Security for Israel. Dignity for Palestinians. Accountability for both — under the same international law that applies to everyone else.
We're a policy platform with 50 researched positions on every major issue. This page breaks down our approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict — but there's much more to explore.
At its core, the Israel-Palestine conflict is a dispute between two peoples with deep historical, cultural, and religious ties to the same land — and competing claims to sovereignty over it. It has produced decades of war, occupation, displacement, and failed peace processes, and it remains one of the most consequential foreign policy challenges for the United States.
The modern conflict began with the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. Following centuries of Jewish diaspora and persecution culminating in the Holocaust, the Zionist movement sought to establish a Jewish homeland in historic Palestine — then under British mandate. The 1947 UN Partition Plan proposed dividing the territory into a Jewish state and an Arab state. Jewish leaders accepted the plan; Arab leaders rejected it, and war followed. Israel declared independence in May 1948. In the war that ensued, Israel expanded beyond the partition lines, and approximately 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homes — an event Palestinians call the Nakba (catastrophe). No Palestinian state was established.
In 1967, Israel fought the Six-Day War against Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, and captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Golan Heights. The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza — now in its sixth decade — is the defining feature of the modern conflict. Israel began building settlements in the occupied territories almost immediately, and today more than 700,000 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, on land the international community considers occupied territory.
The Oslo Accords of the 1990s created the Palestinian Authority and established a framework for negotiations toward a two-state solution. The Camp David Summit in 2000 and subsequent talks failed to produce a final agreement. The Second Intifada (2000-2005), Hamas's takeover of Gaza in 2007, repeated military operations in Gaza, ongoing settlement expansion, and the absence of meaningful negotiations have left the peace process effectively frozen.
The cycle is grimly familiar: violence erupts, civilians on both sides suffer, international outrage peaks and fades, and the underlying conditions — occupation, blockade, statelessness, insecurity — remain unchanged. Breaking this cycle requires addressing root causes, not just managing symptoms. That is the starting point for the Common Good approach.
The United States provides $3.8 billion per year in military aid to Israel — more than to any other country — and has used its veto power at the UN Security Council more than 50 times to shield Israel from international censure. No other country has as much leverage over this conflict. And no other country has done less with that leverage.
The US-Israel relationship is one of the most significant bilateral relationships in American foreign policy. It is rooted in shared democratic values, Cold War strategic alignment, cultural ties, and a strong domestic political constituency. The United States was the first country to recognize Israel in 1948, and the alliance has deepened steadily since the 1970s. The current aid package — $38 billion over ten years, signed in 2016 — provides Israel with advanced military equipment, missile defense systems (including Iron Dome), and intelligence cooperation.
This aid is funded by American taxpayers. At $3.8 billion per year, it represents roughly $10.4 million per day. Unlike aid to most other countries, US military assistance to Israel has historically come with minimal conditions. The Leahy Law, which prohibits US military aid to foreign security forces that commit gross violations of human rights, has been inconsistently applied to Israel. This makes the US an outlier: most democracies condition arms transfers on compliance with international humanitarian law.
At the United Nations, the United States has vetoed more than 50 Security Council resolutions related to Israel — more than on any other topic. This diplomatic cover has shielded Israel from accountability for settlement expansion, military operations in civilian areas, and violations of international humanitarian law. It has also undermined American credibility when the US invokes international law in other contexts, such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
This matters to Americans for reasons beyond the moral and humanitarian. US policy on this conflict affects regional stability in the Middle East, America's relationships with Arab and Muslim-majority countries, the credibility of the rules-based international order, and the consistency of American values abroad. When the US applies international law selectively — enforcing it against adversaries while exempting allies — it erodes the very framework that protects American interests globally. For the broader foreign policy context, see the defense and foreign policy page.
The Common Good approach is built on a single principle: the same international law that applies to every other country applies to Israel and Palestine. Security for Israel. Dignity for Palestinians. Accountability for both. This is not a one-sided approach — it is the only approach that can produce lasting peace.
The plan addresses both the immediate humanitarian crisis and the long-term political framework needed for a durable resolution. It rejects the false choice between supporting Israel's security and supporting Palestinian rights — because in practice, these are inseparable. Israel cannot be permanently secure while millions of Palestinians live under occupation without rights or a political horizon, and Palestinians cannot achieve statehood without addressing Israel's legitimate security concerns.
This approach is consistent with longstanding American values, existing US law, and the stated positions of every US administration since the 1990s. What distinguishes the Common Good Plan is the commitment to actually enforce these principles rather than stating them rhetorically while enabling their violation in practice.
The Common Good Plan does not represent a radical departure from stated American policy — it represents an honest implementation of principles the US already claims to hold. The gap between rhetoric and practice is where the current approach fails.
| Issue | Current US Policy | CGP Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Military Aid | $3.8B/year, minimal conditions | $3.8B/year, conditioned on human rights compliance |
| Settlements | Verbal opposition, no enforcement | Active opposition with policy consequences |
| Palestinian Statehood | Rhetorical support, no timeline | Active diplomatic pathway with benchmarks |
| UN Votes | Routine veto of resolutions critical of Israel | Vote based on merits and international law |
| Humanitarian Law | Inconsistent application of Leahy Law | Consistent enforcement for all recipients |
| Two-State Commitment | Stated goal, no active pursuit | Central policy objective with diplomatic investment |
| Accountability | Selective — applied to adversaries only | Universal — applied equally to all parties |
Sources: Congressional Research Service, UN Security Council records, State Department reporting. See the defense and foreign policy page for detailed sourcing.
Despite the polarized way this issue is often presented in media and politics, American public opinion is more nuanced — and more aligned with the Common Good approach — than most people realize.
A majority of Americans support conditioning aid on human rights compliance. Polling consistently shows that most Americans — across party lines — believe that US military aid to any country, including Israel, should come with conditions related to how that aid is used. A 2023 Data for Progress poll found that 66% of likely voters supported conditioning military aid to Israel on compliance with US human rights law. This is not an extreme position — it is the mainstream American view.
A majority support Palestinian statehood alongside Israel. The University of Maryland's Critical Issues Poll has consistently found that a majority of Americans — including majorities of both Democrats and Republicans — support the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel as part of a peace agreement. The two-state solution is not a partisan issue among the American public, even if it is treated as one in Washington.
Americans want a balanced approach. When asked whether the US should take Israel's side, the Palestinians' side, or neither side, a plurality of Americans consistently choose "neither side" — favoring an even-handed approach that pursues peace and security for both peoples. Gallup polling has tracked this trend for decades, and it holds across age groups and political affiliations.
The gap between public opinion and US policy is significant. Most Americans favor the kind of balanced, law-based approach that the Common Good Plan proposes. The disconnect is not between the CGP and the American people — it is between the American people and their current representation in Washington. For more on how policy can better reflect public priorities, see the campaign finance reform page.
The Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the most misrepresented issues in American public discourse. Oversimplifications serve political agendas but make resolution harder. Here are four of the most persistent myths — and what the evidence actually shows.
Myth: "This is a purely religious conflict."
Reality: While religion plays a role — particularly regarding holy sites in Jerusalem — the conflict is fundamentally about land, sovereignty, and self-determination. It is a national and territorial dispute between two peoples, not a war between Judaism and Islam. Israeli society includes secular and religious Jews with vastly different views on the conflict. Palestinian society includes Christians and secular Muslims alongside religious communities. Framing it as a religious war obscures the political causes and makes resolution seem impossible, when in fact political disputes have political solutions.
Myth: "One side is entirely right and the other is entirely wrong."
Reality: Both peoples have legitimate claims, genuine grievances, and leaders who have made choices that deepened the conflict. Israelis have a legitimate need for security and a historical connection to the land. Palestinians have a legitimate right to self-determination and a historical presence on the same land. Both sides have experienced real suffering. Both sides have leaders and factions that have committed violations of international law. Treating this as a contest between good and evil — in either direction — is morally simplistic and practically useless. The Common Good approach begins with the recognition that both peoples' rights must be honored.
Myth: "Nothing can be done — this conflict is unsolvable."
Reality: History is full of conflicts that seemed intractable until they weren't. Northern Ireland's Troubles, the end of apartheid in South Africa, the Cold War itself — all were resolved through sustained diplomacy, political will, and changes in the incentive structure. The Israel-Palestine conflict continues not because it is inherently unsolvable but because powerful interests on all sides benefit from the status quo. The US has the leverage to change the incentive structure — through conditional aid, active diplomacy, and consistent application of international law — but has chosen not to use it. The problem is not that peace is impossible. The problem is that it has not been seriously pursued.
Myth: "Criticizing Israeli policy means opposing Israel."
Reality: Criticizing a government's policies is not the same as opposing the country or its people — a distinction Americans understand instinctively when applied to any other nation. Americans criticize their own government constantly without being accused of being anti-American. Criticizing British foreign policy does not make someone anti-British. The same principle applies to Israel. Many Israelis are vocal critics of their government's settlement and occupation policies. Conflating policy criticism with prejudice shuts down the democratic debate that is essential to any healthy alliance — and to resolving this conflict. For the Common Good position on free speech and democratic discourse, see the voting rights and democracy page.
Click any question to expand the answer.
Have a question not answered here? Read the full defense and foreign policy page or visit our site-wide FAQ.
Check back soon for policy analysis of Israel-Gaza news.
The United States has the leverage to advance both Israeli security and Palestinian rights — if it chooses to use it. Read the full policy and see a path forward that serves American interests and American values.