Introduction
If we’re really going to have a reality based discussion about the Israel-Hamas conflict, we should start with the primary aim of Hamas. As stated in their founding charter and subsequent documents, is to establish an Islamic state in the entire territory of what was British Mandatory Palestine, which encompasses Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip (and Jordan, but somehow they left that part out). They do not recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel and have historically advocated for its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state through various means, including armed struggle.
Those who are committed to living in a reality based community also need to get honest about what the Israeli government has been doing since the signing of the Oslo Accords and subsequent agreements to undermine them. While I will note that Israeli actions have often been defended as necessary security measures against threats posed by groups committed to its destruction, and the interpretation of these actions is contentious.
Several Israeli administrations, including those led by Benjamin Netanyahu, have been accused of undermining the accords in various ways:
Settlement Expansion: One of the main criticisms of Netanyahu's administrations has been the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Settlements are considered illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this. The continued growth of these settlements is seen by many as a major obstacle to the creation of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state, which is a cornerstone of the two-state solution envisioned by the Oslo process.
Security Measures: Under the claim of security, the Israeli government has maintained a robust military presence in the West Bank and erected barriers and checkpoints. Critics argue that these measures disrupt the daily life and economy of Palestinians and further diminish the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state.
Annexation Plans: Various Israeli leaders, including Netanyahu, have at times discussed the formal annexation of parts of the West Bank, particularly the Jordan Valley and major settlement blocs. While formal annexation has not occurred, such declarations are seen as contradictory to the spirit of the Oslo Accords.
Control Over Resources: Israeli control over water, land, and other natural resources in the occupied territories has also been cited as a form of undermining the potential for a Palestinian state to be self-sufficient, which would be necessary for the full realization of the Oslo Accords.
Undermining Palestinian Authority: Actions and policies that weaken the political and economic position of the Palestinian Authority (PA) are seen as undermining the Accords, which intended for the PA to eventually govern a new Palestinian state.
Incursions and Arrests: Military incursions into areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority and the arrest of Palestinians without trial have been pointed to as measures that erode the power and authority of the PA.
Economic Blockades: The blockade of the Gaza Strip, controlled by Hamas since 2007, has also affected the peace process, although this blockade is complicated by security concerns related to Hamas's declared aim of destroying Israel.
Diplomatic Actions: The Israeli government under Netanyahu also took diplomatic actions that were seen as bypassing the peace process, such as directly lobbying for recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, leading to the United States moving its embassy there in 2018. This was controversial because Jerusalem's final status is supposed to be determined through negotiations, according to the Oslo Accords.
It should also be noted that Palestinian actions, including violence, incitement, and unilateral diplomatic moves, have also been cited as undermining the Oslo process. These include:
Violence and Terrorism: Attacks carried out by Palestinian individuals and militant groups against Israeli civilians have been a major issue. Israel and others argue that these actions violate the spirit of the Oslo Accords, which are predicated on peaceful coexistence.
Incitement: Israeli officials have repeatedly accused Palestinian leaders, including those associated with the PA, of inciting violence against Israel. This includes statements that Israel views as encouraging or glorifying violence, as well as educational materials and public media broadcasts.
Political Division: The split between Fatah, the political party that controls the PA in the West Bank, and Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, has led to a lack of unified Palestinian leadership. This division is seen as an impediment to the peace process because it complicates negotiations and the implementation of any agreements.
Non-Compliance with Security Coordination: The PA has at times threatened to cease security coordination with Israel, which is a key component of the Oslo Accords. While security cooperation has largely continued, these threats are viewed as undermining the accords.
International Diplomacy and Unilateral Actions: The Palestinians have sought to gain recognition of statehood and membership in international organizations without reaching a negotiated settlement with Israel, which Israel views as a breach of the accords' stipulation that final status issues be resolved through direct negotiations.
Refusal to Recognize Israel as a Jewish State: The PA has refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, a demand that Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have placed at the forefront of negotiations. This recognition is seen by Israel as a necessary component of the peace process to ensure the conflict is truly resolved.
Financial Support to Families of Perpetrators of Violence: The PA has a policy of providing financial assistance to the families of Palestinians imprisoned or killed as a result of attacks on Israelis, including those convicted of terrorism. Israel argues that this practice incentivizes violence and is incompatible with the peace process.
Rejection of Proposed Peace Plans: The Palestinian leadership has rejected several peace proposals without providing counteroffers, which has led to accusations that they are not genuinely committed to a negotiated settlement.
In this post I want to take the time to recognize entire situation is very complex. Both sides accuse the other of failing to uphold their commitments under the Oslo. At the end of the day, people of good will need to come together to help the Palestinian’s achieve self-determination while at the same time supporting Israel’s right to exist side by side. It’s time to explore why it is that so many of the leaders are opposed to the best interests of the people, specifically the the land for peace framework proposed by the Oslo Accords and subsequent agreements and proposals.
Three Important Myths and Facts
The Myth of Settler Colonialism: Palestinians and their advocates often point to the role of international actors, particularly European powers and later the United States, in facilitating Jewish immigration and the establishment of Israel, drawing parallels with other instances of settler colonialism that were supported by external powers. Just as indigenous populations have resisted settler colonial projects elsewhere, Palestinians assert their right to resist what they see as the usurpation of their land and denial of their rights.
The Facts: The Jewish people have an ancient and continuous indigenous connection to the land of Israel, which is supported by historical and archaeological evidence of Jewish life in the region dating back thousands of years. Furthermore, the stated goal of Zionism was the restoration of Jewish sovereignty in the ancestral homeland after centuries of dispersion, rather than the creation of a new society on top of another. Lastly, Israel's engagement in the Oslo peace process in the 1990s and other negotiations are evidence of Israel’s willingness to come to a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians, which would be inconsistent with the aims of a settler colonial enterprise.
The Myth of Israel as an Apartheid State: The Israeli government enacts policies similar to those of apartheid-era South Africa, systematically discriminating against Palestinians in the occupied territories and within Israel’s borders. To support this view, one has to look no farther than the separate legal systems and sets of rights for Jewish citizens versus Arab citizens and residents. However you might also take note of the restriction of movement for Palestinians through checkpoints and the security barrier, the Israeli settlement policies in the West Bank that favor Jewish settlers, and the blockade of Gaza. Taken together, these are all evidence of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another, which is the definition of apartheid under international law.
The Facts: the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are not accurately captured by the apartheid analogy. The security measures, such as checkpoints and the barrier, are responses to terrorism and security threats, not instruments of racial segregation. Within Israel's borders, Arab citizens have voting rights, representation in the Knesset, and access to the same public services as Jewish citizens, reflecting a democratic state with a legal commitment to equality, despite facing social challenges. The situation in the West Bank and Gaza is the result of a protracted conflict and security concerns, rather than racial ideology. The use of the term "apartheid" ignores the legitimate historical claims and existential threats faced by Israel, and oversimplifies a multi-faceted territorial dispute that is rooted in national, rather than racial, conflict.
The Myth that a Two State Solution Can’t Work: It is unworkable due to irreconcilable differences over key issues such as the status of Jerusalem, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and the viability of a Palestinian state given the extensive Israeli settlement infrastructure in the West Bank. The geographical fragmentation of Palestinian territories, coupled with deep-seated mutual mistrust, security concerns, and the absence of a contiguous and economically viable territory for Palestinians, renders the prospect of two states living side by side in peace and security practically impossible.
The Facts: A two-state solution, despite its challenges, remains the most viable path to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a way that respects the self-determination of both peoples. The issues cited as irreconcilable—such as the status of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, and settlements—can, as a point of fact, be addressed through negotiation and mutual compromise, facilitated by international support and mediation. The success of peace agreements elsewhere in the world suggests that even deeply entrenched conflicts can be resolved. The notion of economic viability also shifts within the context of peace, as a Palestinian state could flourish with access to global markets and international aid. Moreover, a two-state solution is widely seen as the most equitable and just resolution, reflecting the aspirations, rights, and dignity of both Israelis and Palestinians, and has broad international backing as the foundation for lasting peace and security in the region.
What’s Up With the “From the River to the Sea” Slogan?
The slogan "from the river to the sea" refers to the land area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, encompassing both Israel and the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Those who chant this slogan typically express the aim of establishing sovereignty over the entire area for the Palestinian people. It is a phrase associated with Palestinian nationalism and has been used by various Palestinian political and militant groups, including Hamas, to articulate their vision for a Palestinian state in place of the current State of Israel.
The slogan is unsurprisingly seen as controversial by Israelis. It is perceived by many Israelis and supporters of Israel as a call for the elimination of Israel as a nation-state, given that the geographical span it covers includes all of Israel's recognized territory. Consequently, the chant is often a subject of tension, reflecting the deeply conflicting narratives and the intense dispute over national rights and territorial sovereignty in the region.
The slogan is also inconsistent with peace efforts in the region because it implies a vision for the future that does not recognize the existence of the State of Israel within any borders. The call for a singular, Palestinian state over the entire geographic area directly undermines the concept of a two-state solution, which has been the basis for many international peace initiatives and negotiations.
When one side asserts a claim to the entirety of the land, it inherently excludes the national and territorial claims of the other, leaving no room for compromise or dialogue. Such a stance, by rejecting the presence and legitimacy of Israel, precludes the possibility of a negotiated settlement that requires mutual recognition and coexistence, which are essential for a durable peace.
Moreover, this slogan carries historical and emotional weight that can exacerbate tensions and incite hostility. To Israelis and their supporters, the chant is a denial of Jewish historical connections to the land and a rejection of the right to national self-determination that Jews sought in establishing Israel. It often evokes a narrative of existential threat, especially given the history of Jewish persecution culminating in the Holocaust and the subsequent wars fought by Israel for its survival.
People of goodwill on both sides must acknowledge the legitimacy of the other's national narratives and aspirations to make progress toward peace. An amicable solution will require moving beyond such all-or-nothing rhetoric to embrace a spirit of compromise where the fundamental rights and aspirations of both Palestinians and Israelis are honored. This means finding a middle ground that allows for the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, thereby affirming the Palestinian right to self-determination while also preserving the Jewish people's right to national self-determination in their homeland. Only through such mutual recognition and willingness to coexist can a lasting peace that respects the dignity and aspirations of both peoples be achieved.
Is Anti-Normalization Helping the Peace Process? Nope.
Anti-normalization in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict refers to a stance taken by some Palestinians and their supporters that opposes any form of political, economic, cultural, or academic engagement with Israel that could be perceived as accepting, normalizing, or legitimizing the Israeli state and its actions, especially in relation to the occupation of Palestinian territories and the treatment of Palestinian people.
The term "normalization" in this context implies treating a situation that is considered unjust or abnormal—such as the occupation—as if it were normal or acceptable. Therefore, anti-normalization efforts are aimed at resisting the normalization of Israel's presence and policies in the occupied territories. This can involve boycotting Israeli goods, rejecting funding from Israeli sources, refusing to participate in cultural or academic exchanges, and generally avoiding any activity that might suggest a tacit acceptance of the status quo.
This perspective is often associated with the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS), which seeks to pressure Israel through various forms of non-violent punitive measures until it complies with international law and Palestinian rights.
The most effective arguments against anti-normalization in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would likely focus on several key principles inherent to classical liberal thought: individual liberty, free exchange, the importance of dialogue and engagement for progress, and the belief in the capacity of individuals to act rationally and ethically in their own interests.
In that light, here is what one might argue against anti-normalization:
Individual Freedom and Agency: One must recognize individual rights and the capacity of individuals to make their own choices. Individuals—whether Palestinian, Israeli, or other—should be free to engage with one another, exchange goods and ideas, and form relationships without being constrained by collective policies of boycott or isolation.
Market Exchange and Peace: Free trade and economic interdependence promote peace. By engaging in trade and commerce, parties have a vested interest in the stability and well-being of their trading partners. Anti-normalization policies that discourage economic interaction are counterproductive to peace and prosperity.
Mutual Benefit Through Engagement: Through open dialogue and cultural exchange, mutual understanding and respect are fostered. Engaging with 'the other' is seen as a pathway to recognition of shared humanity, which can lay the groundwork for peaceful resolution to conflicts.
Diversity of Opinions and Pluralism: Respect for the marketplace of ideas where different perspectives can be openly discussed and debated. Anti-normalization efforts stifle pluralism and prevent the expression of diverse viewpoints, which are necessary for a healthy and progressive society.
Critique of Collective Punishment: Anti-normalization unfairly targets individuals—be they academics, business owners, artists, etc.—who may not be directly involved in the political situation, essentially enacting a form of collective punishment.
Rule of Law and International Cooperation: The importance of the rule of law and international institutions which are both mechanisms (means) to resolve conflicts. Anti-normalization is an impediment to such processes, potentially undermining efforts to achieve a legal and lasting solution to the conflict.
Pragmatism over Idealism: While recognizing the moral concerns that fuel anti-normalization, pragmatism should lead the way in policy-making. In this view, even if the status quo is unjust, working within the system to effect change will be more effective than withdrawing from it.
Counterproductive Outcomes: Anti-normalization, by cutting off avenues of dialogue and cooperation, may in fact entrench divisions, making it harder to address grievances and negotiate solutions.
Getting Real About the Cynicism of Hamas
Over the years, numerous reports from international observers, journalists, and the United Nations have accused Hamas of employing a strategy that endangers the lives of civilians in the densely populated Gaza Strip. By launching rockets from residential areas, including schools and hospitals, and storing weapons in these locations, Hamas has been criticized for using civilians as human shields. This tactic is considered a violation of international law and human dignity, as it deliberately places innocent lives at risk and uses the suffering of civilians for political and military advantage.
The leaders of Hamas, meanwhile, live at the height of hypocrisy and disconnectedness from the hardships faced by the Palestinians they claim to represent. While many of their constituents live under severe economic and social distress, exacerbated by blockades and recurring conflicts, some of Hamas' leaders reside comfortably in foreign nations, like Qatar. This raises serious questions about the sincerity of their leadership and whether their personal interests align with the welfare of the Palestinian people.
The opulence in which some of these leaders live stands in stark contrast to the conditions in Gaza. While enjoying luxurious accommodations, they continue to espouse rhetoric that encourages young Palestinians to engage in acts of violence and martyrdom. The stark dichotomy between the lifestyle of the group's leaders and the young men recruited for terrorist activities reinforces the view that Hamas is exploiting its own people’s struggles for political leverage rather than genuinely striving for the Palestinian populace's self-determination and well-being.
This state of affairs undermines the legitimacy of Hamas' leadership. The narrative that is often pushed — to embrace martyrdom in the fight against Israel — is seldom matched by the actions of the group's higher echelons, who are avoiding any personal risk. The international community has called for accountability and condemned the manipulation of civilian lives for military objectives. The tactics employed by Hamas, as reported by various sources, have been rightly condemned as a significant obstacle to achieving both an end to the occupation of the Palestinian people as well as peace.
Getting Real about Judea and Samaria
The issue of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria — areas known internationally as the West Bank — remains one of the most contentious in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For those, like myself, advocating for a two-state solution, we see the dismantling of these settlements as a critical step towards peace. The settlements are viewed by many within the international community as illegal under international law, which prohibits the transfer of a civilian population into occupied territory, and as a significant barrier to the establishment of a viable and contiguous Palestinian state. The expansion of these settlements is seen to encroach on land that Palestinians consider part of their future state, making the prospect of a two-state solution increasingly difficult to realize.
The dismantling of settlements for the sake of peace has a historical precedent that provides a tangible example of Israel's willingness to make difficult sacrifices. After the Camp David Accords in 1978, Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt. In doing so, Israel evacuated its settlements from the Sinai, including the town of Yamit and 17 other settlements, which were subsequently razed. This painful yet bold move was a demonstration of Israel's commitment to international agreements and a testament to the lengths the country was prepared to go to in the pursuit of a lasting peace with its neighbor.
The precedent set by the evacuation of settlements in the Negev could serve as a model in the context of the West Bank. It shows that Israel is capable of taking dramatic steps that, while controversial and emotionally charged domestically, can lead to a reduction in tension and the normalization of relations with former adversaries. The removal of settlements in Judea and Samaria could similarly signal to Palestinians and to the international community Israel's commitment to peace and its respect for the principle of land for peace, which has been the basis of all serious peace initiatives in the region.
However, the issue remains deeply complex, tied to religious, historical, and security concerns. For many Israelis, Judea and Samaria have deep biblical and historical significance, and there are also serious security considerations given the strategic depth that the high ground of the West Bank provides. Nonetheless, the dismantlement of these settlements is argued by many peace advocates as a necessary step toward fulfilling the vision of two states for two peoples. The settlements' presence complicates the geography and demography of a future Palestinian state and poses a continuous source of tension and conflict. If peace is the ultimate goal, the historical willingness of Israel to remove settlements for the greater good could once again be called upon in search of a durable solution.
Conclusion: Resurrecting The Two State Solution
The tragic escalation of violence in October 2023, marking the beginning of the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, starkly demonstrates the dire consequences of a protracted conflict that lacks a political solution. The extensive loss of life on both sides, the destruction of infrastructure, and the deepening of animosity serve as a grim reminder that the status quo is unsustainable. It highlights that without a two-state solution, which offers a framework for coexistence and mutual recognition, the cycle of violence is likely to continue, with each iteration bringing more suffering and instability to the region. A two-state approach is not just a political imperative but a moral one, as it underpins the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians to self-determination, security, and a future free from the shadow of war.
Furthermore, the humanitarian crisis precipitated by the conflict, with reports of extensive civilian casualties and the displacement of large populations, underscores the urgency for a diplomatic breakthrough. In the absence of a peace process aimed at creating two states, the international community faces the growing challenge of addressing the immediate needs of those affected while also contending with the longer-term implications for regional and global security. The two-state solution offers a blueprint for ending the blockade and other restrictions that contribute to humanitarian crises, and it lays the groundwork for international support and investment in both a sovereign Palestine and a secure Israel.
The chorus of international condemnation of the violence and the recognition of the suffering of civilians across the divide signal a consensus that peace is necessary. Achieving a two-state solution is not merely about drawing borders but about building bridges between communities that have been locked in conflict for decades. It's a process that requires the cessation of aggressive actions, respect for international laws and agreements, and a commitment to dialogue. This pathway provides an opportunity for both Israelis and Palestinians to move away from the brinkmanship and maximalist positions that exacerbate tensions and to embrace a more stable and peaceful future.
Additionally, the two-state solution remains the most widely supported endgame within the international community, reflecting a commitment to a negotiated settlement that considers the aspirations and rights of both peoples. This framework is rooted in the principle of land for peace, which has been the basis of all serious negotiations to date. The alternative — a continuation of the current trajectory — portends a future where both Israelis and Palestinians are caught in an endless loop of violence and retribution, which serves neither side's long-term interests.
Finally, a return to the two-state solution discourse can reinvigorate moderate voices on both sides who seek compromise and coexistence over perpetual conflict. A renewed focus on this goal can help to marginalize extremists who exploit the absence of a peace process to further their own agendas. It would signal to younger generations of Israelis and Palestinians that diplomacy and peace are not only possible but are actively pursued by their leaders.
In this way, committing to a two-state vision is our investment in the future — a future where the next generations can look forward to prospects of prosperity, security, and peace instead of inheriting our current legacy of conflict.