Ariel Seidman is writing in response to Sharif Musa's opinion piece, ‘Netanyahu is right that the two-state solution rewards terrorism — Israeli terrorism’.
The article by Sharif Mosa claiming that recognising a Palestinian state “rewards Israeli terrorism” relies on selective memory, distortion and outright misrepresentation of historical facts. To evaluate this claim, it is essential to examine the historical record honestly.
The 1947 partition plan and Arab rejection
The United Nations Partition Plan of 1947 proposed an “Arab state” alongside a “Jewish state”. The Jewish leadership accepted the compromise, despite reservations, while the Arab leadership rejected it outright. Within hours of Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948, five Arab armies invaded, intending to annihilate the new state. This was not “Israeli colonialism”; it was a war forced upon Israel by rejectionist neighbours.
Following the 1948 war, the West Bank came under Jordanian control and Gaza under Egyptian administration. For nearly two decades (1948-1967), neither Amman nor Cairo moved to establish a Palestinian state. The idea of Palestinian sovereignty only became a rallying cry after Israel assumed control of these territories in the 1967 defensive war. Ignoring these facts distorts the origins of the conflict and falsely frames Israel as the perpetual obstacle to statehood.
The ‘right of return’ and the refugee narrative
The Palestinian refugee issue has been handled differently from any other displaced population. Palestinians were given their own UN agency, UNRWA, separate from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees that manages all other refugees. Refugee status extends across generations, even for those who have acquired foreign citizenship. Millions who have never lived in Israel are still considered refugees.
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from, or forced to flee, Arab countries were absorbed into Israel, becoming citizens without generational entrenchment in camps or international aid dependency.
The claim of an unlimited “right of return” is not a neutral call for justice. It functions as a political tool to erase Israel demographically. No viable peace process can progress while millions of descendants of refugees demand to “return” to a country they have never lived in, effectively threatening its existence.
Resistance or terror?
The article portrays all Palestinian violence as legitimate resistance. History shows a pattern of rejected peace combined with terrorism. From Camp David in 2000 to former Israel prime minister Ehud Olmert’s proposals in 2008, Palestinian leadership consistently rejected compromise, choosing instead attacks on civilians. The Oslo Accords were accepted by the PLO, creating the Palestinian Authority and granting autonomy in major cities. Yet, terror attacks continued, designed to halt the process.
Furthermore, there is a moral and legal distinction between legitimate armed struggle and attacks deliberately targeting civilians. Palestinian groups that carry out or glorify civilian massacres are terrorist organisations, not freedom fighters. Their actions have repeatedly undermined prospects for Palestinian statehood.
Gaza: withdrawal, Hamas rule and militarisation
Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza removed settlers and troops unilaterally, yet Gaza did not become a functioning state. In democratic elections in 2006, Hamas — a terrorist organisation whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction, won legislative power, and then violently seized control in 2007. Since then, it has suppressed political opposition, engaged in extrajudicial killings and smothered freedom and basic human rights, while prioritising the building of tunnels, rockets and military infrastructure over civilian reconstruction. Billions of dollars in aid intended for humanitarian relief have been diverted to militarisation, while the civilian population suffers under its rule.
The recent war and human shields
Hamas’s murderous 7 October attack in southern Israel, killing 1,200 people – babies, children, women and men, demonstrated Hamas’ continued commitment to mass terror. Israel now faces an operationally impossible situation: Hamas embeds its military infrastructure in civilian spaces, turning hospitals, schools, mosques and residential buildings into weapons depots and command centers. Civilian casualties are tragic, but Israel’s intent is defensive, and the IDF is doing all it can to minimise civilian casualties under these impossible circumstances. Furthermore, Israel is actively facilitating humanitarian aid to its enemy during active conflict — a level of restraint unprecedented in modern warfare.
Hamas is a genocidal organisation, committed in charter and practice to the annihilation of Israel. Israel’s actions are defensive, aiming to neutralise threats while minimising civilian harm. Any narrative reversing these roles — labelling Israel “genocidal” while ignoring Hamas’ deliberate use of civilians as shields — is both factually and ethically inverted.
Israel’s pursuit of peace
Israel has consistently sought peace, often at a high cost. Treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) ended decades of war. The withdrawal from Gaza and Sinai demonstrated that settlements are not inherently obstacles to peace.
Recent US efforts, particularly under President Donald Trump, have attempted to advance negotiations and stability.
Israel remains committed to coexistence with neighbours who share a fundamental human priority: the love of their children over hatred of others’ children. Until that reality is achievable, narratives that obscure history, misrepresent facts or invert the moral roles of victim and perpetrator do nothing to advance justice or reconciliation. DM