No, it isn't. Contrary to a commonly held belief, this conflict doesn't stretch back thousands of years. Its origins lie in the Zionist movement, initiated by Theodor Herzl in 1897. This movement aimed at colonizing Palestine and establishing a Zionist colonial settler state.

Despite its apparent complexity, the root cause is rather straightforward: settler-colonialism and the ensuing resistance. Attempts to portray it as convoluted often serve to rationalize otherwise unjustifiable actions or policies. Additionally, the prolonged duration of the conflict and the evolving language used since 1948 contribute to its perceived intricacy. However, fundamentally, it can be traced back to its origins with decades of historical context available.

No, it isn't. It's primarily a situation where a native population is resisting settler colonialism. This pattern isn't unique or recent; history is replete with examples of peoples globally rising against colonial oppression, irrespective of the colonizer's religion. However, prolonged struggles often witness the adoption of diverse tactics to justify political objectives, including the use of religion to validate colonial power.

This is a widespread misconception. Contrary to popular belief, the United Nations lacks the authority to establish Israel or assign it land. Neither the General Assembly nor the Security Council can enforce political solutions without the consent of those involved. The UN proposed a non-binding partition plan, never realized. Israel came into existence through warfare and the ethnic cleansing of numerous Palestinian villages and communities.

The Nakba, an Arabic term for "catastrophe," signifies the extensive displacement and dispossession of Palestinians by Zionist militia between 1947 and 1948. Roughly 800,000 Palestinians were forcibly removed from their homes, with hundreds of Palestinian communities razed to the ground. The Nakba culminated in the establishment of the state of Israel.

Gaza is still militarily occupied. An area is considered occupied if the occupying state exercises ‘effective control’ over it. While it is often claimed Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, Israeli siege, surveillance, and monitoring technology still allowed for effective control of the Gaza Strip without the necessity of a full occupation force on the ground inside the area.

An intifada is a rebellion or uprising against oppression. It comes from the Arabic root for ‘shaking off’. The word has been strongly associated with the Palestinian cause and resistance to tyranny, especially after the wide-scale protests, civil disobedience, boycotts and other forms of resistance against Israel during the Intifada of 1987 and Aqsa Intifada of 2000. While the word is heavily associated with Palestine, its usage predates the Palestinian Intifadas. For example, the Bread Intifada of 1977 in Egypt.

While South Africa was a prominent example of an Apartheid state, it is not the only form it can take. According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the crime of Apartheid is defined as “inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.”

There are many inhumane acts listed under paragraph 1, but the most relevant to the Palestinian context are:

Murder, deportation or forcible transfer of population

Imprisonment and severe deprivation of liberty

Torture

Persecution based on ethnic, religious, or national origins

Other inhumane acts intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

It is indisputable that Israel practices these acts against Palestinians, inside and outside of the green line. It is also indisputable that as a state built on a colonial ideology that privileges one ethnic group over the rest, its actions are ultimately committed to maintain this system of supremacy. B’Tselem, Israel’s own largest human rights organization, has officially designated Israel as an Apartheid state.

The main bulk of Palestinian refugees were created through the ethnic cleansing of Palestine at the hand of Zionist militias between 1947-1948 and the subsequent establishment of the state of Israel. This campaign of ethnic cleansing took place before and during the war of 1948, and saw approximately 800,000 Palestinians expelled from their homes, and over 530 villages being demolished. Another large wave of displacement and expulsions followed the war of 1967. Israel depends upon the displacement of these refugees and their descendants to maintain itself as an ethnocracy.

The Palestinians did not “leave” their villages as much as they were forced out of them through various means. According to Salman Abu Sitta, and based on a wide array of sources, the majority of Palestinian villages (54%) were abandoned due to military assaults by Zionist militias. The second largest reason was direct expulsion by Zionist forces (24%). Panic caused by the atrocities committed in other fallen villages inspired mass panic that resulted in the abandonment of (10%) of the villages. Fear of Zionist attack resulted in a further (7%) of the villages being abandoned, while (2%) were abandoned due to psychological terror campaigns, dubbed “whispering” campaigns. It should be stressed, however, that the technicalities or reasons why the refugees left are irrelevant, as they have a right to return to their homes regardless.

Israel prevents Palestinian refugees from returning because it claims they are a security threat. However, seeing as Israel is a settler colony built on stolen land, it did not have the population numbers to sustain itself. It could only be established by creating new demographic realities on the ground, these new realities necessitated that approximately 80% of the Palestinians in what is today considered Israel be ethnically cleansed to maintain a demographically stable Zionist ethnocracy. In short, Israel can only exist because millions of Palestinians are scattered refugees all over the world, simply because they are not Jewish.

The expulsion of the Palestinians forms a cornerstone of the question of Palestine and the Palestinian revolution. The refugees expelled by Israel still languish in refugee camps simply for not being Jewish. For any lasting solution to materialize, justice must be taken into account. There can be no justice without the right of return.

Assuming that all Arab nations are the same culturally and linguistically and thus would make assimilation easy, stems from ignorant and racist information on the Arab world. But more importantly, why should they? According to international law, refugees have a right to return to their homes and they should not be used as sacrificial lambs so that Israel can pursue its racist, artificial demographic aims.

For various reasons, such as a commander’s decision during war, or the location of a village, or just by pure chance, some Palestinians were not ethnically cleansed during and after the establishment of Israel. It is estimated that around 20% of the original Palestinian population remained while the rest were forcefully expelled through various means.

This does not mean that the spared population had sided with the Zionist forces. For example, the city of Nazareth was spared because the Zionist commander thought that ethnically cleansing such a large amount of Palestinian Christians at the same time would look bad for Israel. However, ethnically cleansing smaller Christian and mixed villages around Nazareth and elsewhere was fine.

It should be noted that the destruction of Palestinian villages had nothing to do with whether they participated in the war of 1948 or not. Neutral villages with non-aggression pacts with the Yishuv were also ethnically cleansed.

It's crucial to consider why Israelis emphasize the "peace offers" rejected by Palestinians without discussing the actual terms in detail. When these terms are scrutinized, it becomes evident that they are often unacceptable. For instance, even when Palestinians accepted the 1967 borders, a very limited return of refugees, and other compromises, it wasn't sufficient for Israel. Israel aimed to further shrink the Palestinian territories and deny real sovereignty to a Palestinian state. These proposals merely formalize the existing status quo with superficial changes. Netanyahu himself declared that no Palestinian state would emerge under his leadership. Palestinian aspirations are constrained by Israel's terms, portraying Palestinians as rejectionists for declining such "opportunities." This narrative overlooks Palestinian counter-offers and proposals rejected by Israel over the years.

For whom and for what purpose? The two-state solution fails to address historical injustices as it starts with the pre-1967 borders, which are a product of Palestine's colonization, not its root cause. It focuses on addressing symptoms rather than confronting the root cause, which is Zionist settler colonialism and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Consequently, Palestinians must relinquish their rights to millions of refugees and over 80% of the land they were expelled from. This solution heavily favors Israel in terms of resource distribution, from water to fertile land. In essence, the two-state solution prioritizes maintaining Israel's colonial gains and artificial demographic aspirations, legitimizing them, rather than seeking justice for Palestinians in any form.

Support for the two-state solution has waned over the years, with most Palestinians today not endorsing it. Even among those who do, many support it due to a lack of perceived alternatives or as a stepping stone towards a more just solution. For instance, the majority of Palestinian university students do not view the two-state solution as capable of addressing the Palestinian question comprehensively.

Zionism is a colonial ideology and political movement advocating for the establishment of a Jewish nation state in Palestine with a Jewish majority. This necessitated the oppression and expulsion of Palestinians to create conditions for this state, despite Palestine already being inhabited.

Zionists were not the first refugees seeking refuge in Palestine; Bosnian and Armenian refugees also sought better lives there. However, Zionist settlers exploited Palestinian hospitality to establish an ethnocratic settler state at Palestinians' expense. Coexistence was never the plan; instead, they aimed to be the "landlords of this land." Even before physical Zionist settlements, Herzl discussed ways to remove the existing population.

No, criticizing Israel and its founding ideology does not equate to hatred of the Jewish people. Palestinian resistance to Israeli colonialism is not based on the religion or ethnicity of Israelis but rather on opposing foreign domination, a common struggle among oppressed people worldwide. It's important to distinguish between legitimate criticism of Israel and the reprehensible history of anti-Semitism in Europe. Furthermore, many Zionists today are not Jewish, and many anti-Zionists are.

Israel is a settler colony, which differs from classic colonialism as it initially relies on an empire for survival but may eventually clash with that sponsor. Settlers aim not only to exploit resources but also to establish a new homeland for themselves. In the case of Israel, these lands were already inhabited by Palestinians before the arrival of Zionist settlers.

Palestine, situated in the fertile crescent, boasts a rich agricultural history dating back centuries. Contrary to the Zionist narrative, it was never the barren desert often depicted. Palestinian farmers had cultivated the land using age-old agricultural practices, resulting in flourishing harvests and thriving communities.

Upon the arrival of Zionist settlers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, efforts were made to reshape the landscape and obscure evidence of Palestinian presence. Large swaths of mountains were planted with non-native, highly flammable European pine trees. This tactic served a dual purpose: to cover the remnants of Palestinian villages demolished during the Nakba and to hinder the return of displaced Palestinians. This deliberate act of concealment aimed to erase Palestinian heritage from history and deny the existence of indigenous communities.

Furthermore, the notion of Israel "making the desert bloom" is misleading. The majority of cultivated agricultural land in present-day Israel was already under Palestinian cultivation before the ethnic cleansing of 1948. Estimates suggest that on the eve of the 1948 war, Palestinians were farming approximately 2,990,000 dunams (739,750 acres) of land. This agricultural output exceeded the total cultivated area in Israel almost three decades later.

The perceived expansion of Israel's cultivated area post-1948 is deceptive. Much of this expansion involved the "reclamation" of farmland belonging to Palestinian refugees forcibly displaced from their homes. Thus, Israel's agricultural growth was largely built upon the dispossession of the indigenous Palestinian population.

It's crucial to challenge the portrayal of "desert" as synonymous with uncultivated wasteland. Palestinian Bedouins have a long-standing tradition of cultivating lands in the Naqab desert, employing traditional farming techniques and water preservation methods. Records indicate that as early as 1944, land cultivated by Palestinian Bedouins in the Naqab desert alone surpassed that cultivated by the entire Zionist settler presence in Palestine.

Despite Zionist claims of transforming desolate landscapes into fertile agricultural regions, the reality tells a different story. The decline in cultivated land in the Naqab desert since the Nakba underscores the ongoing dispossession and erasure of Palestinian heritage under the guise of "development."

No, Israel is an ethnocracy, a political system dominated by a specific ethnic group (in this case, Jewish Israelis). While it maintains nominal democratic institutions, its policies prioritize the interests of the dominant group over equality among all citizens.

One of the most powerful tools available is economic boycott. Israel’s apartheid regime relies heavily on international trade and economic support to sustain its illegal occupation and settlements. By boycotting companies and products that profit from this system, you can directly impact its ability to maintain the status quo. The BDS movement offers guidance on which companies to avoid.

History has proven the success of this approach, as seen in the global boycott that helped end apartheid in South Africa. The same sustained efforts, if carried out globally, can exert pressure on Israel to end its human rights violations.

In addition to boycotting, using your voice matters. Do not shy away from discussing Palestine’s reality—whether in your community, at the polls, or with your political representatives. Demand that they take a stand and pressure Israel to comply with international law and human rights standards.

BDS, or the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, is a non-violent human rights campaign initiated by Palestinian civil society in 2005. It aims to pressure Israel to comply with international law and respect Palestinian rights through economic and other forms of pressure. BDS does not advocate for a specific political solution but focuses on human rights.

BDS includes Palestinian workers and major trade unions in its call for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions. While there may be short-term economic challenges, the long-term benefits of a successful BDS campaign outweigh them. Israeli occupation and economic policies have already cost Palestinians millions of jobs since 2000. Criticism of BDS harming Palestinian workers often lacks genuine concern and ignores the broader context of Israeli oppression.

Objective, yes. Neutral, no.

While these responses aim for objectivity by presenting factual information, they are not neutral. Neutrality implies treating opposing viewpoints as equally valid, which can perpetuate false equivalences and obscure truth. Objective reporting prioritizes accuracy and fairness over neutrality, especially when discussing matters of human rights and justice. Maintaining neutrality on issues like Israeli colonialism and ethnic cleansing would be morally untenable.