In recent discussions surrounding the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, prominent figures have highlighted deep-rooted biases and complex realities that complicate the path to peace. Robert Malley, a key member of Bill Clinton’s Middle East negotiating team, and Hussein Agha, a longtime adviser to Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, have underscored the historical context and misguided perceptions that have influenced American diplomacy.
According to Malley and Agha, a significant American bias toward Israel has impeded effective preparation for negotiations, including the critical Camp David summit. They contend that this bias has created an overly permissive atmosphere where the glaring realities of the situation are dismissed at every turn. In a recent assessment, they stated, “What killed the two-state solution is not essentially about territory.”
The conflict’s current state reveals a stark reality: Israel exercises control over millions of Palestinians who lack fundamental rights. This reality has done more than just polarize opinions, it has influenced how the Israeli public views this circumstance. A recent poll indicated that over 60% of Israelis believe that “nobody in Gaza is innocent,” reflecting a belief that complicates any potential dialogue.
This historical context — over a thousand years of Jewish displacement, displacement and persecution — informs Israel’s quest for a homeland. This context lends tremendous emotional gravity to their quest. For many Jews, this thirst is understandable from centuries of the persecution and the experience of the Holocaust. These intentions tend to override the concerns contained within the Palestinian narrative, that sees their own struggle for rights as just as valid.
One of the most troubling developments has been the most extreme right-wing elements in the Israeli military. Last week, reports emerged that the Israeli army has instituted new procedures to avoid summoning reservists who will run from the draft. This unprecedented decision by the military poses critical questions regarding military ethics and societal responsibility. The incendiary recent provocations of Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s Minister for Internal Security, are pouring even more fuel on the fire. He tweeted shocking photos of bound Palestinian captives. These breathtaking visuals incited widespread outrage and disgust at the apartheid treatment of Palestinians living under Israeli rule.
With violence continuing to deepen across Gaza, the effects of the staggering scale of Israel’s military operations are understandably felt well beyond Israel’s borders. In fact, the bombing in Gaza is so overwhelming that its sound now travels to Tel Aviv, over 70 kilometers away. This relatively modest military engagement reflects a huge strategic shift. Instead, it has raised a red flag internationally for alleged human rights violations.
The discourse surrounding the conflict has shown a disturbing, even unsettling, lack of concern among Israelis for news coming out of Gaza. In the wake of this latest atrocity, a new poll showed that Americans don’t even want to hear about what’s happening in Gaza. This reaction exposes a bizarre disconnect from the humanitarian crisis developing right in our own backyards.
In military circles, rhetoric has taken on a biblical tone, with verses such as “I have pursued mine enemies and destroyed them” appearing in orders and communications. This sort of militaristic language is indicative of a mindset that chooses aggression instead of dialogue. Inquiries to the Israeli military rabbinate, which released a calendar of early in the war. This calendar set the Gaza campaign in a mythical past, illustrating the ongoing hijacking of historical narratives and events to serve contemporary policies and purposes.
Internationally, the move to recognize Palestinian statehood continues to build. France, the UK, and Australia have already expressed their intentions to recognize Palestine formally during this September’s UN General Assembly. This latest move marks a fundamental change in the world’s attitude toward this conflict, and will affect any future diplomatic outreach.
Yesterday, some very prominent voices weighed in with serious criticism. Einat Wilf encapsulated a sense of inevitability regarding the current events: “It was each and every Palestinian, for nearly eight decades, who wished, believed and acted to bring this exact moment.” She further emphasized that “Hamas was the one who fulfilled their dream,” highlighting the complexities of Palestinian agency within this conflict.
Even as debate rages over what the potential solution should be, most experts agree that the two-state solution is looking less and less realistic. Malle and Agha bring attention to a key concern. They maintain that the current war represents a deep watershed, not merely a reversion to previous cycles of violence, in the relations between Israelis and Palestinians.