Zionism, rooted in the Jewish aspiration for a homeland, has long prioritized peace as a core principle, envisioning coexistence with all its neighbors. From its inception, the Zionist movement has sought a just and lasting resolution to conflicts in the region, grounded in mutual respect and cooperation.
Zionism’s commitment to peace, coupled with pragmatic dialogue and reasonable leadership on all sides, particularly with Palestinians, offers a pathway to swiftly end hostilities and foster enduring harmony in the Middle East.
Diplomats have spent months planning a conference at United Nations headquarters in New York that aimed to advance global efforts toward achieving a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The conference was designed to chart a clear and irreversible pathway toward a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace. The conference advertised that it was to include a plenary session with statements from the president of the General Assembly, the UN secretary-general, and the co-chairs, followed by interventions from Member States and observers.
One notable party that refused to participate in the conference was Israel. The notion that the conference was aimed at finding a solution to a two-party conflict when one party would not participate calls into question the true objective of the conference. Israel’s attack in Iran led to the postponement of the conference, which was to have taken place this past week.
Still, were the organizers genuinely aiming to find a solution to the conflict, or did they actually aim to impose a political proposal on both parties? Israel’s decision to stay away pointed to the latter being the goal.
Statements from French President Emmanuel Macron suggested France could use the conference to recognize a Palestinian state. This possibility spawned America to release the following statement, “The United States opposes any steps that would unilaterally recognize a conjectural Palestinian state, which adds significant legal and political obstacles to the eventual resolution of the conflict and could coerce Israel during a war, thereby supporting its enemies.”
Imposing a political reality on Israel without Israel's input
THIS CONFERENCE is just one more attempt by the international community to impose a political reality on Israel without Israel’s input. These attempts at a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict could be more productive if they included Israel. Since its founding, the Jewish state has a proven track record of striving for peace with its Arab neighbors and Palestinian residents.
Israel has made peace with six different Arab countries. Starting with former Israeli prime ministers Yitzchak Rabin and Shimon Peres and the Oslo Accords, and continuing with the generous compromises of former prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, Jerusalem has shown a willingness to compromise for a peaceful end to the Israel-Palestine conflict. This conference would have a greater chance of success if it included Israel in the process.
Hosting a conference that includes the Palestinians without the participation of Israel doesn’t only hurt the chances of solving the Israel-Palestine conflict but also sets back Palestinian progress. As long as the conflict continues, the Palestinians’ objectives are not realized. Advising the Palestinians to participate in this conference was more about making a political point than helping them. Anyone who truly cares about the Palestinians would advise them to only participate in conferences that include the Israelis.
Helpful advice to the Palestinians would encourage them to work with Israel to find a solution to the conflict. There have been many policies, actions, and statements by them over the past 100 years that have caused their situation to deteriorate. Anyone claiming to look out for the Palestinians’ best interest should make suggestions that improve their circumstances, especially their relationship with Israel.
PALESTINIANS AND their advisers need to begin thinking pragmatically. For close to a century, it seems that they have prioritized ideology over practicality. This has come at a great cost to Palestinian progress and has severely hampered their circumstances. The first step towards thinking pragmatically and prioritizing improving their circumstances over making ideological points is to begin backtracking on unbending positions that do nothing to advance their situation.
First and foremost, Palestinians must stop aspiring, even hoping, for the demise of Israel. They hang maps of a Palestine from the river to the sea, teach their children about a day when there will be no Israel, and glorify “martyrs” who have taken violent steps towards destroying the Jewish state. Palestinians must come to terms with Israel and accept it as more than a temporary setback in their political aspirations.
For decades, after half a century of refusing to recognize Israel, Palestinians have only recognized it as a state that exists. As a condition to end the conflict, Israel demands that they recognize it as a Jewish state and views the Palestinian refusal as an underhanded method to use Israel’s democracy to one day gain a majority of voters to change it from a Jewish state to a Palestinian one. If the Palestinians are truly interested in ending the conflict and living side by side with Israel, recognizing Israel as a Jewish state takes nothing away from Palestinian aspirations and their progress.
A people can never progress if they accept regressive policies and culture. Palestinian culture doesn’t eschew violence, it embraces it, often praising it as “resistance.” The Palestinian Authority uses over $400 million of foreign aid meant to help Palestinians for its “pay-to-slay” program, which incentivizes Palestinian terrorism.
Palestinian cities name schools and streets for terrorists who have murdered Israelis, and since October 7, Palestinians have celebrated, instead of condemned, the Palestinian attacks on Israelis. Recently, in an interview published by the PA’s official daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, President Mahmoud Abbas described the attack in praiseworthy terms. To improve their circumstances, Palestinian leadership and its people need to reject violence.
PALESTINIAN STATEHOOD and the Palestinian demand for a return of its people to Israel proper are important aspirations for them. At this point in time, the region isn’t ready for a Palestinian state or talk of a return of its people. Israelis don’t trust that such a state would be peaceful, the Palestinian Authority has proven itself unable to govern, and the Palestinians are still hoping for Israel’s demise.
Conditioning the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the establishment of a Palestinian state and a return of its people is a poison pill to any solution. To move forward toward an end to the conflict, Palestinians need to suspend these demands.
To truly move forward and improve their situation, Palestinians need to recognize and admit their mistakes. Their leadership and society must take an internal accounting and acknowledge the consequences of their mistakes. Palestinian intransigence, adopting terrorism as a policy of resistance, and aiming to replace Israel has had disastrous effects on their situation. They will not be able to adopt new policies until they openly admit that past policies were mistakes and should never have been implemented.
Israel has desperately wanted to end its conflict with a just and peaceful solution since even before its founding. Zionism is a peaceful ideology built on a Jewish tradition that seeks peace among all people. Given the chance, with a pragmatic and reasonable Palestinian leadership, Israel will end the conflict in short order. Israel just seeks that opportunity.
The writer is a Zionist educator at institutions around the world. He recently published his book Zionism Today.