Dr. Alon Ben-Meir

Over the past three decades, I have written hundreds of articles and several books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, examining it from historical, religious, psychological, and geostrategic perspectives, as well as through the hard realities on the ground. After all this, one conclusion has remained inescapable: there will be no peace—none—unless it is anchored in a viable two-state solution.

Nearly six decades after the 1967 war, the conflict is not moving toward resolution but toward permanent rupture. What began as a national and territorial struggle has hardened into a zero-sum confrontation shaped by fear, trauma, and mutually exclusive narratives. Cycles of violence have become structural: Palestinian attacks, Israeli reprisals, the first and second Intifadas, repeated wars in Gaza, and persistent unrest in the West Bank. Each cycle has deepened mistrust and narrowed the already vanishing space for compromise.

The Psychological and Historical Perspectives The memory of the Nakba—the catastrophe of 1948 that led to the displacement of nearly 700,000 Palestinians—remains foundational to Palestinian identity and political consciousness. For Palestinians, the Nakba was not a singular historical event but the beginning of an ongoing experience of dispossession and exile, one that continues to reverberate across generations.

This is reflected not only in the persistence of refugee communities but in a deeply held conviction that historical injustice has never been rectified. This legacy shapes Palestinian attitudes toward the present conflict, reinforcing a sense that their struggle is not only about ending occupation but about reclaiming dignity, rights, and recognition denied since 1948.

Then came October 7, 2023—a watershed of horror. Hamas’s attack, targeting civilians with brutality, massacring 1,200 people, mostly Israeli civilians, shocked Israel to its core and reaffirmed a deeply entrenched belief within Israeli society—that Palestinian hostility is immutable and that powerful factions remain committed to Israel’s destruction. In this view, past peace overtures failed not because of flawed conditions, but because the other side ultimately rejects coexistence.

But what followed fundamentally altered the moral and political landscape.

Israel’s retaliatory war in Gaza, initially framed as a campaign to destroy Hamas, quickly evolved into something far broader and more devastating. Entire neighborhoods were reduced to rubble, civilian infrastructure was systematically dismantled, and tens of thousands of Palestinians were killed, including a vast number of children.

What began as a war of self-defense increasingly bore the unmistakable imprint of collective punishment, revenge, and retribution. In both scale and method, the campaign crossed a critical threshold: not merely disproportionate, but, in its cumulative effect, indistinguishable from what many legal observers define as genocidal conduct.

For Palestinians, this was not an aberration but confirmation of a long-held fear that Israel’s ultimate trajectory is not toward coexistence, but toward permanent domination and displacement.

The Reinforcement of Perception

This perception is reinforced daily in the West Bank, where settler violence has escalated in both frequency and severity, often in the presence—and at times under the protection—of Israeli security forces. These acts are not random; they form a pattern:

Armed settler groups attacking Palestinian villages, torching homes and vehicles. Systematic uprooting and destruction of olive groves, undermining both livelihood and heritage. Physical assaults on civilians, including the elderly and children. Sustained harassment forcing entire communities to abandon their land. Arson attacks against mosques and schools. Interference with water access, including blocking or contaminating essential sources.

Taken together, these actions amount to a slow but deliberate process of territorial consolidation, what can only be described as creeping annexation.

Meanwhile, explicit statements by members of Israel’s current government advocating for a Greater Israel” from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River have stripped away any remaining ambiguity. For Palestinians, such declarations are indications of strategic intent, reinforcing the belief that their statehood is not being negotiated—it is being systematically precluded.

Internalizing the Core of the Conflict

At its core, this conflict is not only about land or security; it is about competing claims to justice. One philosophical truth stands out: a nation cannot secure its future by indefinitely denying other people their fundamental rights. Power can suppress, contain, and even dominate—but it cannot extinguish a people’s collective aspiration for freedom and self-determination.

As G.W.F. Hegel observed, What is rational is actual, and what is actual is rational.” However bitter or tragic the circumstances, reality imposes its own logic. Two people inhabit the same land, neither of whom can eliminate the other. No amount of violence, however devastating, can alter this fundamental fact.

A second, equally important truth follows: historical suffering, however profound, does not confer moral license to perpetuate the suffering of others. The Jewish historical experience, culminating in the horrors of the Holocaust, demands security and recognition—but it cannot justify policies that deny another people their dignity and national existence.

Hannah Arendt warned with equal clarity that violence can destroy power; it is utterly incapable of creating it.” Military supremacy may yield temporary outcomes, but it cannot confer legitimacy, foster reconciliation, or secure lasting peace.

Today, roughly seven million Israeli Jews and seven million Palestinians live between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Neither side is going anywhere. This is not a conflict that can be resolved through victory. It can only be resolved through mutual recognition and political compromise.

Since October 2023, positions on both sides have hardened dramatically. In Israel, political discourse has shifted further away from even conditional support for Palestinian statehood, increasingly framing it as an existential threat. Among Palestinians, the devastation of Gaza and the ongoing realities of occupation have reinforced the belief that negotiations are futile and that resistance, in one form or another, is inevitable.

This must change.

Finding a Permanent Solution is a Must

The international community must play a decisive role to break this impasse.

For decades, the US has endorsed a two-state solution while failing to take meaningful steps to realize it. Washington has shielded Israel from accountability and removed incentives for policy change. Washington must translate its stated commitment into concrete policy: condition military assistance, unequivocally oppose settlement expansion, and make it clear that indefinite occupation is incompatible with a long-term strategic partnership.

The European states must move beyond rhetorical alignment by recognizing Palestinian statehood, leveraging trade with Israel, and supporting accountability mechanisms. The Arab states must employ normalization agreements not as ends in themselves, but as tools to press for meaningful progress while insisting on Palestinian political cohesion and institutional reform.

A new Israeli government would need to take immediate steps: halt settlement expansion, enforce the rule of law against settler violence, reaffirm commitment to territorial compromise, and re-engage in credible negotiations. Just as importantly, it must begin preparing its public for the necessary compromises, framing peace not as a concession, but as a strategic imperative.

Ultimately, Israeli society must confront a difficult but unavoidable reality. The absence of a Palestinian state is not a source of security; it is its greatest long-term threat. Permanent occupation, inequality, and recurring war will eradicate what’s left of Israel’s moral standing, democratic character, and internal stability.

The Moral Imperative for a Solution

At this critical juncture, the moral imperative is as compelling as the strategic one. Kant argued that human beings must always be treated as ends in themselves, never merely as means. Any political future that denies either Israelis or Palestinians their fundamental dignity and rights violates this principle at its core. A just and lasting peace, therefore, is not simply a matter of political expediency; it is a moral necessity.

At the end of all wars, all ideologies, and all illusions, one truth remains immovable: neither people will disappear, and neither can secure freedom at the expense of the other’s humanity. The land they share does not yield to force, nor does history bend to power. It waits, unforgiving and unchanged, for recognition, demanding truth, mutual justice, reciprocal dignity, and a conscious choice for peace.

That land has absorbed enough blood to prove what force cannot resolve. Without recognition and political courage, both sides risk losing not only territory, but the moral and human future they still struggle to preserve.

____________

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is President of the Institute for Humanitarian Conflict Resolution.alon@alonben-meir.com