Table of Contents
Overview of Tactics and Logic
Suicide bombings and large-scale military operations became defining features of the Israel–Palestine conflict from the late 1980s onward. Both tactics aim to shape political outcomes and public opinion by the use of violence, but they operate very differently. Suicide bombings are carried out by individuals or small cells, often in civilian spaces, and are typically framed by their organizers as a weapon of the weak. Israeli military operations involve organized state forces, advanced technology, and formal chains of command, and are usually framed by Israel as defensive or preemptive actions.
This chapter focuses on how these tactics emerged, how they were justified and perceived, and how they interacted as part of escalating cycles of violence. Broader background on the intifadas and on the overall conflict is addressed elsewhere.
Emergence of Suicide Bombings in the Conflict
Suicide bombings as a method appeared in the Israel–Palestine context in the early 1990s. Palestinian organizations drew on a tactic that had been used in other conflicts and adapted it to local conditions. Islamist movements in particular gave these attacks religious and ideological framing, while some secular groups also adopted or supported similar methods.
Suicide bombings targeted buses, cafes, markets, hotels, and other crowded places inside Israel, especially during the 1990s and the Second Intifada. The attackers sought to bypass Israel’s strong conventional military power and reach areas that were otherwise hard to penetrate. The human body itself became the delivery mechanism for the explosive, which made prevention difficult, especially before the expansion of physical barriers, checkpoints, and intelligence networks.
Organizers presented these bombings as responses to occupation, killings, and perceived injustices, and as a way to inflict a psychological and political cost on Israel. The timing of some major bombings, for example during sensitive negotiation periods, suggests that they were also used to influence or derail political processes.
Recruitment, Preparation, and Organization
The decision of an individual to carry out a suicide attack usually occurred within a structured organizational setting. Armed groups used networks in universities, mosques, refugee camps, and neighborhoods to identify potential recruits. Some recruits had personal experiences of loss or humiliation, others were motivated by broader political or religious narratives, or by a mix of both.
Recruitment often involved a combination of ideological instruction, emotional appeals, and social pressure. Religious language sometimes framed the act as martyrdom. In secular groups, the emphasis was more on national liberation and sacrifice for the homeland. Families of attackers were sometimes publicly praised or supported financially. In some cases, families opposed the act but found themselves under intense community and organizational pressure.
Preparation of an attack required technical and logistical work by support teams. These teams gathered intelligence on targets, built explosive devices, forged documents, and arranged transportation. The attacker was usually kept away from most operational details to limit the risk of exposure. A farewell video, in which the attacker explained their motives and pledged loyalty to the group’s cause, was often recorded and later broadcast as propaganda and recruitment material.
Targets and Impact on Civilians
Suicide bombings in this conflict overwhelmingly targeted civilians, even when they were framed by organizers as hits on the enemy society in general. Buses during morning commutes, restaurants at peak hours, nightlife districts, and religious celebrations were recurrent targets. Sometimes security or military personnel were present, but the design of the attack meant that noncombatants usually bore the heaviest cost.
The immediate human impact included mass casualties in confined spaces, severe physical injuries, and long-term trauma for survivors and witnesses. Because suicide bombings took place in everyday settings, they undermined any sense of normalcy. Routine acts such as taking public transport or going to a cafe became associated with fear and constant vigilance.
Psychologically, the unpredictability of suicide bombings created a pervasive sense of insecurity within Israeli society. Politically, this fear translated into greater public support for harsh security measures, military retaliation, and restrictive policies toward Palestinians. The attacks also hardened attitudes and diminished support for compromise among many Israelis.
Strategic Aims and Political Effects
Organizers of suicide bombings stated a range of goals. Some wanted to force Israel to withdraw from occupied territories by making the costs of occupation unbearable. Others wanted to sabotage political negotiations that they considered illegitimate or insufficient. Still others sought to increase their own movement’s influence within Palestinian politics by showing that they were the most effective resisters.
These attacks did at times shape Israeli domestic politics. Waves of bombings during sensitive periods, such as the mid 1990s and the early 2000s, influenced elections, weakened leaders associated with negotiation, and strengthened figures who promised tougher security policies. They also provided justification for new Israeli security infrastructures, including extensive checkpoints and the construction of the separation barrier in and around the West Bank.
From the Palestinian side, some supporters believed that suicide bombings were the only means to get international attention and pressure Israel. However, over time, many Palestinians came to see them as counterproductive. Suicide bombings contributed to the portrayal of Palestinians internationally as terrorists rather than primarily as an occupied population. They also provided political justification for extensive Israeli military operations that caused large-scale Palestinian casualties and damage.
Israeli Military Operations as Response and Strategy
Israeli governments presented large-scale military operations as necessary responses to suicide bombings and other attacks, and as part of a broader strategy to maintain security and deterrence. Military operations ranged from targeted raids to major offensives involving ground forces, air power, and armored units.
During the Second Intifada, Israel launched extensive operations in West Bank cities, justified in part as an effort to dismantle the infrastructure behind suicide bombings. These operations included sieges, incursions into densely populated areas, and the arrest or killing of suspected militants and organizers. In Gaza, major campaigns were carried out with the aim of stopping rocket fire and preventing attacks, including suicide operations, from being organized or supported from there.
Israel’s military methods included targeted killings of commanders and bomb-makers, destruction of houses of suspects, raids on weapons workshops, and the imposition of curfews. Large operations also involved the destruction of roads, police stations, administrative buildings, and in some cases, civilian infrastructure said to have dual-use value. The operations were often justified as attempts to degrade the capacity of armed groups and to deter future attacks by raising their costs.
Civilian Harm in Military Operations
Although Israeli military operations officially distinguished between combatants and noncombatants, civilians frequently suffered heavy losses. Urban warfare in crowded camps and cities, the use of heavy firepower in dense neighborhoods, and restrictions on movement and medical access all contributed to high civilian casualties and widespread destruction of property.
In Gaza in particular, repeated large-scale operations led to significant civilian deaths and injuries, extensive damage to homes and basic infrastructure, and long-term humanitarian effects. Israel attributed many civilian casualties to the tactics of Palestinian armed groups, such as operating from within civilian areas, storing weapons in residential buildings, or using civilian sites for military purposes. Palestinian and international critics argued that Israel used disproportionate force and failed to adequately protect civilians.
These military operations shaped daily life for Palestinians, including prolonged curfews, closures, restrictions on movement of goods and people, and interruptions to education, work, and medical care. The economic and social damage from repeated operations profoundly influenced Palestinian society and added to feelings of collective punishment and grievance.
Legal and Moral Controversies
Both suicide bombings and large-scale military operations generated intense legal and moral debates. Suicide bombings were widely condemned as deliberate attacks on civilians, a direct violation of basic principles of international humanitarian law. The use of the attacker’s own death as an integral part of the method, and the attempts to glorify the act, raised further ethical questions. Within Palestinian society there were also internal debates, with some religious and political voices opposing the tactic on moral, religious, or strategic grounds.
Israeli military operations were scrutinized for compliance with international law, particularly the rules of distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack. Specific incidents, such as the killing of families in targeted killing operations or the destruction of civilian infrastructure, became focal points for accusations of war crimes. Israel asserted that it acted within the law and sometimes publicized warning procedures and internal investigations. Critics argued that repeated patterns of harm and the scale of some operations indicated systematic problems.
These debates were not only legal but also moral. They raised questions about collective responsibility, the ethics of resistance and self-defense, the legitimacy of different forms of violence in asymmetric conflicts, and the distinction between intention and foreseeable consequence. The global discourse around the conflict frequently used images and narratives from suicide bombings and military operations to support opposing moral claims.
Media, Imagery, and Public Perception
Suicide bombings and military operations were mediated to the world through powerful images and narratives. Footage of bombed buses and shattered cafes circulated widely in Israeli and global media and became central to the Israeli public’s perception of Palestinian violence. In Palestinian and Arab media, images of destroyed homes, injured or killed civilians, and large funerals following Israeli operations shaped understandings of Israeli power and Palestinian victimhood or resilience.
Armed groups used the recorded testimonies of suicide attackers and images of damage caused by operations as part of their propaganda. Israeli authorities highlighted intercepted videos, bomb-making sites, and weapons to justify security measures and operations. Competing narratives often focused on the same events, but with very different emphases on cause, responsibility, and legitimacy.
These representations influenced domestic and international opinion, contributed to dehumanization, and sometimes made compromise more difficult. At the same time, they played a role in mobilizing international advocacy, solidarity movements, and diplomatic pressure, whether in support of Israel’s security concerns or of Palestinian rights.
Cycles of Action and Reaction
Suicide bombings and military operations became linked in a cycle in which each side claimed to be reacting to the other. Palestinian armed groups often framed attacks as retaliation for killings, house demolitions, closures, or broader occupation policies. Israeli leaders presented military operations as responses to suicide bombings, rocket fire, or other attacks, and as efforts to prevent future violence.
This action reaction dynamic tended to escalate over time. A suicide bombing would provoke an Israeli military response, which in turn would cause new Palestinian casualties and damage. These consequences would fuel anger, grief, and calls for revenge, feeding new recruitment and support for further attacks. Breaks in the cycle, such as ceasefires or de-escalation agreements, were fragile and easily undermined by new incidents.
The cycle also had internal political dimensions. Within the Palestinian camp, groups sometimes competed to show that they were more effective in resisting Israel, which could encourage more spectacular or deadly attacks. Within Israel, political actors sometimes used attacks or operations to argue for either tougher measures or alternative strategies, including negotiations or unilateral actions. This internal competition on both sides made a stable reduction in violence more difficult.
Long-Term Effects on the Conflict
The period marked by suicide bombings and major military operations has had lasting effects on the conflict. It reshaped physical and political landscapes, for example through new security infrastructures, altered borders of effective control, and shifting public opinions. Many Israelis came to see deep separation from Palestinians as necessary for security. Many Palestinians associated Israel not only with occupation but with repeated large-scale military force against their communities.
These developments affected later diplomacy, internal politics, and even proposals for future arrangements. Ideas such as full demilitarization, international security guarantees, or changes in movement and access are all influenced by memories and assessments of suicide bombings and military operations. Trauma, mistrust, and hardened narratives remain powerful legacies of this period of intense violence.
Understanding how suicide bombings and military operations functioned, and how they interacted, helps explain why cycles of violence during the intifadas were so destructive and why reversing their long-term consequences has proven so difficult.