I agree that, today, there are a people called “Palestinian” (although for various reasons I prefer to refer to them as Palestinian Arabs, but that is a minor point.) However, their claims are almost wholly based on a history which is faulty, to say the least.

Lies cannot be the basis for a solution. Nothing concrete will be accomplished unless both parties can find a common framework, and it has to be based on real facts.

Looking at the past hundred years, there are two basic common denominators that explain essentially all the actions of the Arab and Zionist sides. The Zionists have consistently tried to live in security; the Arabs have consistently tried to destroy Israel. These two basic themes explain the facts of the past century far better than any other (like “occupation” or “refugees” or “Palestinian statehood.”) It explains the peace treaty with Egypt, it explains Oslo, it explains every word said by PalArabs in Annapolis. The “strategy of stages” that Arafat explained in the 1970s is still very alive and well in the forms of “Palestinian statehood” and “right of return” together with “resistance.” The entire Palestinian issue is part of a larger (not centralized, but endemic) Arab policy to weaken and destroy Israel. It is no coincidence that it came into the forefront at about the same time that Arabs realized that they wil lnot destroy Israel militarily.

This is not to say that the Palestinian Arabs who are living in misery should be treated badly or unfairly. But Israel should not be expected to sacrifice any more of its own security in the name of “peace” that is absolutely going to be anything but.

A realistic look at the “refugee” problem points to culpability of the Arab states – yet no one takes them to account. PalArabs remain pawns even today.

If, one day, a true Palestinian leader emerges – one that can truly compromise for peace, one who takes his people’s welfare seriously, one who can stand up to other Arab leaders, one who can replace the culture of death with an enlightened perspective – then Israel will have a peace partner. Until then, all we will keep seeing is a repeat of what happened in Gaza. The current state of war is preferable to an illusory peace, where Israeli concessions are by definition irreversible and Palestinian “concessions” are pieces of paper.

Americans especially like to be problem-solvers, but if the problem cannot be defined, it cannot be solved. And the gulf between reality and the common Arab-influenced framing of the problem is way too wide.

This is a bit rambling, but I hope it explains my perspective a bit more clearly.

Does the world’s acceptance of a Palestinian state in effect reward terrorism? Perhaps. But really, what is the alternative? More of the same that we’ve had for the past 30 years? I know the devil is in the details, and it won’t be easy, but a two-state solution is the only one that makes any sense to me. And you can’t have a two-state solution when neither side recognizes the other’s legitimacy.