If you’re looking for a simple answer to who is right in Israel Palestine conflict, you’re probably going to be disappointed. Honestly, the more you read, the more you realize that "right" is a heavy word that shifts depending on which century you start your history book in. It's a clash of two deeply valid, deeply tragic national movements. Both sides have deep-rooted ties to the same tiny patch of land. It’s not just a border dispute; it’s a struggle over identity, survival, and historical trauma.
People take sides like they’re rooting for sports teams. It’s easy to do from a keyboard thousands of miles away. But on the ground, the reality is a jagged pile of broken promises and overlapping claims. To understand who has a point, you have to look at the "Dual Narrative"—the idea that two different peoples can look at the exact same event and see something completely different.
The Case for Israel: A Need for Refuge
The Israeli narrative is built on the foundation of indigeneity and survival. Jews have maintained a presence in the land for over 3,000 years, and even during the centuries of the Diaspora, the connection to Zion (Jerusalem) remained central to Jewish prayer and identity. By the late 19th century, with the rise of the Zionist movement, Jews began returning in larger numbers to escape systemic persecution in Europe.
Then came the Holocaust.
It changed everything. The murder of six million Jews proved to many that a Jewish state wasn't just a religious or nationalist dream—it was a life-saving necessity. When the UN proposed the Partition Plan in 1947 (Resolution 181), Jewish leaders accepted it, even though it wasn't everything they wanted. They saw it as a legal path to sovereignty.
From the Israeli perspective, they have repeatedly offered compromises—in 1947, 1967, and at the 2000 Camp David Summit. They argue that their right to exist is consistently met with rejectionism and violence. For an Israeli, the conflict is often seen as a defensive struggle against neighbors who refuse to acknowledge their basic right to a home in their ancestral land.
The Case for Palestine: A Century of Displacement
Flip the script. For Palestinians, the arrival of Zionism wasn't a "return"—it was a colonial incursion. They had been living, farming, and building communities in Palestine for centuries. In 1948, while Israelis were celebrating independence, Palestinians were experiencing the Nakba, or "Catastrophe." Roughly 700,000 people were displaced, fleeing or being forced from their homes.
💡 You might also like: Why a Man Hits Girl for Bullying Incidents Go Viral and What They Reveal About Our Breaking Point
Imagine your family has owned an olive grove for five generations, and suddenly, you're told you have no right to be there.
Palestinians argue that they are being punished for the sins of Europe. Why should they lose their land because of the Holocaust? They see the ongoing expansion of settlements in the West Bank as a slow-motion annexation that makes a future state impossible. To a Palestinian, the "right" side is the one resisting military occupation and fighting for the basic dignity of self-determination.
They point to international law. Organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have frequently cited the illegality of settlements under the Fourth Geneva Convention. For many Palestinians, the conflict isn't about religion—it's about justice, land, and the right to return to the homes their grandparents left behind.
Why Both Sides Feel Like the Victim
It's a "clash of two rights." Or, as some historians put it, a clash of two victims.
Israelis see themselves as a tiny minority in a hostile Arab world, constantly under threat from rockets and militant groups like Hamas. They remember the Second Intifada and the suicide bombings of the early 2000s. Security isn't a buzzword; it's a daily requirement.
Palestinians see themselves as a stateless people living under the thumb of one of the world's most powerful militaries. They deal with checkpoints, travel restrictions, and a lack of control over their own resources, like water and electricity.
📖 Related: Why are US flags at half staff today and who actually makes that call?
The Jerusalem Problem
Jerusalem is the heart of the "who is right" debate. For Jews, it's the site of the First and Second Temples. For Muslims, it's the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, the third holiest site in Islam.
When Israel captured East Jerusalem in 1967, they saw it as a reunification of their eternal capital. Palestinians see it as an illegal occupation of the city they want as their own future capital. There is no middle ground here that satisfies everyone’s religious and national longing. It’s a zero-sum game for the holiest real estate on Earth.
The Role of International Law vs. Historical Claims
If you lean on international law, the answer to who is right in Israel Palestine conflict often points toward a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. Most of the world views the West Bank and Gaza as occupied territory.
But history is messier than law.
If you go back 2,000 years, the Jewish claim is primary. If you go back 200 years, the Palestinian claim is primary. If you look at the last 75 years, it's a story of wars won by Israel and lost by the Arab coalitions. Does winning a war give you a moral right to land? Under modern international law, no. But historically, that's how almost every border on the planet was drawn.
We often forget that the "right" side is rarely a monolith. There are Israelis who spend their weekends protesting for Palestinian rights. There are Palestinians who work with Israeli doctors and tech firms, believing that cooperation is the only way out. The loudest voices—the extremists—usually get the most airtime, but they don't represent the exhaustion of the average person just trying to raise a family in a war zone.
👉 See also: Elecciones en Honduras 2025: ¿Quién va ganando realmente según los últimos datos?
The "Third Side": Human Rights
Maybe the question isn't "who is right," but "what is right?"
Most human rights experts, like those at the UN, argue that regardless of who "started it," the current status quo is unsustainable and inhumane. Civilians on both sides pay the price for the failures of their leadership. In Gaza, the blockade has created what many call an "open-air prison," while in Israeli border towns, children grow up with "color red" sirens as the soundtrack to their lives.
Moving Beyond the "Who is Right" Binary
Stop looking for a hero and a villain. It’s not a Marvel movie. It’s a tragedy where both protagonists have legitimate grievances and both have committed inexcusable acts of violence.
To actually understand the conflict, you have to hold two conflicting truths at once:
- The Jewish people have a right to self-determination and safety in their ancestral homeland.
- The Palestinian people have a right to self-determination and dignity in their ancestral homeland.
Until both sides (and the international community) can acknowledge the legitimacy of the other's trauma, the cycle will continue.
Actionable Steps for the Informed Observer
If you want to move past the surface-level shouting matches, here is how you can actually engage with the topic meaningfully:
- Read "The Lemon Tree" by Sandy Tolan. It’s a non-fiction book that follows one house in Israel/Palestine and the two families (one Israeli, one Palestinian) who called it home. It captures the nuance better than any news clip.
- Follow "A Land for All." This is a grassroots movement of Israelis and Palestinians proposing a two-state confederation. It's one of the few groups looking for a "win-win" rather than a "your side loses."
- Check your sources. Use the AllSides media bias chart. If you only read Al Jazeera, you're getting one slice of the pie. If you only read the Jerusalem Post, you're getting another. You need both to see the whole picture.
- Support humanitarian aid that hits both sides. Look for NGOs like Parents Circle-Families Forum, which brings together bereaved families from both sides to promote reconciliation.
- Acknowledge the complexity in your own circles. When someone asks you "who is right," challenge the premise. Explain that acknowledging one side's pain doesn't have to mean erasing the other's.
The "right" side is the one that eventually chooses peace over the purity of their narrative. It sounds cheesy, but in a land where everyone is right and everyone is bleeding, it's the only functional truth left.