The conflict between Israel and Palestine is extraordinarily convoluted, shaped by layers of political, historical, cultural, sociological, economic, and emotional factors that intersect in often contradictory ways. This conflict has been shaped by loss, violence, and horrific acts acting as both catalysts and effects of the situation. This complexity extends beyond the aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians for self-determination and territorial sovereignty, touching upon deep historical grievances, cultural identities, and generational trauma. Furthermore, the regional and international dimensions add additional complexity as actors such as the United States, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and others bring their strategic interests into play.

The role of the United States is particularly significant in its recent efforts to broker peace, notably through the normalization of relations between Israel and certain Arab states. Ignoring the massive historical influences of the United States in the establishment of Israel, I intend to focus solely on the current reality. This piece is especially uninterested in a past we cannot change but in a future that could be possible.

Whether it be the Iranian regime’s influence, perceived threats to Hamas’s rule, or simply an incursion into Israel, the October 7th attack has served as the catalyst and incendiary action that has caused the violence of the past year. Although perhaps investigative journalism will be able to understand what explicitly caused the most recent spark in this way, October 7th, one year ago, it will go down as the catalyst for one of the worst humanitarian crises of a lifetime. Perhaps a vain attempt by Yahya Sinwar to achieve Palestinian nationalism, as academics and left-wing activists proclaim? Maybe an act of resistance? Regardless of the reasoning for the incursion, whether the view of decades of oppressive occupation or a simple interest in inflicting pain on the Jewish state, it will likely never be discovered or given consensus as to an explicit reason.

In all likelihood, President Joe Biden’s initiative to facilitate normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel was perceived as a direct threat to Hamas’s authority, as it undermined their influence within the region, thus contributing massively to the escalation. American involvement in the area has been profoundly influential but controversial, substantially affecting regional power dynamics. Deep divisions within American society about the role of weapons and aid in this recent conflict further complicate efforts toward peace. These divisions are especially enunciated across age groups, ethnic communities, and the broader polity, revealing divergent perspectives on the U.S. role in the region. Navigating these domestic debates has been crucial for determining how America can effectively contribute to fostering stability and security.

The influence of Israel/Palestine on the American public has been pronounced, albeit not nearly as widespread as one might believe. In the wake of the student protests across the nation, all eyes turned to whether the war in Gaza would become the next Vietnam. (although there are massive distinctions between the two, there were similarities.) President Biden and the American Congress have been wrapped up with the issue, with Republicans seeking to capitalize on their Pro-Israel standing and blaming President Biden’s handling with regards to restraining Israel, juxtaposed with Democrats and the President receiving criticism from their left flank about sending weapons to Israel and their support of the Jewish state. Ultimately, the American government is divided between two radically different constituencies and opposite views on the handling and the necessary resolution of the situation, creating a quagmire in which any action in either direction will receive criticism from either the left or right flank of the American electorate. Whether it is student activists who call for the embargo of U.S. weapons or Israel supporters who demand that individuals in the seat of power ignore and renunciate these protestors, this conflict has been a stain on the progress of the 2020s.

The words of Holly Hunter from a movie I both love and hate (Batman v Superman) are particularly apt here: “The world has been so caught up with what Superman can do that no one has asked what he should do.” This idea mirrors the discourse surrounding Israel’s historical legitimacy and the fundamental discrepancies between left, center, and right-wing discourses. Some (primarily academics and activists) choose to label the Jewish state as an Apartheid state or an illegitimate state. At the same time, I am uninterested in discussing these stances more than I have had to; I will guide readers back to the quote above. We are concerned with what is and what reasonably could be, not what was or what should’ve been.

Regardless of one’s stance on Zionism or whether the state of Israel is historically legitimate, the fact remains that Israel exists today. The focus should be on shaping a tomorrow that recognizes this truth while aspiring for justice and peace for both peoples. Debating historical legitimacy has its place, but the priority must shift to actionable steps that can create a better future for Israelis and Palestinians alike, recognizing that their destinies are intertwined. In this regard, the academic sentiment of the students and professors must be ignored, and greater focus must be on the reality of the situation, not the academic idealism, which is untenable and unworkable.

It is essential to recognize that there are no simple solutions to this conflict, and any attempt to propose one must be approached with humility and a humanitarian perspective. Being 7,577 miles away from this conflict has allowed me to comment without being directly afflicted. Let us remind ourselves that this is a debate, open to respectful discussion and disagreement.

The only moral standpoint that can be maintained is a commitment to human dignity, irrespective of national, ethnic, or religious boundaries. The complexity of these peace negotiations must be some of the most complex discussions ever undertaken. The considerations of both past and present grievances with current realities alongside the interest of a multitude of nations must be damn near impossible to reconcile.

State vs. Peoples

We must differentiate between states’ actions and innocent civilians’ lives. Palestinians are not Hamas and must not be labeled as such. Israelis are not their government. Again, rather than discussing the sampling, the focus must be on improvements for individual citizens. It is entirely possible—and indeed essential—to be pro-Palestinian, pro-Israeli, and even pro-Iranian in the sense of standing in solidarity with the people of these regions rather than endorsing the policies of their governments. (Great Thomas L. Friedman opinion) My thoughts are merely one individual’s perspective, offered as part of a broader dialogue. The path to peace is far too nuanced and complex to be captured by a single narrative or solution. In this context, I consider an economically viable Palestine under a more moderate Fatah rule as a potential avenue forward—one that emphasizes stability, development, and cooperation over the extremism and violence espoused by Hamas while juxtaposing safety for the existing Jewish state of Israel. (In no small part due to the incredible work by Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib)

In seeking sustainable peace, we must balance security, freedom, sovereignty, and coexistence while recognizing the history of violence and displacement that has shaped the current situation. Acknowledging the deep injustices faced by both communities, these proposals aim to address historical grievances and heal past wounds. Resolving the conflict requires understanding the aspirations and fears that have fueled decades of hostility.

We owe it to future generations to try, hope, and work tirelessly for a tomorrow where everyone can live in peace and security regardless of their background. With all this preface, let’s discuss the hot-button issues.

Two State Solution-Imperfect but Necessary

The concept of a two-state solution has been at the forefront of peace discussions for decades, and with good reason: it acknowledges the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians to their homelands. Therein lies one of the current fundamental problems at the core of this issue: specific segments of the population of either Israel or Palestine refuse a two-state solution. Extremists on both sides refuse to concede that a single-state solution is not only untenable but could fuel even further humanitarian disaster. Whether it be Israeli settlers who refuse to accept Palestinian sovereignty or Palestinian activists who demand the destruction of Israel, these positions are untenable and unworkable for any solution. Also, I am vastly oversimplifying and drawing equivalencies that I am plenty sure will anger many people, again, the idea of a singular state whether fully Israeli or a complete Palestine would in all likelihood result in the decimation and complete removal of either population—neither of which will ultimately be a reality in a two-state solution.

A two-state solution could involve establishing clearly defined borders, negotiated with international oversight to ensure fairness and security for both sides. The creation of a demilitarized Palestinian state, along with security guarantees for Israel, could help reduce the fears and mistrust that have fueled the conflict for so long. Land swaps based on the 1967 lines could facilitate a fair adjustment, allowing both sides to maintain territorial integrity while addressing key demographic and strategic concerns. This approach would create a framework where both nations could coexist, each with its own identity, governance, and security apparatus, but with mutual respect and recognition. Ultimately, returning to the 1967 lines could be the basis of future agreements.

This plan is similar to the ceasefire negotiations presented by President Joe Biden in May of 2024. The ceasefire negotiations outlined a plan to end the war; however, balancing the interest of Palestinian statehood (which some of Israel’s far-right government will not allow) and the security issues presented by the Israelis have stalled these ceasefire talks. Additionally, the expansion of regional fighting to Lebanon, the all-out decimation of Hezbollah, and recent discussions of more direct conflict with Iran have further complicated the situation.

Complex Governance

Jerusalem is a highly contentious issue in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians due to its profound religious, cultural, and national significance for both parties. Instead of dividing the city, a shared governance model could be implemented, with West Jerusalem serving as the capital of Israel and East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. This approach would involve placing holy sites under joint or international administration to ensure equal access for Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Jerusalem represents faith, resilience, and hope for millions globally. By promoting shared stewardship of the city, both sides could establish a foundation for a future based on mutual respect and acknowledgment of each other’s historical narratives.

Another approach could be the establishment of a confederation, where Israel and Palestine would remain separate sovereign states but operate under a broader framework of cooperation. This model would allow for open borders, shared infrastructure, and collaborative economic and security arrangements. A regional economic council could be created to manage shared resources, fostering interdependence and reducing conflict incentives. The confederation would acknowledge the deep interconnections between the region’s people while respecting their desire for self-governance. Despite the challenges, this model could create conditions for economic interdependence, reduced tensions, and a shared vision for the future.

Mutual recognition is crucial for lasting peace. Both Israelis and Palestinians must officially acknowledge each other’s right to exist—Israel as a Jewish state and Palestine as an independent, sovereign nation. The failure to establish a Palestinian state has been a significant obstacle to peace in the region. This recognition should be accompanied by legally binding non-aggression pacts monitored by neutral international bodies to prevent further hostilities. Mutual recognition affirms each other’s humanity, dignity, and right to live without the fear of violence. Without this foundational step, no peace agreement can be sustainable, as it requires both parties to perceive the other as a legitimate partner in pursuing peace, rather than an existential threat.

Air fryers for All

Now onto my favorite part of all of this…Economics

Economic cooperation is an essential aspect of establishing sustainable peace. It is the most straightforward way to ease tensions. Despite being a challenging endeavor, promoting economic prosperity and creating jobs can be the most effective method for reducing tension. Consider the transformation of border regions into collaborative industrial and agricultural zones, where Israelis and Palestinians work together to foster shared prosperity. These shared economic zones could create job opportunities, boost economic growth, and lessen the disparities that often lead to resentment and extremism. (Why would anyone join an insurgency when they have access to Netflix and an air fryer?)

The current work permit system for Palestinians has been greatly affected by the war, leading to significant restrictions or complete halting of the system. This system has proven to be valuable but needs improvement to spread prosperity more widely. With international investment and support, these areas could become a model for broader regional cooperation, demonstrating the real benefits of peace. Unemployment rates before the war were around 30%, but as of June 2024, they have risen to around 80%, which is not sustainable. By significantly reducing this number, the region can achieve prosperity and, more importantly, a sense of purpose, leading to far less extremism.

Brookings research suggests that while there is no direct correlation between unemployment and extremism, there is a stronger correlation between educated unemployment and increased extremism. Economic stability and opportunity are crucial for creating an environment where peace can thrive. When people have hope for a better future, they are much less likely to be influenced by extremist ideologies.

A key aspect of progress is promoting economic development and prosperity in Gaza, the West Bank, and Rafah. Addressing the root causes of extremism involves significantly improving the quality of life for Palestinians, including economic stability, access to resources, and meaningful employment opportunities. Studies show that poverty, unemployment, and lack of opportunity are powerful drivers of radicalization. By establishing economic zones, investing in infrastructure, and creating job opportunities, we can provide alternatives to extremism and diminish the influence of groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which take advantage of the desperation of marginalized communities. Prosperity and development are essential for creating an environment conducive to peace, as they give individuals a stake in stability and a worthwhile future to strive for.

Nation-building efforts and enhancing the quality of life are vital strategies for combating terrorism and promoting stability. This approach goes beyond military interventions, aiming to foster social and economic resilience, strengthen governance, and build community trust. The U.S. counterterrorism strategy has historically leaned towards kinetic actions, such as drone strikes and targeted assassinations. While these actions may have immediate impacts, they often fail to address the underlying conditions leading to extremism. A shift towards integrating kinetic measures with soft power—including financial investments, coalition building, and diplomatic initiatives—could more effectively dismantle terrorist organizations by targeting the socio-economic roots of radicalization.

Economic cooperation and development must be prioritized, especially in regions like Gaza, which has faced severe financial hardship due to both internal mismanagement by Hamas and external blockades. A comprehensive effort to rebuild Gaza’s infrastructure, provide access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunities, and foster regional trade could serve as a powerful counterbalance to the appeal of extremism. By focusing on the demand side of terrorism—reducing the factors that make extremist ideologies attractive—we can foster an environment where the roots of radicalization are weakened, and peace has a real chance to flourish. Recognizing this nuance allows us to move beyond simplistic narratives and work toward practical solutions that consider the needs and fears of all stakeholders.

A lack of trust is one of the most significant obstacles to peace. Establishing international peacekeeping forces along critical borders—such as the Jordan Valley—could serve as a buffer to reassure both sides of their security. These peacekeepers could act as neutral observers, deterring violence and ensuring freedom of movement. Although arguably the least reasonable and unrealistic aspect of this plan, troops from an international coalition, such as the nations currently involved in ceasefire negotiations (U.S., Saudi, Qatari), could constitute a peacekeeping force in the region. Such a force could provide the necessary space for trust to develop organically, allowing both sides to make incremental progress without fear of immediate retaliation. (Think something akin to the Bosnia U.N. peacekeeping mission in the 1990s.) Trust cannot be imposed; it must be built slowly and deliberately, with each side willing to take risks for peace.

Peacebuilding must also extend beyond the governmental level to involve ordinary citizens. Cultural and educational exchange programs are crucial for breaking down the barriers of prejudice and misunderstanding accumulated over decades of conflict. Local peace committees, composed of Israelis and Palestinians, could address community-level issues, promote dialogue, and resolve disputes before they escalate. By fostering people-to-people connections, we can cultivate empathy, reduce hostility, and lay the groundwork for a more enduring peace. Grassroots initiatives are the lifeblood of any sustainable peace effort, as actual change begins not in political offices but in the hearts and minds of individuals.

The issue of Palestinian refugees is one of the most contentious and emotionally charged aspects of the conflict. One potential solution involves creating an international compensation fund. This fund would offer financial resources to refugees looking to rebuild their lives, whether in an independent Palestinian state, in Israel (in specific, agreed-upon cases), or in a third country. Limited return options, along with fair compensation, could be part of a broader compromise that addresses the rights of refugees while considering Israel’s demographic concerns. The plight of refugees serves as a poignant reminder of the human cost of this conflict, and any resolution must prioritize their dignity and provide meaningful avenues for resettlement and reintegration.

The path to lasting peace will be gradual, requiring step-by-step progress and building trust over time. Small-scale agreements focused on economic cooperation, security coordination, and infrastructure development can serve as confidence-building measures, demonstrating the benefits of collaboration and creating momentum toward broader political solutions. A performance-based roadmap, in which each successful initiative paves the way for subsequent agreements, could help both sides see the value of continued engagement. Though incremental progress may seem slow, it is often the most effective way to achieve durable outcomes in deeply entrenched conflicts.

A permanent mediating body, composed of impartial representatives from international organizations or neutral states, could facilitate ongoing dialogue. Combined with rotating international oversight, this body would ensure that both sides remain committed to peace efforts and are held accountable for their actions. Mediation must continuously provide support and intervention whenever disputes arise to prevent backsliding. Consistent mediation and accountability are critical, as peace is not a one-time achievement but a sustained endeavor requiring vigilance, patience, and adaptability.

Harsh Realities

It is crucial to acknowledge the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and recognize the shared responsibility of both Israel and Hamas for the suffering of civilians. Israel’s failure to adequately protect civilian lives and mitigate harm is unacceptable. As the dominant power, it bears substantial responsibility for ensuring the safety and welfare of Gaza’s residents. Israel cannot claim it is a liberator of the Palestinian people while allowing a war to murder 1 in 75 Palestinians. Regardless of difficulty or workability, humanitarian stations, food aid, and other preventative measures must be taken. Israel must demonstrate the lengths it is going to protect civilian life, of which thus far it has not, and in fact, has been shown carelessness and a casual disregard for civilian casualties.

Simultaneously, Hamas must also be held accountable for its actions. Despite what some sheltered, privileged Western academics might assert, Hamas is not a liberator; instead, it is a jihadist, extremist organization that has prioritized its power over the welfare of Palestinians. As an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas has, too, consistently demonstrated a disregard for civilian lives, using them as shields and exacerbating the humanitarian crisis for its ends. Hamas hides behind its civilian population, wielding the deaths that they create at the hands of Israel as fuel for its extremism. Hamas has no problem hiding behind civilians, instructing their members to wear civilian clothing to hide in population zones, creating this impossible scenario. Despite claims from left-wing Americans, anonymous Twitter users, and academics who chose to sanitize the conflict and glorify Jihadism, Hamas has demonstrated a similar casual disregard for civilian life.

According to research by NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, Hamas’s main tactics are as follows. “Hamas’ most common uses of human shields include Firing rockets, artillery, and mortars from or in proximity to heavily populated civilian areas, often from or near facilities which should be protected according to the Geneva Convention (e.g., schools, hospitals, or mosques). Locating military or security-related infrastructures such as H.Q.s, bases, armories, access routes, lathes, or defensive positions within or near civilian areas and protecting terrorists’ houses and military facilities or rescuing terrorists who were besieged or warned by the I.D.F. Combating the I.D.F. from or in proximity to residential and commercial areas, including using civilians for intelligence-gathering missions. By engaging in these acts, Hamas employs a win-win scenario. If indeed the I.D.F. uses kinetic power, and the number of civilian causalities surges, Hamas can use that as a weapon in the lawfare it conducts. It would be able to accuse the I.D.F. (and Israel) of committing war crimes,” Regardless of whether activists, academics, or students choose to accept this reality, the fact of the matter is that this is the brutal reality in the region. I am neither a military analyst nor an expert. Thus, I cannot provide a moral solution to this impossible scenario. However, I can offer an analogy for the situation I once told a colleague.

“It is like someone punching you in the face, then choosing to hide behind a puppy, proclaiming that you cannot punch them back. However, in this scenario, we do not care about the puppy; we are happy to punch through the puppy if it means getting our revenge.” Although not perfectly apt, and I am sure some activists will enter the comments section proclaiming that all forms of resistance are justified or any other sort of privileged Western perspective, let us understand that this is a discussion about thousands of lives that are real people like us. Remember to maintain our understanding that everyone deserves the same dignity and rights.

The interplay between an Israeli state that often prioritizes security above civilian impact and a Hamas-led administration that sacrifices its people for political leverage has resulted in an untenable situation. Any sustainable solution must consider the lives of ordinary people who deserve safety, dignity, and hope for the future. Their suffering must be the driving force behind efforts to achieve peace.

Friends In the Neighborhood.

The involvement of regional Arab states is crucial in shaping the path to peace. Countries such as Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Lebanon have significant influence over the conflict, either through direct involvement or by supporting various factions. Iran’s support for militant groups like Hamas and Hezbollah has been a substantial impediment to peace, with Iranian proxies actively working to destabilize the region. These groups use violence to undermine any progress toward normalization or reconciliation, perpetuating instability for strategic gain. On the other hand, countries like Egypt have played a mediating role, facilitating ceasefires and negotiations. At the same time, Qatar has provided economic aid to Gaza. Saudi Arabia’s recent moves towards normalization with Israel are a potentially transformative development, albeit one fraught with challenges. The cooperation of these regional actors is essential for achieving lasting peace, as their influence can either perpetuate conflict or foster reconciliation, depending on their choices. Encouraging these states to prioritize stability, economic development, and the welfare of civilians over narrow geopolitical rivalries could pave the way for a more comprehensive and sustainable regional peace.

The experience of West Germany after World War II offers a valuable example of how economic reconstruction and political moderation can lead to stability and prosperity. Following the devastation of the war, West Germany received substantial support from the international community through the Marshall Plan, which helped rebuild its economy and foster a sense of hope for the future. This economic recovery, combined with democratic governance, helped West Germany become a peaceful and prosperous nation. A similar model could be applied to Gaza and the West Bank, where international support for rebuilding infrastructure, education, and healthcare, coupled with the establishment of moderate governance, could pave the way for a stable and thriving Palestinian state.

The Onus on Israel as the Dominant Power

As the dominant power in this conflict, Israel has a greater responsibility to protect civilian lives, especially in areas under its control or influence. The imbalance in military capability and state resources places an additional moral obligation on Israel to minimize harm to civilians, uphold international humanitarian standards, and respond proportionally to threats. While Israel has legitimate security concerns, it must take all possible steps to ensure that military actions do not lead to unnecessary suffering among the Palestinian population. This means not only limiting civilian casualties during military operations but also working towards policies that reduce the impact of the ongoing blockade on ordinary Palestinians. The ultimate goal should be to protect and improve civilian life rather than maintain a status quo of tension and violence.

Rejecting extremism is a crucial part of this journey. All-or-nothing thinking is unproductive and only serves to deepen divides. In politics, the golden rule is that nothing is ever truly black and white—most issues, especially those as complex as this conflict, exist in shades of gray.

Similarly, Israel has demonstrated an unwillingness to fulfill this responsibility, influenced by a confluence of political and social factors. The current far-right government has shown a disregard for Palestinian lives, as well as the lives of the hostages held in Gaza. To move forward, Israelis must elect a more moderate government that prioritizes addressing the root causes of the conflict rather than pursuing reoccupation or continued suppression. I applaud the efforts of the Israeli citizens who have protested the war in Gaza and the Netanyahu administration’s handling. A more moderate leadership would be better positioned to collaborate on peace efforts, addressing security needs while promoting the dignity and rights of all involved.

No solution will be easy, and no single approach will suffice. Achieving true peace will require a multifaceted strategy that brings together political will, international support, and grassroots action. It will require bold leaders willing to make difficult compromises, resilient communities that refuse to give in to despair, and a collective vision of what is possible when people choose hope over hatred. Sustainable peace is about recognizing the shared humanity of both Israelis and Palestinians and respecting each other’s aspirations for security, freedom, and dignity. A peaceful future can be built only through cooperation, empathy, and a deep commitment to coexistence.