Pol Hurtado Chade
In this article, I will examine commonly circulated claims about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and look at what the evidence says about each one. As I know, this is a very sensitive topic for many people, which is why I’ve put a great deal of effort into making sure everything I write is backed by facts rather than my personal opinion.
Israel left the Gaza Strip in 2005
Although the Israeli government did pull out its soldiers and evacuated settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005, the idea that the Israeli government did not maintain a large amount of control over the Palestinians living there is fundamentally false.
Firstly, Israel retained control of the airspace and seaspace. This meant that local authorities could not operate an independent international airport or have commercial air travel without coordination and permission, since flights required external authorization. Israel also imposed maritime limits that restricted fishing zones off the coast of the Gaza Strip, reducing access to marine resources and, in turn, greatly hurting the local economic development and autonomy. Finally, Palestinians could not run an independent seaport with free, unmonitored shipping because imports and exports were subject to external regulation. These restrictions on the movement of goods or people form only one aspect of a larger system of Israeli monitoring and regulation.
Furthermore, the land borders between the Gaza Strip and Israel were fully controlled by the Israeli government. The fact that `most of the economic activity, such as trade and commerce, needed external approval meant that the Israeli government retained significant influence over the overall economic functioning of the Gaza Strip. For instance, humanitarian or commercial goods often require inspection, which slowed imports and exports, in turn increasing prices. The Israeli government cited security concerns—particularly the threat posed by Hamas—as the primary justification for the restrictions, arguing they were necessary to prevent weapons smuggling. Critics, including the United Nations, the European Union, major human rights organizations, and numerous governments, condemned the Gaza blockade as collective punishment and a violation of international humanitarian law.
In addition, the movement of Palestinians required permits and security clearance, which meant entering and exiting the strip was highly regulated. The cumulative effect of these border controls extended beyond policy into daily social and economic realities. For instance, medical patients sometimes faced delays in reaching hospitals outside the strip due to border procedures. Likewise, businesses often faced logistical delays and higher operating costs. As a result of these movements and economic restrictions, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories described the situation in the Gaza Strip as resembling an “open-air prison”.
Arabs never wanted peace
Another widely circulated claim is that Israel’s Arab neighbours and Palestinians never accepted or worked towards any kind of permanent peace; that they were solely the instigators of violence and conflict, never the agents of peace. This assertion intentionally leaves out the numerous times Palestinians and Arabs pursued, offered, and accepted peace treaties and diplomatic agreements. I will outline some of the times when Palestinian and Arab leaders tried to promote diplomacy and peace.
Firstly, during and after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Palestinian leaders and Arab states such as Egypt, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, and Syria proposed multiple ceasefires and truces. These proposals were rejected by Israel because they opposed the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes. Furthermore, throughout the late 1960s and 1970s, Arab and Palestinian leaders supported UN Resolution 242, calling for Israel to withdraw from the territories that under international law were occupied, in exchange for a permanent ceasefire. An offer that was rejected by the Israeli government at that time. Although we must take into consideration that these countries did not recognize Israel as a state, which was clearly counterproductive in negotiations, the fact that even with this colossal barrier in the talks, they still offered many peace proposals highlights their commitment to working toward peace.
Additionally, through the Camp David Summit and the 2008–2014 ceasefires, Palestinian negotiators offered multiple land swaps, recognition of Israel, and a temporary cessation of violence. The Israeli leadership rejected the proposals or demanded more, insisting on terms Palestinians could not accept without giving up more land than they were offering or their rights, such as the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
Finally, arguably the most important agreements in this conflict were the Oslo Accords, which lasted from 1993 to 1995. In those agreements, the PLO officially recognized Israel, unequivocally renounced terrorism, and entered negotiations for a two-state solution. Although Israel did accept the accords, the government simultaneously allowed settlements to expand in the West Bank, violating the spirit of the agreement. In addition, the opposition leader at the time, Benjamin Netanyahu, was a vocal critic of the accords. Once he became Prime Minister in 1996, he undermined Oslo by slowing Israeli withdrawals, expanding settlements, and delaying implementation through stricter conditions on Palestinian compliance. An effort that could have permanently ended the conflict ultimately broke down — partly due to Hamas opposition and the Second Intifada, and partly due to continued settlement expansion and Netanyahu’s slowdown of withdrawals.
If you are Pro-Palestinian, you are automatically anti-zionist
A Zionist is someone who supports the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in the historical region of Palestine and later modern Israel. Advocating for a state where Jewish people can feel safe and at home is a belief completely compatible with condemning the Israeli government’s oppression and occupation against Palestinians and supporting their rights to self-determination.
One belief does not replace the other; they do not oppose each other, but rather overlap completely. They both champion the rights of a group to self-determination, to have a nation they can call their own, where they can feel safe to exercise their culture and where their rights are protected. Moreover, the beliefs put into practice can easily coexist side by side; there can be a Palestinian and an Israeli state, where Palestinians, Jews, and all other groups of people have guaranteed rights.
When these two beliefs merge in the heart and mind of impactful people, the results can be remarkable. A prominent example is Yossi Beilin, an Israeli politician who was deeply committed to Palestinian statehood but was also a Zionist. His beliefs led him to architect the Oslo Accords, which unfortunately did not succeed, but still proved that there was a possible path for peace.
