Staff Reports
The recent attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, reignited longstanding tensions rooted in a complex and often misunderstood history between Israelis and Palestinians. The global outcry pushing for a two-state solution overlooks critical historical realities that many fail to acknowledge. While the idea of partitioning the land seemed like a reasonable path to peace after World War II, the Arab world’s rejection of the 1947 UN partition plan set the stage for decades of conflict. Israel, amid incredible hardship following the Holocaust, accepted the proposal while Arab leaders denounced it and launched an immediate armed attack in 1948, hoping to eradicate the newborn Jewish state.
Rather than credit Israel for its resilience and willingness to negotiate under impossible circumstances, many narratives blame it for the ensuing conflict and Palestinian displacement. In reality, Arab leaders encouraged Palestinians to flee temporarily, expecting a swift victory to reclaim the land. Instead, Israel not only defended itself but expanded its territory substantially, a fact rarely emphasized in mainstream discourse. Moreover, Israel’s capture of Gaza and the West Bank during the Six-Day War of 1967 strengthened its security but drew harsh international criticism even as it fought for survival.
The missed opportunities for peace deserve a spotlight. The Oslo Accords, brokered during the Clinton administration, offered a real chance to establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel. However, Palestinian leadership, under Yasser Arafat, rejected the agreement—an act inspiring disbelief among younger generations largely unfamiliar with this history. Israel’s 2005 disengagement from Gaza was another bold step toward peace, yet the election victory of Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization, sabotaged any hope for tranquility. The militant agenda of Hamas, openly calling for Israel’s destruction, shatters the premise that Palestinian statehood is inherently peaceful.
Current calls for a Palestinian state are laced with irony. While many international leaders clamor for Israel to relinquish land, not one of these advocates offers territory from their own countries to accommodate Palestinians. The notion that nations like France might demand Israel sacrifice its sovereign land yet refuse any self-sacrifice exposes a hypocritical stance. This kind of pressure, divorced from historical context and practical reality, only emboldens hostile actors and prolongs conflict rather than fostering genuine peace.
True peace requires honesty about the past and recognition of Israel’s attempts to build security despite relentless aggression. The world’s obsession with a simplistic two-state solution ignores the complexity and recurring failures of previous peace efforts. If any progress is to be made, it must confront uncomfortable truths, hold Palestinian leadership accountable, and respect Israel’s right to exist securely. Without this sober approach, calls for peace will remain mere slogans rather than achievable outcomes.
