On October 7, 2023, Israel experienced one of the darkest days in its history. In the early morning hours, Hamas launched a brutal surprise attack, murdering over a thousand Israelis and taking more than two hundred hostages. Since that day—indeed, since its inception—Israel has been fighting a war for its survival.
Two years later, the war is still ongoing. Hamas killed many of the hostages—men, women, and children—while holding them in captivity. Around nine hundred Israeli soldiers have been slaughtered in combat with Hamas. Meanwhile, civilians across the country have endured countless rocket attacks, mourned the loss of loved ones, and lived under constant uncertainty about the future.
Israel is not 100% rights respecting—no country is—however, Israel is currently the most rights respecting country in the Middle East. It stands as a beacon of liberty in a region dominated by Islamic dictatorships. Within its borders, people of many backgrounds and beliefs exist side by side, working together, building meaningful lives, and enjoying equal treatment under the law. By contrast, in neighboring regions such as Gaza and West Bank, citizens who refuse to abide by strict Islamic laws often face violence or oppression, unable to live freely or fully pursue their happiness. Hamas controls Gaza with an iron fist, executing dissenters, whereas the Palestinian Authority governs the West Bank in name only, allowing jihadist groups to operate largely unchallenged.
Moreover, evidence shows that Israel defends itself in a manner that reflects respect for human life, focusing its strikes on combatants in Gaza while striving to minimize civilian harm (often holding back militarily when it shouldn’t). Hamas, however, deliberately targets Israeli civilians and takes hostages, while using its own population as human shields—hiding tunnels and other military infrastructure beneath schools and in hospitals. By initiating violence rather than acting to preserve life, Hamas bears moral responsibility for deaths on both sides.
While Gaza has been the primary site of bloodshed, violence has also emerged from the West Bank. In November 2024, a Hamas operative from the West Bank opened fire on an Israeli bus filled with civilians, hitting four people. In January 2025, a gunman assassinated three Israelis on another bus—an attack that Hamas publicly celebrated. Most recently, in September 2025, a gunman from the West Bank killed six Israelis and injured more than twenty bystanders at a Jerusalem bus stop, an attack which both Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad applauded.
Despite this ongoing violence, several Western countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, France, Portugal, Andorra, Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, and Monaco, have chosen to indulge in the fiction of a “Palestinian” state. In so doing, they have turned their backs on Israel’s fight for survival. Rather than allying with Israel against the existential threat posed by neighboring jihadists, they have chosen to legitimize those who committed the October 7 atrocities—rewarding them with moral support and the pretense of statehood.
The UK government, for example, stated:
A two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state led by a reformed Palestinian Authority, is the only path to a lasting peace for the Israeli and Palestinian people - free from the horrendous violence and suffering of the last two years.
Recognising Palestine is a historic decision, firmly grounded in the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination, which the government committed to as part of its manifesto.
Following these announcements, President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu met and proposed a deal to Hamas: Release the remaining forty-eight hostages and surrender in exchange for amnesty. In addition, both Gaza and the West Bank would be granted international recognition as an independent “Palestinian” state led by a “Palestinian” government, rather than remaining under Israeli “occupation.”
To even contemplate granting amnesty to those responsible for the October 7 atrocities is a moral outrage—an insult to the victims and a betrayal of justice. If, however, this proposal were a ruse intended to secure the release of the hostages before resuming military action against Hamas, it might be a morally defensible plan. But this clearly isn’t the intention.
The plan is backed not only by Western powers, but also by several Arab and Muslim-majority countries, including Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Pakistan. These are the same governments that have long blamed Israel for the suffering in the West Bank and Gaza while refusing to help eliminate the jihadist regimes responsible or take in refugees from either territory. Instead, they have used the “Palestinians” as a political weapon and a permanent excuse to attack and isolate Israel.
To imagine that these regimes are now suddenly interested in Israel’s security, or that they would turn against Hamas and the Palestinian Authority—whom they’ve helped sustain—is absurd. Their support for a “Palestinian” state has nothing to do with peace and everything to do with weakening Israel.
So let’s address the elephant in the room: Everyone who is paying attention knows this. The leaders now pushing for a “Palestinian” state aren’t naive; they are either pretending or they’re ignorant. Some know the truth but choose to ignore it, driven by moral cowardice. They are prioritizing popularity over doing what’s right, afraid to stand alone in defence of justice. Others may claim ignorance, but as leaders, it is their responsibility to be informed, and with all the information at their fingertips, remaining unaware is a choice—and a morally reprehensible one. In both cases, their actions sustain a dangerous illusion that has never, and will never, bring peace.
The “two-state solution” is not a new idea. In 1937, the British Peel Commission proposed an official partition of the land in question; Arabs rejected the proposal. In 1947, following the end of the British Mandate, the United Nations put forth a similar proposal. The Jewish leadership accepted the plan and declared the establishment of the State of Israel. However, the Arab leaders rejected the proposal and launched a military assault, sparking the First Arab-Israeli War.
In 2000, during the Camp David Summit, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the Palestinian Authority a peace proposal: 97 percent of the West Bank, all of Gaza, and control over Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem as a potential capital for the new state. The Palestinian Authority rejected it. Soon after, the Second Intifada broke out—a wave of suicide bombings killing more than a thousand Israelis and injuring thousands more.
In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, removing both military forces and civilian settlements. Instead of seizing this opportunity for peace, Gazans voted Hamas into power. After winning the 2006 election by an overwhelming majority, they began launching rockets into Israeli cities. The result was not a peaceful state but a jihadist enclave.
Israel tried again. In 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert presented another offer to the Palestinian Authority: 94 percent of the West Bank, a highway connecting the West Bank and Gaza, shared control of Jerusalem, and a “reparations” fund. Once again, the Palestinian Authority rejected this offer and assaults against Israel continued.
Despite decades of negotiations, concessions, and proposals, every offer for an independent “Palestinian” state has been met with rejection and violence. Any plan that relies on Gaza and the West Bank accepting Israel’s existence fundamentally misses the nature of this conflict. The conflict is not a dispute over borders or state recognition—it’s a matter of ideology, driven by the belief that Israel shouldn’t exist at all.
Yet, many Western leaders continue to pretend the conflict is a dispute over land, arguing that if Israel were to give up enough territory, formally recognize a “Palestinian” state, and soften its military presence at its borders, the fighting would end. But we must ask: If Gaza and the West Bank were granted full independence, control over their borders, and a strong military, what would that state actually look like? The answer is not a mystery.
Hamas has never hidden its intentions. Its goals are openly genocidal. After the October 7 massacre, Hamas paraded the bodies of murdered Israeli innocents through the streets as Gazans cheered. Later, its leaders promised to repeat the attack “again and again” until Israel no longer exists.
These aren’t fringe ideas but mainstream culture. In Gaza, anti-Israeli indoctrination is deeply embedded in daily life. Children’s television shows depict Jews as animals to be slaughtered. School curriculums deny the existence of Israel and glorify martyrdom. Military-style youth camps train boys to kill Jews from a young age. Public rallies celebrate “martyrs” who blew up buses or stabbed Israeli civilians. This environment not only sustains Hamas but also fuels it, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of antisemitism and murder.
Hamas’s charter explicitly calls for the killing of Jews, stating:
The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.
Hamas and the Gazans don’t hide their goals—they shout them from the rooftops.
The Palestinian Authority, though less overtly genocidal in its public rhetoric, also fosters jihadism in the West Bank. Through its “pay-to-slay” program, it provides financial incentives to families of terrorists, rewarding those who murder Israelis. Additionally, its “educational” system spreads antisemitic narratives and hostility toward Israel, indoctrinating the youth. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority refuses to take meaningful action against terrorists operating under its jurisdiction, many of whom loudly celebrated October 7 and continue to attack Israeli civilians. These actions (and inactions) continue to incentivize murder and promote a bloodthirsty antisemitic culture.
In both Gaza and the West Bank, children are raised to believe that Israel is illegitimate, that Jews are the enemy, and that killing them is the path to glory. Any “peace” plan that ignores or denies the existence of these beliefs isn’t just misguided: It’s entirely based on fantasy—and such fantasies directly enable and incentivize further slaughter of innocent people.
Given that reality, Israel’s response must be to eliminate the enemy that has slaughtered and continues to threaten its people. Appeasing those who openly seek their destruction is not diplomacy—it is surrender.
So, why are so many leaders pretending? Why do they support two states when both morality and historical facts have shown that “Palestinian” independence isn’t the solution?
The answer lies partly in short-term thinking. The desire to end the fighting is understandable. War is devastating, and the loss of innocent lives on both sides has led people to respond emotionally, prioritizing an immediate end to the violence above all else. However, there is a crucial difference between temporarily halting the conflict and establishing a foundation for genuine, lasting peace.
Treating Gaza like a legitimate country will not bring peace. When Israel pulled out of Gaza and traded hostages for Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, attacks did not stop. In fact, those actions set the stage for the October 7 massacre.
It makes sense that Israeli families want their loved ones released from captivity and for the war to end. However, their leadership’s role is to face the hard truths and pursue lasting peace, even when the strategies and tactics required are unpopular.
Unfortunately, the Israeli government appears paralyzed by fear of international condemnation and of loss of what little moral support they have left. This weakness leads to decisions that may generate short-term praise but are not the tough, necessary choices required for lasting security.
Recognizing a “Palestinian” state now, under current conditions, may pause the fighting—but it won’t stop it. However, granting Hamas amnesty and releasing violent prisoners would certainly embolden terrorist groups (as has been the case unfailingly throughout history), reward decades of rejecting peace, and guarantee more deaths in the future.
Unless Israel finds the strength to stand on principle and do what morally must be done, peace will remain impossible. Bringing stability to the region requires destroying terrorist infrastructure, ensuring these regions can no longer serve as bases for attacks, and ridding these territories of their bloodthirsty antisemitic culture.
You cannot negotiate with those who want to kill you. You cannot coexist with people who deny your right to live. You cannot build peace with those who glorify war.
This conflict will end only when Israel and the West stop ignoring reality, decide to face these facts, and act accordingly. Then, and only then, will real, lasting peace be possible.
 | A guest post by
|
The evasions involved in this worldwide pretense are astonishing. Thank you for calling them what they are, Kiyah.
You speak as if history began on October 7. You call Israel a beacon of liberty but never mention the decades of occupation, the settlement expansion, or the blockade that has suffocated Gaza since 2007. You write about Hamas as if it appeared out of nowhere, but ignore the fact that Palestinians have lived for generations under military rule, displacement, and daily humiliation.
You erase the Nakba, the checkpoints, the home demolitions, and the walls that cut villages apart. You talk about self-defense without ever acknowledging what it means to live without a state, without rights, and without freedom of movement. You condemn Palestinian violence but stay silent about the structural violence that made it inevitable.
You mistake the consequence for the cause. This is why your article reads as propaganda rather than understanding. Until you recognize the history that created the anger and despair you now dismiss, you are not describing reality, you are denying it.