It’s no secret that Israel does not have a diplomatic solution to end its conflicts with its so-called “hostile neighborhood.” Israeli leadership has long adopted a policy based on the idea of using force to achieve peace, and if violence fails then more force is needed.
As the famed political philosopher Professor Chomsky observed, Israel has always chosen land over peace when presented with the two choices. Under the pretext that occupying and annexing more land would give it strategic leverage and military advantage over its enemies, this policy, it believes, will ensure its safety and security. But, historically, the pursuit of land has often come at the expense of any genuine prospect for sustainable peace.
Defining True Peace: The Illusion of Diplomacy
The Oslo Accords once appeared to be the epitome of diplomacy and peaceful conflict resolution. Yet subsequent Israeli governments quickly extinguished all hopes for a Palestinian state by expanding settlements in the West Bank, and imposing a deadly blockade on Gaza after withdrawing in 2005, in addition to the brutal and oppressive treatments of the Palestinian people and the desecration of their places of worship and holy sites. Lots of efforts were placed into building up opposition parties to the newly formed Palestinian Authority represented by Fateh and the PLO – such as Hamas and other more radical organizations which Netanyahu admitted to have facilitated the funding of in the early 2000s – hoping to create division within the Palestinian political scene. The diplomatic path towards National Liberation was slowly being eradicated, making room for more radical and violent ways for the Palestinians to express their anger and frustration towards the injustice of the situation. Israel effectively killed the two-state solution.
How ironic it is that the Arab world, which initially opposed the UN partition plan that legitimized the creation of the Israeli state in 1948 over Palestinian land, is now urging Israel to respect UN resolutions. For over 40 years, Arab leaders have pushed for Israel to end its occupation and allow for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. Many even expressed a desire to normalize relations with Israel as a result and build a lasting and stable peace that will benefit the whole region.
If peace truly is their intention, this fairly simple solution would remove all legitimacy from Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and all other factions that champion the Palestinian cause and oppose the state of Israel. Just like that, Israel could end both Hamas’s and Hezbollah’s raison d’être, secure the release of hostages, and return its inhabitants to the North. This could even disarm the Iranian regime of one of its main ideological foundations, and send shockwaves into the foundations of its foreign policy and policies towards the region. A Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza would most definitely be heavily influenced and controlled by Israeli capital and politics, Israel would still dominate technologically, militarily and economically. History books are filled with examples of newly independent states falling prey to their previous colonizers’ superiority and realizing that they are in fact still under their influence. I am absolutely not advocating for such a solution, I believe in a total and absolute Liberation of Palestine and the creation of one single state that counts jews amongst its population just like it did a hundred years back. However, this indicates that Israel has yet to understand that their best interests are in achieving peace rather than expanding their territory deep into the West Bank, Gaza and maybe even beyond.
We talk about peace, but what is peace if it’s based on oppression and occupation? How can we talk of peace when one side is a colonizer backed by most of the world’s richest countries, while the other side is left to fend for itself in the face of this brutal world? Peace, in that sense, merely defends the status quo. But if the status quo itself is completely wrong, what kind of peace are we actually sustaining?
They say you attract what you are. Israel embodies that perfectly. A regime built around violence and oppression will only breed more regimes that center their authority around violence and oppression.
Choices in Conflict: Forced Paths for Palestinians
One year after October 7, people have begun to wonder whether Hamas was right to launch its attacks, if the sacrifices were worth it, or if the timing was correct, as though Palestinians had another choice. They were essentially forced to choose between two paths: accept the slow and assured annihilation of the Palestinian cause through normalization accords, settlement expansion, and living in an apartheid system, or take the path of armed resistance. Dialogue and international law have long been dead and no longer on the table; the world was starting to move on from the question of Palestine.
Diplomacy to reach a fair resolution and committing to ending the occupation of Palestinian lands under the 1967 borders had long gone out the window. If Israeli safety and security can only be achieved by eliminating its threats militarily, instead of pursuing the diplomatic course, then why shouldn’t Russia do the same in Ukraine and other ex-Soviet states?
As things are going, Israel might very well manage to destroy the military capabilities of its enemies. But history has shown that such power vacuums only lead to the emergence of new, often more radicalized groups. The only alternative would be to attempt to wipe out every Palestinian, Lebanese, Yemeni, and anyone opposing its expansionary policies. Israel may even secure more land and see its power in the region grow, however, how long can it continue this course without falling victim to the same fatal mistakes that have led other expansionist empires to their demise?
Conclusion: The Path Forward or The End of the Road
Israel’s only chance for long-term survival rests on respecting international law – the same law that legitimized its existence – and following the diplomatic path. This endless cycle of wars stands as the very antithesis of what Israel claims to seek: peace and security. At the end of this violent path, only Israel’s complete annihilation is likely, a conclusion not born of ideological sentiment but of geopolitical analysis grounded in realism. It is only a matter of time until Israel, like the crusaders before it, commits a fatal mistake that unites the Arabs (and Muslims), and this time, perhaps the whole world, against it.
Day by day, the true scale of this war is unfolding. What began as a Hamas attack aimed at halting the normalization trend and negotiating the release of Palestinian prisoners has evolved into a full-scale genocide in Gaza, alongside heightened military aggression and settler violence in the West Bank. This is not merely a war against Hamas; in reality, it likely never was. Some might argue that Israeli leaders have awaited this opportunity to compensate for their setbacks in Gaza and Lebanon during the early 2000s.
This war will shape the future of Palestine and the region. Although it is unlikely to be the final war that ends the conflict, it will certainly push events in that direction. Some players may not emerge intact, and some may be completely crushed. But new actors will rise, learning from past mistakes and building on their strengths. The world can no longer remain indifferent to Palestinian suffering. Even if it stays silent and continues to support the Israeli war machine, a day will come when Israel goes too far, and the backlash will be devastating. As long as the Palestinian flame of national pride remains lit, the cause will never perish.
Leave a Reply