Illusion of Peace

Nearly two years into Israel’s devastating assault on Gaza, the humanitarian catastrophe deepens by the day. The blockade has cut off food, fuel, medicine, and electricity, pushing 2.3 million Palestinians toward famine and displacing almost the entire population. The United Nations warns of a “man-made famine,” while observers have described Gaza’s shattered healthcare system as “medicide.”

Just last week, Israeli strikes on Gaza City killed 123 people in a single day—civilians among them, many waiting for food aid. Journalists continue to pay with their lives: five Al Jazeera reporters, including Anas al-Sharif, were killed near al-Shifa Hospital. Outrage has surged internationally, yet military escalation continues, with Israeli leaders signalling plans to re-enter Gaza City. At the same time, negotiators head to Doha in search of a truce and hostage deal.

Competing Nationalisms, Not Ancient Hatreds

The conflict is often miscast as an intractable religious war. At its core, however, it is a clash of two national movements claiming the same land. For Jews, Zionism was a liberation project against centuries of persecution. For Palestinians, it was experienced as a colonial dispossession, akin to French Algeria or British Rhodesia.

Israel’s victory in 1948 secured 78 per cent of historic Palestine and led to the mass flight and expulsion of Palestinians. Since the 1967 war, Israel has retained effective control over the remainder, confining Palestinians to fragmented enclaves. Gaza—under blockade since Hamas seized power in 2007—remains a legally occupied territory.

Peace efforts have faltered in part because the United States, while posing as a mediator, remains Israel’s staunchest military, financial, and diplomatic patron. This structural bias has emboldened Israeli hardliners and eroded faith in negotiation among Palestinians, even moderates who long ago recognised Israel’s right to exist on just 22 per cent of historic Palestine.

From Oslo to the Abraham Accords: A Process That Failed

The much-heralded peace process of the 1990s promised Palestinians statehood, but the reality offered was a patchwork of non-contiguous cantons under Israeli control. Offers hailed as “generous” by US leaders left Palestinians without sovereignty over borders, airspace, or water, and denied them East Jerusalem as a capital.

Subsequent US policies—recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, legitimisation of settlements, and the Trump-era Abraham Accords—further undermined Palestinian claims. Far from being breakthroughs, these accords normalised ties with states that had never fought Israel, while sidestepping the core issue: occupation.

One State or Two?

With settlements entrenched, many now argue the two-state solution is moribund. Human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Israel’s own B’Tselem, describe the present reality as apartheid. Increasingly, voices—Palestinian, Israeli, and international—call for a single, binational state guaranteeing equal rights to Jews and Arabs “from the river to the sea.”

US Power and Israeli Expansionism

Washington’s unwavering support for Israel is less about lobbies, critics argue, than about strategy. Israel is seen as a permanent ally in a volatile region—what one US Secretary of State once called “our unsinkable aircraft carrier.” Since 1967, when Israel proved militarily dominant, US arms have flowed without pause.

Domestically, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clings to power, prolonging the war to avoid elections that could end his career—and his immunity from prosecution. Meanwhile, the government includes expansionists who openly dream of a “Greater Israel” stretching into Syria, Lebanon, and beyond.

Double Standards and the Erosion of International Law

The US insists Palestinians and Israelis must “work it out themselves,” a position that ignores the vast power asymmetry between occupier and occupied. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the world demanded immediate withdrawal. In Israel’s case, occupation is normalised.

This double standard erodes the credibility of the post-World War II international order. Western condemnation of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine rings hollow when the same governments enable Israel’s expansionism and indiscriminate bombardment.

A Shifting Global Mood

Protests from Sydney to Berlin signal a turning tide of public opinion. Younger generations, including in the United States, are increasingly sceptical of unconditional support for Israel. Jewish diaspora communities, too, are divided, with many distancing themselves from Netanyahu’s government.

Yet Washington continues to veto ceasefire resolutions and fund the war effort. Humanitarian aid trickles in—far too little to avert mass starvation—while hundreds of thousands remain trapped under rubble or untreated in bombed-out hospitals.

What is the Future?

The grim truth is that peace may be decades away. Nationalism cannot be crushed, nor the Palestinian right to self-determination indefinitely denied. Whether through two sovereign states or one binational democracy, the conflict will only end when rights and security are guaranteed equally to both peoples.

The question is not whether resolution will come, but how many lives will be lost before it does.

The writer writes about politics, material culture, and economic history. Views expressed are personal