Israel-Gaza Myths vs Facts: What the Evidence Shows

While religion is a significant dimension of the conflict, reducing it to a religious war ignores the central issues that drive it: land, sovereignty, security, self-determination, and the rights of displaced populations. The conflict is fundamentally a political and territorial dispute between two national movements — Zionism and Palestinian nationalism — each claiming the right to self-determination in the same territory.

Many participants on both sides are secular. The early Zionist movement was largely secular and socialist. Palestinian nationalism has historically been led by secular organizations (the PLO, Fatah). Religious framing has intensified over time — with the rise of Hamas and the growing influence of religious nationalism in Israeli politics — but this represents a radicalization of an existing political conflict, not its root cause.

Christian Palestinians, Druze communities, and secular Israelis all participate in or are affected by the conflict in ways that cut across religious lines. International stakeholders — the United States, European Union, Arab states, Iran — engage with the conflict primarily through geopolitical, not religious, frameworks. Understanding this as a religious war obscures the political solutions that both historical negotiations and international law have identified.

Both Israelis and Palestinians have legitimate claims, legitimate grievances, and legitimate security concerns. Israelis have a right to live in security without the threat of terrorism and rocket attacks. Palestinians have a right to self-determination, freedom from occupation, and protection of their human rights under international law. Presenting either side as entirely right requires ignoring the documented experiences and rights of the other.

Both sides have also committed documented violations of international humanitarian law. Israeli military operations have resulted in significant civilian casualties, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and practices that international human rights organizations have documented as violations of the laws of war. Hamas and other armed groups have committed acts of terrorism against Israeli civilians, used civilian areas for military purposes, and violated the laws of armed conflict. Acknowledging violations by one side does not excuse violations by the other.

The framing of 'who is right' often depends on which starting point one chooses. Starting in 1948 produces one narrative. Starting with the Ottoman period produces another. Starting with October 7, 2023 produces yet another. A serious analysis must grapple with the full historical complexity rather than selecting a convenient starting point that supports a predetermined conclusion. The CGP approach is to evaluate both sides' actions against consistent legal and humanitarian standards.

The claim that nothing can be done is contradicted by decades of diplomatic progress, even if a final resolution remains elusive. The Camp David Accords (1978) produced a lasting Israeli-Egyptian peace. The Oslo Accords (1993) established a framework for Palestinian self-governance and mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO. The Abraham Accords (2020) normalized Israeli relations with several Arab states. These demonstrate that diplomatic progress is possible, even in this conflict.

Multiple concrete policy actions are available to the United States. Conditioning military aid on compliance with international humanitarian law (as required by existing US law), supporting international accountability mechanisms, investing in civil society organizations on both sides that promote coexistence, maintaining diplomatic engagement with all relevant parties, and supporting humanitarian access to civilian populations are all actionable policies that do not require solving the entire conflict.

The 'nothing can be done' narrative serves the interests of those who benefit from the status quo. It discourages policy engagement, reduces public pressure for accountability, and creates apathy that allows escalation to continue unchecked. Meaningful progress requires sustained diplomatic engagement, consistent application of international law, and political will — not the discovery of a magic solution that has been overlooked for decades.