Blood, Borders and Belonging

The Futility of Dwelling on the Past

There are numerous reports detailing the history of the Israel-Palestine/Israel-Hamas conflict. However, dwelling on the past and its key figures is futile. It is time to focus on implementing solutions and establishing mechanisms for lasting peace. Policymakers believe there are three possible solutions to end this 75-year cycle of bloodshed: Israel’s complete political takeover of Gaza through military and diplomatic means, handing full control to Hamas, or placing the region under an international governing body.

The Flaws in Proposed Solutions

Each of these proposals has major flaws. Giving Hamas full control is unfeasible. The 37th Israeli government, a coalition of hardline right-wing parties—including Likud, United Torah Judaism, Shas, Otzma Yehudit, and the Religious Zionist Party—would never allow it. Their policies prioritize centralizing Orthodox control, judicial reforms reducing oversight, expanding West Bank settlements, and even annexation.

Some may argue that since the Palestinian people voted for Hamas, it is only fair to allow them to govern. However, at the time of the 2005 election, Hamas had branded itself, in the words of one of its spokespersons, as a “moderate organization with no extreme views.” It is true that the ideologies and policies of governments and militant organizations evolve over time. However, one must consider the demographics of those who voted for Hamas. Statistics reveal a staggering reality—50% of Gaza’s population consists of children who are not eligible to vote. It is therefore absurd to justify the suffering of innocent children who bear the cruel consequences of war.

The Israeli takeover plan would also face fierce opposition. Even without Hamas, Palestinians in Gaza and beyond would strongly resist. A key reason is the growing distrust among families who have lost loved ones due to Israel’s “damage over accuracy” approach. Israeli military spokesperson Daniel Hagari openly acknowledged this policy when justifying airstrikes that struck rehabilitation camps, hospitals, and ambulances. Israel blamed the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, but such actions only deepen resentment.

Another reason this plan is fundamentally flawed is a recent development involving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s support for the U.S. President’s proposal to relocate approximately two million Palestinians to neighboring countries to redevelop Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” When asked how the U.S. intended to acquire this land, the President stated they would “take it.” Understandably, such statements would provoke immense outrage among a population that has already lost so much. However, after facing backlash from Arab states, the President later amended his remarks, stating that he would only “recommend” and not “enforce” the relocation of Gazans. Nevertheless, the fact remains that such statements were made—by a leader who holds the power to bring about a complete ceasefire.

A Glimmer of Hope

Despite this bleak reality, not all hope is lost. In interviews with civilians from both sides, I came across a statement that felt like a ray of hope. A Palestinian father, who lost his child to military attacks, expressed a simple yet profound truth: “We must either share the land or share the graveyard under it.” At the end of the day, it does not matter whether you wear a “Kippah” or a “Taqiyah” — beneath those skullcaps, we are all flesh and blood.