Eurasia Press & News
Ultimately, it will take substantial political courage to right the wrongs of the past and present in this conflict.
As reports indicate that a short-term humanitarian ceasefire is nearly complete after weeks of negotiations during the Israel-Hamas war, it is obvious that military action is not a solution to the broader conflict. Coined as so-called “cycles of violence,” decades of death on each side have fueled the extremism and violence that produced today’s fighting. A new path is necessary—one that goes beyond empty rhetoric and blind support for any actor.
Multiple significant players are making this case, renewing calls for a serious political solution resulting in a state for both Israelis and Palestinians. Heavy hitters like Jordanian King Abdullah II and former Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister Salam Fayyad produced notable arguments in this regard. Other scholars and analysts echo their sentiments, including Arab Barometer heads Amaney A. Jamal and Michael Robbins, who intricately highlight the Palestinian political temperature to argue for a path to peace.
The list goes on. Ultimately, there is strong support for a political solution to this devastating conflict. However, it must be sustainable and backed by forceful and verifiable action. While that outcome is ultimately for Palestinians and Israelis to decide for themselves, it must end in a viable state for both parties as supported by basic United Nations principles and international law. Empty rhetoric, conflict management, and bypassing Palestinian interests via the Abraham Accords were never solutions, as evidenced by the current conflict.
The inverse of a new, substantive approach is more of the same. While terminology like “cycles of violence” and “escalation” often do more to downplay sustained, decades-long violence—particularly Israeli actions against significantly weaker Palestinian communities—they are useful to understand how violence fuels the conflict while hardening negative attitudes on both sides.
In this context, Palestinian deaths are historically much higher than Israeli deaths when a cycle of violence repeats. This issue partly stems from the power asymmetry between the two groups that defines the conflict. For example, Israeli policies like the Dayiha Doctrine—developed during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war in southern Lebanon that advocates for maximum disproportionality in military operations to establish lasting deterrence—produce substantial civilian harm impacting Palestinians.
As such, spikes in violence between Israel and Palestine in 2008, 2009, 2014, 2018, 2021, and 2022 reflect substantial Palestinian death totals of 899, 1066, 2329, 300, 349, and 191, respectively. These numbers coincide with Israeli deaths reaching thirty-three, eleven, eighty-eight, thirteen, eleven, and twenty-one, respectively, across the same years. Notably, most Israeli deaths during these years were soldiers, whereas most Palestinian deaths were civilians. Tens of thousands of Palestinians were injured in these conflict years as well.
To be sure, such numbers are not to suggest that Israeli deaths are less significant, nor that they contribute differently to violent responses in Israel or the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). Indeed, Israel experienced the highest mass-casualty event since its founding on October 7, with approximately 1200 civilians and soldiers massacred by Hamas and another 230 taken hostage in a stunning act of brutality. In response, Israel unleashed a land, sea, and air campaign of historic proportions on the Gaza Strip, killing well over 13,000 people as of this writing. Most of these individuals are civilians, with nearly half constituting children.
The escalating scale and frequency of violence is a concerning trend. While deaths during these major spikes in violence gradually decreased before the October war, destruction increased in scale. The World Bank estimated that roughly $485 million was necessary to rebuild Gaza after the 2001 war between Israel and Hamas. Reports on the ground today suggest that the number will be exponentially higher as many areas in the Gaza Strip have become unlivable.
These are factors that force people into destitution as they witness loved ones die while fleeing on opaque evacuation orders. It is a level of violence that will severely and negatively impact the roughly 1 million youth struggling to survive in Gaza, traumatizing them for life in ways that regularly result in violent futures. With no home to return to amidst valid fears of a second Nakba—the 1948 event Palestinians describe as their expulsion from their lands upon the creation of Israel—what are Palestinians to do?
The answer is sadly quite simple—address the status quo or risk repeating history and “cycles of violence.” Many Palestinians have and will continue to resort to violence as a response to Israeli occupation. We are witnessing the inverse of this issue today—Israel’s fury is driving it to level Gaza and directly support far-right settler pogroms against entire Palestinian communities in the Occupied West Bank. This operation is not unlike Israel’s actions against Hezbollah when the latter struck military targets in northern Israel in 2006, killing three soldiers and taking two hostages. This event formed the basis of the Dahiya Doctrine implemented today, just as today’s events could produce the October 7 attack of tomorrow.
Ultimately, it will take substantial political courage to right the wrongs of the past and present in this conflict. That means difficult decisions, including intense public pressure on all parties to finally sit down and address grievances. It means freeing hostages and the wrongfully detained. The West—particularly the United States—has the largest role to play in pushing Israel to either implement a reformed Oslo Accords roadmap or accept a one-state solution. Similarly, those backing Hamas, Fatah, and the other Palestinian factions must reform the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) so that it can truly represent the people’s will—namely, sincere negotiations that lead to a state in some form.
In this regard, some world leaders are right to think about the future. But their assessment of the context itself is inherently flawed, risking sustainable progress at a moment when everyone should be saying “never again” for all civilians stuck in this nightmare. A sober assessment of the situation shows that leaders must consider power asymmetry when pressuring these actors—considerations the West must transform into serious policy given Israel’s outsized role in this conflict as an occupying state.
