To truly understand the history behind the state of Israel, you have to seek out events before 1948. The Jewish presence has been continuous in the land of Israel for millennia. Contrary to popular belief, Jews did not show up on boats one day to kick Palestinians out of their homes and conquer.
What is now the State of Israel was once the Kingdom of Judea, some thousands of years ago, where the ancient Israelites lived. This land is the birthplace of the Jewish people, where Hebrew culture, law, and language first developed. The first Jewish temple was built in Jerusalem in the 10th century BCE under King Solomon’s rule and was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE. The Jews were exiled, but many returned to rebuild the Second Temple decades later, after the Persian King Cyrus conquered the Babylonian Empire and permitted their return. Hundreds of years later came the Romans, who destroyed the Second Temple during Jewish revolts against the empire. Despite later conquests and mass dispersal, Jewish communities maintained a continuous presence in the land and preserved Jerusalem as the spiritual center of Judaism. This history is especially significant regarding the Romans’ decision in 135 CE to rename Judea to Syria-Palestina, now called Palestine, because they sought to sever Jewish ties to their homeland.
Over time, these repeated exiles by foreign conquerors led to communities scattered outside of Israel in the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe. This is known as the diaspora. In spite of this, Jewish identity and faith persevered. The hope for the return to Zion remained a central theme in Jewish communities in the diaspora.
Fast forward to the 1800s, antisemitism surged in Europe and as a response, Zionism was born. The ideology, largely led by Theodore Herzl, promoted a political movement that called for the establishment of a secure Jewish homeland in Palestine, which was then an Ottoman territory.
Even before the second World War, small groups of Jewish immigrants began to settle in Palestine. They purchased land legally and propped up agricultural systems across the terrain. These immigrants lived and worked alongside the Palestinians, but the coexistence grew increasingly tense over time.
The promise of Palestine was conflicting in nature. In 1916, the British promised the Arabs rule over Palestine if they joined in the fight against the Ottomans in World War I. But later in 1917, the Balfour declaration was declared to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The declaration stated that it would protect the non-Jewish communities in Palestine, but the damage was done and the overlapping promises created mistrust from Palestinians and Arabs. In the years following, violence erupted from Palestinians who opposed the declaration.
Over the course of some 30 years, Arab and Jewish nationalism intensified in the region through riots and political struggles. Arab leaders grew weary of the possibility of a Jewish homeland. In the 20s and 30s, the tension turned violent and attacks on both Arab and Jewish communities became frequent. The Arab revolt from 1936-1939 began with attacks from Palestinian militants on Jewish communities and the British military. The revolt was suppressed at the cost of destroyed Arab villages, a fragmented Palestinian leadership, and, through the establishment of the White Paper, British restriction of Jewish immigration during the Holocaust by setting immigration quotas and restrictions on settlements.
This history, though somewhat oversimplified, is crucial in understanding the current politics that shape the region today.
This brings us to the United Nations Partition Plan. On Nov 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 181, a plan that would have split the British mandate of Palestine into two states – one Jewish, and one Arab, with Jerusalem being an international city. The Jews agreed, and the Arabs refused, sparking the 1948 war that granted Israel its independence and began the long struggle for Palestinian sovereignty.
The first Arab-Israeli war began violently, not with global superpowers (at first) but with clashes between Palestinians Arab militias, the Arab League, and Jewish paramilitaries like the Haganah and Irgun, engaging in the first fights of a civil war in the British mandate.
When the British withdrew their own troops in May of 1948, the Jewish leadership declared its independence as the state of Israel. This was the Zionist dream becoming a reality, and Jews from diaspora finally finding sovereignty in their homeland.
For Palestinians, it is remembered as the Nakba, meaning “catastrophe” in Arabic. During and after the war, more than 700,000 Palestinians fled or were forcibly expelled from their homes. The Nakba remains deeply painful in Palestinian collective memory.
Almost immediately after Israel declared independence, five countries, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, invaded Israel. Their aim was to support a Palestinian statehood and, more importantly, prevent a Jewish one. Their effort was in vain as Israel emerged victorious in 1949, and with more land than the initial UN partition plan had allocated to them. The war left the Palestinian people without something they have always wished for – an independent state, something they still don’t have to this day.
This is where the link between history and politics becomes clear. The failure to establish a Palestinian state in 1947 caused political issues that stretch far into today. Palestine’s corrupt governing bodies and radicalized citizens are at the core of the issues with a two-state solution.
As we approach the 77th anniversary of the UN partition plan, we must remember the historical context and reckon with its effects on modern-day conflicts in the land.
Had Arab leadership accepted the plan in 1947, the Palestinians would have established the independent state they so deeply long for decades ago. Instead, their de-facto government(s) is weak and corrupt. Hamas in Gaza are authoritarian terrorists wreaking havoc on the strip. In the West Bank, the authoritarian Palestinian Authority has partial control but is constrained by the Israeli government. These styles of government are marked by both Hamas’ and the PA’s suppression of dissent and the lack of just democratic processes. After taking control of the Gaza strip in 2006, Hamas has ruled without any elections for almost twenty years.
The reality of a two-state solution looks very different today than it would have in 1947. Living in a post-Oct 7 world, Israelis understand the danger of total annihilation that Palestinian resistance brings. When Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, it was initially seen as a sign of peace, but in retrospect, it was a victory for Hamas.
It’s important to note that the 1947 partition plan would have given Palestinians 43% of the land, while the Jewish partition would have been 56%. The argument on whether or not this is a fair partition was a legitimate issue for Palestinians because the Jewish population owned only 7% of the land at that time.
It is not doubtful that the Palestinians believed this injustice was enough to fight a war over, but their ultimate failure to win was an illustration to the limits of resistance. While they may be morally justified in their own heads, their tactics could never overcome the military and political advantages of their opponent. They were fighting the classic game show gamble: take all your winnings home, or keep playing to double or lose it all.
The loss of the Palestinians isn’t where their fault lies, but the decisions they made to keep their nationalism alive is the crux of the problem. Palestinian governance post-1947 focused on a plan of revenge and return rather than creating stability and sowing the seeds for a state. These decisions undermine the possibility for a Palestinian state more than a military loss ever could.
The Palestinian leadership has continuously chosen resistance over state-building, and these actions are inseparable from the history outlined here.
This brings us to today’s two-state dilemma. Can Israelis be expected to live alongside a people who are governed by terrorists that seek to destroy them? Not only Hamas, but Palestinian civilians have a track record of deadly suicide bombings and stabbings, among other terror attacks, that have been perpetrated against Israelis for decades.
These attacks were defining features of the first and second Intifadas, in which hundreds of Israeli civilians were murdered in bombings on buses, in cafes, and public marketplaces. The two intifadas left a profound psychological impact on Israelis. The first intifada, which began in 1987, was marked by civil unrest and street clashes between Israelis and Palestinians. The second intifada was far deadlier. Waves of suicide bombings created a collective fear and sense of vulnerability in the Israeli public. For the Palestinians, the Israeli military cracked down and imposed travel restrictions. The two intifadas brought a widespread pain that soured into more mistrust and skepticism for a future possibility of coexistence.
To say this isn’t to ignore extremist settlers from Israel who intimidate and attack Palestinians in the West Bank. In November, settlers vandalized mosques and assaulted civilians in the West Bank. These extremists make achieving peace harder for everyone.
A two state solution is futile in today’s world. With Hamas and the corrupt Palestinian Authority in power, Palestinians have no hope for a statehood. They lack credible governance that is crucial for a stable nation.
This is not simply my political opinion, it is a reality created by decades of violence and repeated failures to make peace.
Polling data illustrates just how polar the issue of a two-state solution is. According to a 2024 joint study, Tel Aviv University and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that support for a two state solution among Israeli Jews and a mix of Israeli Arabs is a record low of 21% and 30%, respectively. In the same survey, only 40% of Palestinians from both the Gaza strip and the West Bank say they support a two-state solution.
This polling data shares the political reality that the conflict’s history has created: two populations who largely cannot see a peaceful future alongside the other. These are wounds of the past that have never healed. If Israelis and Palestinians do not want to live amongst each other, there is no greater force that can make that reality.
This data was also taken after Oct. 7, the day Hamas carried out the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust. They slaughtered people in their homes, at music festivals, took hostages, and with no mercy or end goal except to kill as many Jews as possible. Those are not the kind of people who want peace, nor do they deserve it.
I see no future where the Israeli government shows Hamas and their collaborators an ounce of mercy, not just for Oct. 7, but for the decades of violence they have perpetrated. These continuous attacks on Israel and their effects on public opinion are exactly why I don’t believe a two-state solution is viable. Israel cannot reward terrorists with power or land.
The attacks on Oct. 7 and the intifadas are at the heart of why I believe there cannot be a two-state solution now. The Palestinians who snuck into Israel, bombs strapped to them, to kill innocents did not want peace. Hamas does not want peace, they want to kill every Jew living in Israel and the world. It’s no secret why Westerners adorn keffiyehs in the streets and scream to “globalize the intifada” in the name of Palestinians. They, like Hamas, don’t want peace. They want widespread Jewish suffering. A two-state solution with Hamas in power would undoubtedly make this a reality.
Israel needs to keep the proverbial boot firmly on Hamas’ neck. They cannot be allowed to do another Oct. 7 or intifada. If they are given a state, that is exactly what they will do. We can see what followed after Israel withdrew from Gaza twenty years ago. Gazans were left to build stability, and they chose terrorists that still control them to this day. When your government rules with unwavering and unapologetic violence, you do not get rewarded with a state.
The paradox of a two state solution seems to be lost on a collective scale. Goodhearted people whose empathy extends to Palestinians don’t understand the complexity of the situation, largely due to naivety and foreign influence distorting history. It is simple from afar to imagine a two-state solution through diplomacy and goodwill, but on the ground, this sentiment is shattered.
Western voices assume that treaties can override decades of trauma. Israelis remember the intifadas, rocketfire, stabbings, and rapes. The Palestinians remember the checkpoints and bombings. Neither population trusts the other, and that is not something any Western influence can force.
Empathy alone cannot create spaces or foster honest leadership within factions that have been corrupt since their inception. Nor can it erase the fear Israelis feel surrounded by neighbors who largely seek their demise.
Outside pressure also cannot force democracy onto Hamas or the Palestinian Authority. Hamas uses violence as its main tool of governance. No functioning state can be built on those foundations. Even if Israel were to withdraw from the West Bank tomorrow, the PA has no unified leadership to build a fruitful society. Even during the current ceasefire agreement as Israeli troops are withdrawing from Gaza, Hamas has shown no efforts to rebuild for the betterment of Gazans. That is not a people who are ready for a state, not alongside Israel or alone.
Statehood cannot emerge out of thin air. It requires legitimate institutions, none of which exist in Gaza or the West Bank. This is why the 1947 partition plan matters so much, because for a moment, both peoples were offered a state. Israel accepted and invested in infrastructure, a military, and a government. Palestinians rejected and invested in violence.
The world may yearn for a two-state solution, but until the current Palestinian leadership is dismantled and replaced with good actors suitable for nationhood, people will continue to keep false hope.
This doesn’t mean the whole situation is hopeless, the hope is just misplaced. The progress that is possible between Israel and Palestine begins with leadership that values accountability, on both sides. This means a no-negotiations eradication of Hamas, and the establishment of a stable, democratic government in the Gaza strip. There are real-world examples of terrorist regimes being dismantled and successfully replaced with legitimate governance. Take Colombia’s Farc, a communist-terrorist group dissolved in 2016 after years of war and tens of thousands of deaths, which took a peace deal and reestablished civil government. While the Farc is not exactly parallel to Hamas, and the process hasn’t been perfect, the shift still demonstrates that terror isn’t perpetual.
Unlike in 1947, today’s starting point for Palestinian sovereignty is not territory, it is leadership.
If Hamas were dismantled, there are precedents for replacing militias with functioning governance. Success would crucially depend on the commitment to building a brighter, peaceful future.
