In view of complex situation in Israel-Palestine tangle, declaring one side “right” is unpragmatic. Both have valid historical claims-which are still unresolved. The occupation and displacement have caused humungous suffering, particularly for Palestinians, while Israel’s security needs are real and need to be addressed too. Aggression is not the solution, write former IAS officer V.S.Pandey and historian and freelance writer Dr. Smita Pandey.
Albert Camus, the renowned philosopher, had aptly stated that,’’the entire history of mankind is, in any case, nothing but a prolonged fight to the death for the conquest of universal prestige and absolute power.’’ In this brutal fight – the victor takes all, the loser has nothing -not even his own homeland remains. Truth, ethics, morality or principles do not figure in real politics of the histories of continents throughout the ages. There is no Solomon to pronounce judgment as to who was right and who was on the wrong side of history.
The unbridled rapacity to acquire more territories, more wealth, at times even lustfully, have been the driving forces, from time immemorial to determine the boundaries of erstwhile republics, city states, kingdoms and the nation states presently. Uncovering the logic of current messy national boundaries is a futile quest. The dictum “Might is right” had complete sway then and it still predominates globally-the will of the global Superpower prevails-with minor modifications. Now powerful states do not need to physically capture any land mass or have boots on the ground- as they can be conveniently exploited from a distance – indefinitely for as long as required, without any salient opposition. With the advent of technology, modes of exploitation have morphed into new shapes and forms. New tools of extraction have been invented and then augmented with creation of new monstrous global institutions, by deep states, for filling their greedy coffers.
New mesmerizing mantras are invented to cripple the weak nations. None had ever imagined where this monopolization of power and pelf would lead to-that one day, magically and inevitably, the wealth of a few individuals would surpass the GDP of most of the nation states, barring a few. How humanity has attained this ugly stage of humungous inequalities is not difficult to fathom. Scratching the façade of this fake narrative, sedulously created and nurtured for centuries, will expose the ugly side of the current state of international affairs and the sordid racketeering ongoing for decades, will come tumbling out of the cavernous historical closets.
Arrogant imperialists- with military and wealthy might, used their heft to the maximum to satiate their egos. They imperiously drew arbitrary lines-with a haughty stroke of their colonial pens, to create new nations and divide existing ones- in disdainful callous disregard of geography, ethnicity, culture, linguistic considerations etc., thus creating permanent fissures and relentless disputes across continents. These intractable disputes led to bitter, bloody wars which still continue to rage centuries after they were ignited.
The Israel-Palestine conflict is one such complex dispute, with both sides having valid historical and moral claims. Who is definitively “right”? The facts suggest that both Jews and Palestinians have deep ties to the land, with Jews seeking a homeland after centuries of persecution, including the Holocaust, and Palestinians displaced by Israel’s creation in 1948. The conflict dates back to the late 19th century with the rise of Zionism, aiming for a Jewish state in Palestine, then under Ottoman rule. The 1917 Balfour Declaration, by Britain, supporting a Jewish national home, heightened tensions with the Arab majority. After World War II, the UN proposal for partitioning Palestine in 1947 was accepted by Jews but rejected by Arabs, leading to the 1948 war. Israel declared independence and expanded its territory, while about 750,000 Palestinians became refugees, an event known as the Nakba. The 1967 Six-Day War saw Israel occupy the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, deepening the conflict. Peace efforts, like the 1993 Oslo Accords, established the Palestinian Authority but failed to resolve core issues like borders, status of Jerusalem, and teeming refugees.
Recent escalations, notably the October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas on Israel, killing over 1,200, and Israel’s subsequent military campaign in Gaza, killing over 47,000 Palestinians by early 2025, have intensified this cycle of conflict. This spiral of violence underscores the ongoing struggle over land, security, and rights.
The question of who is “right” in the conflict is inherently subjective, reflecting historical narratives, moral claims, and legalities. Both sides present compelling arguments. The Jews assert a historical and religious connection to the land, dating back to Biblical times, with archaeological evidence supporting continuous presence. The Palestinians claim indigenous rights, having lived in the region for centuries. They argue that Israel’s policies, including numerous restrictions on settlements and movement, constitute apartheid.
Given the complexity, declaring one side “right” is unpragmatic. Both have valid historical claims-which are still unresolved. The occupation and displacement have caused humungous suffering, particularly for Palestinians, while Israel’s security needs are real and need to be addressed too. Aggression is not the solution.
One of the greatest mind ever to walk on this planet Albert Einstein, a Jew himself, wrote about this conflict in 1930. In his article, published in the Palestinian Arab newspaper Falastin, Einstein expressed his views and advocated reconciliation with the Arab population of Palestine. It was published on January 28, 1930. He wrote – “One who, like myself, has cherished for many years the conviction that the humanity of the future must be built up on an intimate community of the nations, and that aggressive nationalism must be conquered, can see a future for Palestine only on the basis of peaceful cooperation between the two peoples who are at home in the country.
For this reason, I should have expected that the great Arab people will show a truer appreciation of the need which the Jews feel to rebuild their national home in the ancient seat of Judaism; I should have expected that by common effort ways and means would be found to render possible an extensive Jewish settlement in the country.
I am convinced that the devotion of the Jewish people to Palestine will benefit all the inhabitants of the country, not only materially, but also culturally and nationally. I believe that the Arab renaissance in the vast expanse of territory now occupied by the Arabs stands only to gain from Jewish sympathy. I should welcome the creation of an opportunity for absolutely free and frank discussion of these possibilities, for I believe that the two great Semitic peoples, each of which has in its way contributed something of lasting value to the civilization of the West, may have a great future in common, and that instead of facing each other with barren enmity and mutual distrust, they should support each other’s national and cultural endeavors, and should seek the possibility of sympathetic co-operation. I think that those who are not actively engaged in politics should above all contribute to the creation of this atmosphere of confidence.”
Humanity needs to heed the advice of brilliant Einstein and act tolerantly to coexist harmoniously. Currently, Shakespeare, in Henry IV, resonates, “there’s neither honesty, manhood, nor good fellowship in thee.’’ We have to be the change.
(Vijay Shankar Pandey is former Secretary Government of India and Dr. Smita Pandey is an historian and freelance writer)
