IN DEFENSE of ISRAEL

IN DEFENSE OF ISRAEL

Edited by: Chat GPT

In Defense of Israel: A Historical and Ideological Analysis

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is among the most intricate and enduring disputes in modern history. Competing national identities, territorial claims, and deeply rooted religious and cultural tensions lie at its core. It is entirely to affirm that Palestinians deserve a homeland, sovereignty, and the opportunity to live with dignity and peace. However, acknowledging this should not obscure the reality that many factions within Palestinian leadership, and various regional powers, are more committed to Israel’s destruction than to Palestinian state-building.

Jerusalem, especially the Al-Aqsa Mosque, is a focal point of this hostility. Jerusalem is sacred to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam alike. For Jews, it is the site of the First and Second Temples and the eternal capital of their ancient homeland. Christians revere it as the place of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. Muslims believe it houses Al-Aqsa, considered the third-holiest site in Islam.

However, the specific Islamic connection to Al-Aqsa is historically complex. During the Umayyad Caliphate, the Prophet Muhammad lived between 570 and 632 CE, yet the mosque structure was not built until several decades later, between 685 and 715 CE. The Quran’s reference to “the farthest mosque” is open to interpretation, and many historians debate whether this referred to Jerusalem at all. Therefore, the belief that Al-Aqsa Mosque is directly tied to Muhammad’s life is not conclusively supported by historical evidence. Unfortunately, this narrative has been amplified and politicized by Islamist factions, such as Hamas, to fuel a religious and ideological agenda that calls for the complete rejection of Israel.

The Problem of Leadership and Rejection

Israel has repeatedly supported the idea of a Palestinian state. The Oslo Accords of the 1990s offered a roadmap for peace, providing for Palestinian self-governance and eventual statehood. However, these and other peace efforts have been consistently undermined by the Palestinian leadership. Both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have rejected critical elements of peace proposals, particularly the acknowledgment of Israel’s right to exist. Hamas, in its charter, openly calls for Israel’s annihilation. This is not a fringe position; it reflects a significant portion of Gaza’s political and cultural sentiment.

While many Palestinians desire peace, the prevailing leadership has instead emphasized an uncompromising stance. This includes the claim of a full “right of return” for millions of descendants of 1948 refugees, and the insistence that all of Jerusalem, including the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, be turned over to Palestinian control. Such positions are not grounded in compromise or coexistence, but in historical revisionism and zero-sum ideology.

The Right of Israel to Exist

Israel’s existence as a Jewish state is not arbitrary. It is rooted in ancient history and international law. The Jewish people have maintained an unbroken cultural, spiritual, and historical connection to the land of Israel for thousands of years. The United Nations officially endorsed the creation of the modern state of Israel in 1947, following the horrors of the Holocaust and in recognition of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination.

Since its founding in 1948, Israel has faced constant existential threats, including invasions and wars launched by neighboring states. Despite these challenges, Israel has remained a democratic society governed by the rule of law and committed to human rights. It has made peace with former adversaries like Egypt and Jordan and continues to extend diplomatic overtures to others.

The core problem is not Israel’s presence, but the refusal of many Palestinian factions to accept that presence. Surrounded by hostile groups, such as Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, Israel places the safety of its citizens above all else. No nation can endure endless rocket attacks, suicide bombings, and calls for its destruction without defending itself. Israel does not oppose peace; it opposes threats to its survival.

The Problem of Leadership and Rejection

The Term Palestine

Historically, the concept of an independent nation called “Palestine” has no basis in recorded political or national history. The Romans first widely used the term “Palestine” itself after they crushed the Jewish revolt in 135 CE and renamed the region “Syria Palaestina” to sever Jewish ties to the land of Judea. This name was not associated with a distinct Palestinian people or national identity but was a geographic designation for a province within the Roman and later Byzantine empires. Throughout centuries of successive rule by Byzantines, Islamic Caliphates, Crusaders, Ottomans, and finally the British Empire, the area referred to as “Palestine” was never an autonomous nation-state. No government, borders, currency, or distinct political entity was recognized as “Palestine.”

The emergence of a distinct Palestinian national identity is a relatively modern development, essentially taking shape in the 20th century in reaction to Zionism and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. Before that, Arab inhabitants of the region often identified themselves as part of a broader Arab or Syrian identity, rather than as members of a separate Palestinian nation. This does not negate the right of Arabs living in the region to self-identify and seek national self-determination today. Still, it is essential to distinguish between the modern political cause and the historical record. Objective historical evidence does not support the historical narrative of an ancient or long-standing nation of Palestine existing parallel to ancient Israel.