memorandum of Understanding, the FMF must be spent on U.S. defense goods and services. FMF grants must be spent on U.S.‑made military equipment, meaning the entire $3.3 billion FMF portion each year flows directly to U.S. defense contractors.

The missile‑defense funds (Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow) are joint U.S.–Israel programs, but a substantial share (approximately 13%) also goes to U.S. contractors. Iron Dome components are co‑produced in the U.S. Arrow and David’s Sling involve U.S. firms such as Boeing and Raytheon. While the exact percentage varies by program and year, most missile‑defense appropriations also return to U.S. industry through co‑production and joint development

So in practice, well over 85–90% of all U.S. aid to Israel is spent in the United States, not Israel. At this point it might be wise to remember President Eisenhower’s caution, “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex.”

How does our support of Israel compare with that given to other allies? Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. aid since 2001, and its aid is uniquely structured to flow back to U.S. defense contractors. Other regional allies such as Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq receive less than $1.5 billion in general aid. Most is for general economic support programs, not military aid, about 50% of the aid for Israel. On must question, is it the United States’ role to be the major military supporter of Israel?

What differentiates Zionism from Judaism?

Zionism and Judaism differ at the most fundamental levels. Judaism is a religion and civilization, whereas Zionism is a modern political ideology. Judaism is an ancient monotheistic religion and an ethnocultural identity with laws, rituals, ethics, and a global diaspora community. Zionism is a 19th‑century political movement advocating Jewish national self‑determination in the historic land of Israel.

Judaism is a religious beliefin one God and the teachings of the Torah. Halachic law, rituals, holidays, and ethical obligations dominate the religion. Jewish people share a cultural and ethnicidentity that has evolved over millennia across many countries. Just like Christianity there are many diverse denominations (Orthodox, Conservative, Reformed, etc.) with differing interpretations.

Judaism is not inherently tied to any specific political program. A Jew can be religious, secular, anti‑Zionist, or Zionist. Judaism itself does not embrace a political ideology. On the other hand, Zionism first emerged in late‑19th‑century Europe as a nationalist ideology seeking a Jewish homeland in historic Palestine. It is a movement with multiple branches (labor, revisionist, religious, cultural), that eventually led to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.

Zionism is supported by Jews (religious or secular), non‑Jews, and people who see it as a political and cultural struggle. Under the current Israeli government, it is often seen as a security, and a homeland protection philosophy.

Why are the two often confused with each other? Is there an overlap? Yes, there is an overlap. The overlap comes from shared symbols (Jerusalem, the Land of Israel), the fact that 33% of American Jews are Zionists, and Israel’s role in the modern Jewish identity. Approximately 90% of American Jews support Israel’s right to exist. And while 33% self-report as Zionist, less than 25% support the current Netanyahu administration expansionist policies.

To avoid the confusion, it is important to remember that Judaism is a religious/cultural identity, while Zionism is political nationalism. This is why some Jewish groups protest with signs like “Zionism is not Judaism.” They are rejecting the idea that Jewish religious identity requires political Zionism.

The distinction matters because criticism of the Israeli government policy (Netanyahu) is not automatically antisemitic. Not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews. And most importantly Judaism’s 3,000‑year religious tradition is not simply a modern political movement.

Donald Trump and the International Criminal Court

Historical Background

It has been 50 years since the United Nations first recognized the need to establish an international criminal court, to prosecute crimes such as genocide. On December 9, 1948, the General Assembly, “Recognizing that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity; and being convinced that, in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international co-operation is required, adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” The ICC, which was established in 2002, has international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in member states (countries) or if a situation is referred by the U.N. Security Council.

“In the prospect of an international criminal court lies the promise of universal justice. That is the simple and soaring hope of this vision. We are close to its realization. We will do our part to see it through till the end. We ask you . . . to do yours in our struggle to ensure that no ruler, no State, no junta and no army anywhere can abuse human rights with impunity. Only then will the innocents of distant wars and conflicts know that they, too, may sleep under the cover of justice; that they, too, have rights, and that those who violate those rights will be punished.” — Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General

The Roman Statute (named for its introduction in Rome, Italy) establishing the ICC was signed by 125 countries. Former President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute in December 2000, but according to official documentation, the U.S. government under the Bush administration, requested the country’s removal from the treaty before ratification. Other non-signers included China, Russia, and Israel. The United States did not sign the Rome Statute for several reasons, primarily related to concerns over the jurisdiction and effectiveness of the ICC. The U.S. government also expressed fears that the court’s jurisdiction cold be politicized and that it might not be effective in preventing unwanted scrutiny of U.S. military personnel and officials.

The ICC’s Role

The International Criminal Court (ICC) investigates and, where warranted, tries individuals charged with the gravest crimes of concern to the international community: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. The Court is participating in a global fight to end impunity, and through international criminal justice, the Court aims to hold those responsible accountable for their crimes and to help prevent these crimes from happening again.

Today the Court has over 900 staff members from approximately 100 States. It is Headquartered in The Hague, the Netherlands. Since 2002, there have been 34 cases before the Court, with some cases having more than one suspect. ICC judges have issued a total of 61 arrest warrants. Since 2002, thanks to cooperation from member countries, 22 people have been detained in the ICC detention center and have appeared before the Court. Thirty-two people remain at large. Charges have been dropped against 8 people due to their deaths. ICC judges have also issued 9 summons to appear. The judges have issued 13 convictions and 4 acquittals.

The Office of the Prosecutor is an independent organ of the Court. The Prosecutor conducts preliminary examinations and investigations, and is the only one who can bring cases before the Court. Defendants are entitled to public, fair proceedings that they can follow in a language they fully understand. Victims’ voices are heard in the Courtroom, as the Rome Statute grants victims unprecedented rights to participate in ICC proceedings. The ICC has a victim and witness protection program that uses both operational and procedural protective measures.

The Court engages in two-way dialogue directly with communities that have suffered from crimes under its jurisdiction, so that they can communicate directly with the Court and gain a sense of ownership in the judicial process. By supporting the Court, the countries that have joined the Rome Statute system have taken a stand against those perpetrators who, in the past, would have had no one to answer to after committing widespread, systematic international crimes. The ICC calls on all countries to join the fight against impunity, so that perpetrators of such crimes are punished, and to help prevent future occurrences of these crimes. (UN International Criminal Court)

The Trump Administration’s Attack

The Trump administration’s dislike of the court goes back to his first term. The ICC was investigating possible war crimes committed by the United States, as well as the Taliban in Afghanistan. As a result, in 2020, The Trump administration imposed sanctions on then-prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and one of her top aides over the court’s work.

During his second term, on August 20, 2025, President Donald Trump’s administration again imposed sanctions on two judges and two prosecutors at the International Criminal Court, as Washington ramped up its pressure on the ICC over its targeting of Israeli leaders. Washington designated sanctions against Nicolas Yann Guillou of France, Nazhat Shameem Khan of Fiji, Mame Mandiaye Niang of Senegal, and Kimberly Prost of Canada, according to the U.S. Treasury and State Department. The designations freeze any U.S. assets the individuals may have and essentially cut them off from the U.S. financial system. All officials have been involved in cases linked to Israel and the United States. In a statement, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the court “a national security threat that has been an instrument for lawfare” against the United States and Israel. ICC judges issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli defense chief Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader Ibrahim al-Masri last November for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Gaza conflict. The ICC also has high-profile war crimes investigations under way in Sudan, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Venezuela. (Humeyra Pamuk and Anthony Deutsch, Reuters, August 20, 2025)

“The United States has been clear and steadfast in our opposition to the ICC’s politicization, abuse of power, disregard for our national sovereignty, and illegitimate judicial overreach,” Rubio said. “I urge countries that still support the ICC, many of whose freedom was purchased at the price of great American sacrifices, to resist the claims of this bankrupt institution.” Countering Rubio’s call to other countries to oppose the ICC, the court urged member states to stand in solidarity. “The Court calls upon States Parties [countries] and all those who share the values of humanity and the rule of law to provide firm and consistent support to the Court and its work carried out in the sole interest of victims of international crimes,”

Both France and the United Nations said the judges’ work is crucial for international justice. “Their role is essential in the fight against impunity,” a statement from the French Foreign Ministry said. The U.S. sanctions undermine the foundation of international justice, U.N. spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said, adding: “The (U.S.) decision imposes severe impediments on the functioning of the office of the prosecutor.” Netanyahu’s office issued a statement welcoming the U.S. sanctions.

Trump’s Pressure Campaign Against the ICC Reaches New Heights

On December 10, 2025, a U.S. official told Reuters that the White House pressured the International Criminal Court (ICC) to alter its founding document to prevent it from investigating U.S. President Donald Trump and his senior officials. These threats mark a significant escalation in Trump’s long-time campaign against the world’s war crimes tribunal at a time when legal experts are suggesting that the administration may have violated international law with U.S. military operations against alleged drug boats near Latin America.

The White House wants the court to alter the Rome Statute so Trump and his officials can’t be prosecuted. The anonymous U.S. official did not specify which issues the Trump administration fears could become subject to an ICC investigation. However, the official said there was growing concern that “in 2029, the ICC will turn its attention to the president, to the vice president, to the secretary of war and others, and pursue prosecutions against them,” referring to Vice President J.D. Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The timing of the renewed pressure campaign comes as the White House faces growing congressional pressure to release the full, unedited video of a Sept. 2 double-tap strike on an alleged drug trafficking boat in the Caribbean, in which a second strike killed two survivors of an initial U.S. attack. According to the U.S. official, the Trump administration wants the ICC to also formally end its probe into U.S. military actions in Afghanistan as well as to drop its investigations of senior Israeli officials related to the war in Gaza.

The Trump administration has threatened to penalize more ICC officials and potentially sanction the court itself if its three demands are not met. (Alexandra Sharp, the World Brief writer at Foreign Policy)

What Can I Do?

A well-known parable or anecdote, often attributed to various spiritual or philosophical traditions, illustrates the progression of focus and priorities through the different stages of life, highlighting a journey toward inward reflection and personal peace. The story doesn’t have a singular or definitive source; instead, it appears in various adaptations, often within the context of personal growth, wisdom, or spiritual teachings. It tells about a man in his youth, who had a lot of energy to devote to making the world a better place. Then in his middle age, he only had enough energy to focus on those around him. And in his old age, he was happy just to focus on peace within himself. While this journey is common for many of us, we don’t have to abandon the goal of making the world a better place!

I recall when friends were totally devoted to the antiwar effort and civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s. However, after a few months went by, some friends quit, saying that they just wanted to focus on inner peace. And recently, when someone commented on a FB post about how we all should be more devoted to world peace, someone commented that she just tries to be nice to those around her.

On the contrary, we should all try to be as active as possible, (even considering old age, health problems, family, and job commitments). There are many ways to fight injustice, war, and inequality, not only in our own country (which is BADLY needed), but in the world as well. Consider the unjust war in Ukraine, genocide in Gaza, and the starvation in Southern Sudan.

You do not have to march in protests or carry signs to be heard. You can write letters to, send emails to, or call your elected representatives. You can donate to organizations that represent your views. Many are highly rated for their effectiveness. They should be spending their money on lawyers or lobbyists who fight for your views. You can discuss (not argue) issues with others. Push back is good if you have factual information to back your position. Don’t be afraid to ask questions.

In other words, it behooves us as human beings to not just settle for peace within ourselves. This is especially easy considering how economically well off most of us are compared to the rest of the world. It is easy when you live in a town that is relatively peaceful and not threatened by disease or terrorism. We must continue to fight against injustice and inequality. We must work to bring peace throughout the world. This is even true in today’s America where, most recently, there is a fight to defend victims of Trump’s acts of injustice. For example, consider the college student who has a green card but was recently arrested and charged with a criminal act even though he was simply exerting his right to free speech and assembly – to protest the genocide in Gaza. Or consider the arrest of Venezuelans with no habeas corpus rights, using an old and obscure law and executive power. There needs to be a pushback against what appears to be the deliberate destruction of our Constitutional Democracy!

“When injustice become law, resistance becomes duty.” (a quotation attributed to Thomas Jefferson)