The Tufts Political Science Department hosted an event titled “One Year to the Israel-Hamas War” on Oct. 30, where Dr. Alon Burstein, a visiting assistant professor in the Department of Political Science and an Israel Institute Fellow, presented an overview of the ongoing conflict. The discussion aimed to shed light on the complexities of the Israel-Hamas war, over a year since Oct. 7.
Burstein completed his Ph.D. at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 2021, where his dissertation won the International Studies Association’s Mark Juergensmeyer Award for Best Dissertation in Religion and International Relations. In an email to the Daily, Burstein shared his goals for the presentation.
“Very often people who feel passionate about the subject focus solely on one aspect - whether this is the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, the hostage situation, Hamas government, Israeli attacks, etc. This leads people to articulate ‘one simple answer’ to the entire situation, because they are focusing solely on one aspect, ignoring the others,” Burstein wrote. “My main aim was to show how everything is intertwined, and the need to consider solutions that will factor in these multiple layers of complexity.”
Burstein began by providing background information, explaining the situation leading up to the Oct. 7 attack, and said that “251 people were kidnapped back to Gaza Strip … 255 includ[ing] four Israelis already held in Gaza.”
He then discussed the status of hostages a year later. Of those taken, he said 117 have returned alive, 37 bodies have been recovered and 101 individuals remain held captive.
“101 hostages remain in the Gaza Strip now for over a year. Of them, it is unclear exactly how many are alive,” he noted, adding that estimates from Israeli intelligence officials suggest that around 50 or fewer hostages are still alive.
Burstein also discussed the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. “Prior to the war, upwards of 500 aid trucks would enter into the Gaza Strip each day, bringing in food, water, medical supplies,” he explained.
Burnstein argued that following Oct. 7, the humanitarian situation in Gaza can be divided into four periods, with Oct. 8 through Nov. 28 being an “absolute siege,” with some access restored in April through September. However, by October of this year, the situation had deteriorated once again.
Addressing the ongoing nature of the conflict, Burstein suggested that the lack of a governance plan for Gaza by the Israeli Defense Forces has contributed to the prolonged hostilities.
“The IDF … is not actually implementing any plan for governance in the Gaza Strip,” he said. “Right now, the Gaza Strip is an entire cat-and-mouse game between the IDF and Hamas. The main criticism of Israel being its intention to defeat Hamas without implementing any other strategy to rebuild something else.”
Burstein commented on the possible implications of the U.S. presidential election for the region. He noted that a regional agreement with Saudi Arabia aimed at normalizing relations could become a key policy focus.
“There were attempts before the U.S. elections [to create] some sort of regional deal with Saudi Arabia that would possibly lead to some normalization,” Burstein explained, adding that both parties might pursue such deals to advance their goals.
Reflecting on the core message of his presentation, Burstein highlighted the importance of distinguishing between explaining and justifying actions in the context of the war.
“The largest misunderstanding people have had about this war is the conflation of explaining something and justifying it,” he wrote to the Daily. “If we want to address a situation, we need to be able to explain and understand how it developed. This should not be confused with justifying an action or legitimizing it.”
Burstein emphasized that a meaningful resolution to the conflict requires understanding the perspectives of all sides.
“If you cannot understand the other side (even if you vehemently disagree with it), you will never be able to draft a solution that the other side will accept, leading to further escalation and conflict,” he wrote.
