Choose Peace and Understanding

Modern conflict discourse often employs slogans that, while appearing to advocate for freedom, carry deeper implications. The phrase "Free Palestine" and its variations have complex historical roots that extend beyond simple calls for liberation.

The Free Palestine Movement, with Syrian-Palestinian origins under leaders like Yasser Qashlaq, historically opposed diplomatic solutions in favor of armed resistance. Similarly, slogans like "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" have been adopted by various organizations, including Hamas, whose 2017 charter explicitly states: "There shall be no recognition of Israel and no alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea."

Understanding the historical context of such rhetoric is crucial for anyone seeking to promote genuine peace rather than perpetual conflict.

The events of October 7, 2023, represent a stark reminder of how violence destroys the possibility of peace. More than 1,200 people were killed, and over 200 were taken hostage. The scope of documented atrocities extends beyond mere casualties.

The Dinah Project, a legal research initiative, documented systematic use of sexual violence as a weapon of war, including cases of genital mutilation, sexual torture, and forced public exposure. Many victims were either killed or traumatized into silence.²

The UN Commission investigating the October 7 attacks also included gender-based crimes (rape, sexual torture, humiliating treatment) in its mandate.³

These documented findings from multiple international investigations cannot be dismissed as speculation. They represent the concrete reality of what happens when societies choose violence over peaceful resolution.

Since Hamas gained control of Gaza in 2007, the region has experienced continuous warfare: rocket attacks, tunnel networks, infiltration attempts, and the strategic embedding of military assets among civilian populations. This approach ensures that any defensive response results in civilian casualties, perpetuating the cycle of violence.

While Israel's responses can be severe, the existential nature of the threats it faces drives increasingly decisive action. The tragic reality is that civilian casualties often result directly from military strategies that deliberately use human shields—a practice that violates international humanitarian law.

This cycle benefits no one except those whose power depends on perpetual conflict. Breaking it requires acknowledging that military solutions alone cannot create lasting security for anyone involved.

Characterizing Jewish presence in Israel as colonialism misrepresents historical reality. The Jewish people maintain indigenous connections to this land spanning millennia. Despite repeated expulsions, massacres, and persecution, Jewish communities maintained continuous presence and cultural ties to Israel.

Even during periods of exile, Jewish communities across the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, and beyond preserved their language, religious practices, cultural identity, and connection to the land of Israel. The establishment of modern Israel represents continuity rather than conquest—the return of a people to their ancestral homeland.

Simultaneously, the Palestinians wherever they live deserve full rights and indeed in Israel they do get full rights. In the West Bank or the Jordan or in Judea, there is a military occupation, with Palestinians under the PA and Jews in their own communities some of which predate ancient Rome and many that are new, and that must be resolved as soon as possible, but the resolution, whatever it is must not result in war and must be done with diplomacy and care. The Gaza situation happened after Israel left Gaza without a sufficient plan.

Hundreds of territorial disputes exist worldwide: Kashmir, Western Sahara, Cyprus, Tibet, and many others. Yet the Israeli-Palestinian conflict receives disproportionate international attention, often framed in terms of elimination rather than resolution.

Egypt and Jordan successfully negotiated peace agreements with Israel, demonstrating that diplomatic recognition can work. However, Palestinian leadership under organizations like Hamas has repeatedly rejected similar recognition, choosing instead to maintain maximalist positions that prevent compromise.

This selective focus raises important questions about consistency in applying principles of justice and human rights globally. If the goal is truly justice, why does one conflict receive such disproportionate attention while others involving similar or greater suffering are largely ignored?

Genuine diplomacy requires patience, compromise, and tolerance for imperfection. It involves slow, unglamorous work that produces incremental progress rather than dramatic victories. Social media culture, however, rewards immediate clarity and emotional intensity over nuanced understanding.

Hashtags like "CeasefireNow" trend more easily than complex discussions about sustainable peace frameworks. Simple narratives about "occupation" become catch-all explanations for every hardship, even in areas where withdrawal has already occurred.

Real peace cannot emerge from slogans or social media campaigns. It requires the difficult work of building trust, creating institutions, and developing frameworks where both peoples can pursue self-determination without threatening the other's existence.

Modern conflicts are fought as much online as on the ground. Videos stripped of context, manipulated images, and carefully curated narratives flow constantly across social platforms. Groups like Hamas have become sophisticated at exploiting this environment, amplifying civilian casualties while concealing their own violations of international law.

Israel's responses, typically based on verification processes and legal review, lose the speed necessary to compete in the attention economy. The result is that complexity gets erased, and emotional manipulation dominates factual analysis.

This digital battlefield makes peace more difficult by making nuanced understanding nearly impossible. Every tragedy becomes propaganda, and every attempt at context is dismissed as justification for violence.

Israel operates as a liberal democracy where citizens of all backgrounds—Jews, Arabs, Christians, Druze—vote, serve in government, and participate in civil society. Women hold leadership positions, LGBTQ+ citizens live openly, and independent media operates freely. This doesn't make every policy perfect, but it provides mechanisms for accountability and change.

Hamas, by contrast, enforces strict religious rule, suppresses dissent, executes political opponents, and criminalizes homosexuality. Yet global protests often portray Hamas as representing "resistance" while condemning Israel as oppressive.

This inversion of democratic values over authoritarian control represents ideology overriding logic. Supporting movements that suppress the very freedoms protesters claim to value undermines the credibility of calls for justice.

No military campaign can erase either the Israeli or Palestinian people. Both populations will continue to live in the same geographic region, and their futures are inextricably linked. They will either find ways to coexist peacefully or continue to inflict suffering on each other indefinitely.

The only viable long-term solution involves mutual recognition, peaceful negotiation, and the gradual building of trust between communities. This requires acknowledging difficult truths: Hamas has committed documented war crimes including sexual violence; Israel has a right to exist and defend itself; Palestinian aspirations for peaceful self-determination should be addressed by a universal framework for such matters and it's gradual and careful so as to avoid catastrophes like Gaza.

The Jewish people are neither colonizers nor temporary residents—they are indigenous people who have returned to their ancestral homeland. The Palestinian people deserve a progressive government in Gaza and a resolution of the occupation in the West Bank / Judea.

This means demanding justice for all victims, accountability for sexual violence and war crimes, and rejection of maximalist positions that require the erasure of either people. It means embracing diplomatic solutions as the only sustainable path forward.