Since October 7, I have taken a deeper dive into the conflict between Israel, the Palestinians and others in the region. My year's journey into reading and listening to a wide range of perspectives has given me a deeper appreciation for the intractable nature of the conflict, generally driven by radical Islamism and the fundamental belief that a Jewish State cannot exist on a land once governed by Muslims. This is not often widely discussed because our society has created a social construct that if you attempt to speak about radical Islam you are accused of Islamophobia. I categorically reject this assertion, as only a tiny minority of Muslims in the world are considered radical. A critique of radical Islamist ideology is not an attack against Islam or Muslims in general.

I write this blog in honor of the memory of all those murdered or taken on October 7. Under enormous pressure from all of the criticism leveled against Israel, we Jews must understand that media portrayals blatantly omit the overarching role that radical Islam plays in the inability to resolve the conflict. Israel is in an existential struggle for its survival and the West knowingly or unknowingly refuses to acknowledge this in any substantive way. And if that were not enough, a year of anti-Israel rhetoric has led to a dramatic increase in global anti-Semitism, including right here in America.

I write this piece as a personal reflection, not an official position of the school. However, in my role as Head of School, my understanding informs me of the importance of fostering a deep pride, love, and commitment to Israel and the necessity of teaching our older children the history and meaning of our core value of Tzionut (Zionism), our right to exist as a people in Israel, and to gain a better understanding of the conflict in all of its complexity so that they can develop a voice to use when they go to high school and college. 

Among the books and articles I am reading is The War of Return by Adi Schwartz and Einat Wilf. They present the argument that Palestinian inflexibility on the right of return is a major obstacle to peace, complicated by the support Palestinians get on this issue from International players. 

The book presents a critique of UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) and the international community’s handling of the Palestinian refugee issue. By highlighting how unique the Palestinian refugee situation is in comparison to other global refugee crises, Schwartz and Wilf illustrate how this issue has actually become a political instrument rather than a humanitarian concern.

The take-away for me is that for peace to be possible, both Palestinians and their international supporters must confront the reality that the right of return, as it currently stands, is incompatible with a two-state solution or any chance for peace.

Unlike other refugees that have been handled by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Palestinian refugees are under the specific mandate of UNRWA. This is a unique distinction. UNRWA classifies not only those who were displaced in 1948 but also their descendants, meaning that refugee status is inherited over generations, a situation that does not apply to other refugees globally. As a result, the number of Palestinian refugees has grown exponentially, and their status has remained unresolved for decades.

This unresolved status has led to significant international advocacy for their right of return and support in keeping the issue alive, often viewing the Palestinians as victims of Zionism and Western imperialism. This is the intentional strategy of those sympathetic to the Palestinians. 

However, if you take a deeper look at the struggle for the right of return, and the perpetuation of refugee status, you begin to understand that the right of return is a political strategy to challenge the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state. Calling for millions of Palestinians to return to Israel would ultimately undermine its Jewish character. Throughout history other refugee problems have focussed on resettlement and rebuilding lives rather than reclaiming original homes. 

We also need to ask why the UNRWA and the status of refugees should continue indefinitely, especially in light of the fact that they have been offered opportunities for self-rule and an independent state. Palestinians were offered a state as part of the 1947 UN Partition Plan, which the Jewish community accepted. However, Arab leaders and the Palestinian leadership rejected the plan and declared war. The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 resulted in the displacement of many Palestinian Arabs. Responsibility for this displacement can be attributed to the actions and decisions made by the Arab leadership at the time and not just as the result of targeted expulsions by the Jews.

Over and over again the Arabs chose war with the goal of eliminating Israel. Their complete rejection of compromise or coexistence with a Jewish state demonstrates that the Palestinian refugee crisis is more of a political and ideological choice.The Palestinian leadership's refusal to accept statehood in 1948—and later peace offers, such as those at Camp David in 2000 or by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008—should be obvious to anyone paying attention that the conflict is not primarily about land or refugee rights, but rather about the fundamental refusal to accept Israel's existence as a Jewish state. This is the authentic core of the issue that is largely missed.

This leads to a crucial aspect of the conflict, which is rarely spoken about, and that is the role radical Islamic ideology plays in the rejection of a Jewish state. In some interpretations of traditional Islamic law, Jews and Christians are considered protected but subordinate peoples who live under Muslim rule and pay a tax in exchange for protection. This framework positions non-Muslims as second-class citizens under Muslim sovereignty.

The very existence of a Jewish state in what was once Muslim-ruled territory (never an Independent Muslim country) challenges this traditional status of Islam. For many extremist groups, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Islamist factions, all led and coordinated by Iran, the idea of Jews exercising sovereignty over land that was once under Muslim rule (particularly the land of Israel, which includes Jerusalem) is not just politically unacceptable but theologically incompatible. This belief is based on the idea that Islamic lands should never be ruled by non-Muslim. 

With this understanding of radical Islamism, the rejection of Israel is not merely about Palestinian nationalism or refugee rights but is also influenced by a religious narrative that views Jewish sovereignty as fundamentally illegitimate. This belief is articulated in the Hamas charter, which explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel and rejects any peace agreement that would leave a Jewish state intact. Hezbollah and Iran also specifically call for the destruction of Israel. The pattern of rejecting peace offers that could have led to the establishment of a Palestinian state has been influenced by this ideological belief. For me, personally, it seems irrational and quite frustrating that the West and many intellectuals in the West refuse to recognize this sad reality.

Hamas' fundamental Islamist ideology views the current conflict as a religious war (jihad) against the Jewish state. The rejection of Israel's right to exist is non-negotiable for Hamas and other radical groups, and this has led to the repeated failure of peace processes that would seem to be in the Palestinians’ best interest. While Netanyahu always seems to get the blame for the failure to reach a cease-fire and secure the return of the hostages, little is said about Sinwar’s refusal to reach an agreement. After the attack on October 7, Sinwar made it clear that Hamas’ intent was to continue cross border slaughters, leaving Israel no choice but to go into Gaza to degrade Hamas and eliminate the threat. Hamas’ leadership, understanding the West better than the West understands radical Islamism, created the conditions that would lead to maximum civilian deaths in Gaza thereby turning the West against Israel, while tearing Israel apart because of the ongoing hostage crisis. 

We now see this happening in Lebanon with Hezbollah essentially using the same tactics. Hezbollah has its rockets and ballistic missiles embedded in residential homes and apartments. So once again, while Israel takes defensive measures against Hezbollah to eliminate the threat and help return its citizens to their homes in the North, The West turns around and accuses Israel of escalation.  

As a Jew living outside of Israel, my biggest disappointment and concern is the reluctance of Western leaders and political analysts to publicly recognize and call out the role radical Islamist ideology plays in obstructing peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the general threat that radical Islam poses to Western society.  Some of the Western analysts seem to continue to believe that radical Islamist groups can be engaged in the peace process as legitimate political partners, underestimating the degree to which their ideological commitment to the destruction of Israel remains steadfast. This misreading can lead to a focus on what has been until now, futile diplomacy, rather than confronting the ideological roots of the conflict.  

I count myself among those who have traditionally believed and advocated for a two State solution. While I still hope for it one day, I now understand that as long as the radical Islamists control the Palestinians this will not happen. 

Western leaders, however, continue to support a two-state solution as the most viable path to peace. It is incomprehensible to me how they can take this position and not call out radical Islamism as the intractable impediment to this solution. Even if the criticisms many have concerning Israel’s handling of the Gaza war, West Bank uprisings, settlement expansion, and other controversies were all resolved, Islamists would still find a reason to reject peace. We saw this when Israel withdrew from Gaza and we will see it again and again until radical Islam is neutralized and moderate Muslims take leadership to work together for a mutual, peaceful solution. Foreign policy analysts from institutions like IISS (International Institute for Strategic Studies) and the Wilson Center, along with scholars from Harvard and other universities, broadly agree that the Islamist ideological rejection of Israel by Iran and groups like Hamas remains a major impediment to any long-term peace settlement, regardless of any concessions Israel makes. 

In many segments of academia and political circles, there is often an emphasis on anti-colonial and intersectionality connections to global conflicts, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. From this lens, the conflict is seen as part of a broader struggle against Western imperialism and colonialism, with Israel pegged as a settler-colonial state. Again this tends to minimize the role of Islamist ideology.

This past year we have seen the consequences of the West’s misreading of the true intentions of radical Islam and the misguided actions of college students and intellectuals from academia. It has all led to a significant rise in anti-Semitism and anti-Israel rhetoric. It would appear that the unrelenting criticism leveled against Israel and the reluctance to call out the role of radical Islamist ideology in obstructing peace suggests an implicit bias against Israel and, in some cases, reflects underlying anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic sentiments. The selective focus on Israeli actions while downplaying or ignoring the ideological motivations of groups like Hamas has fostered a one-sided narrative that holds Israel disproportionately responsible for the conflict 

Labeling Zionism as a form of Western colonialism is misleading and disingenuous as Zionism is fundamentally a movement of Jewish self-determination, rooted in the historical connection of Jews to the land of Israel. By portraying Zionism as a colonial project, anti-Zionists ignore the fact that Jews were an indigenous people to the land and that their return was driven by persecution, displacement, and the desire for a safe homeland. If anything, we Jews are a rare example of decolonization. 

This assertion claiming Israel as a foreign colonial entity often goes hand-in-hand with the erasure of Jewish historical ties to the land of Israel. This is an important aspect of the anti-Zionist argument. Denying us our history and our connection to our ancestral homeland undermines the legitimacy of the Jewish claim to self-determination in Israel.

The accusation that Israel has escalated the conflict with Hezbollah these past few weeks is disingenuous. More accurately, Israel was responding to constant rocket bombardment from Hezobollah since October 8, 2023. It is disgraceful that the same protesters who marched in support of Hamas have taken to the streets again, this time protesting Israel’s response to Hezbollah in Lebanon as if Israel was once again the aggressor. It is as if the past year of relentless missile attacks by Hezbollah into Northern Israel, displacing over 60,000 Israelis did not happen.

This past week, Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, responsible for thousands of deaths, including Americans, Israelis, Syrians, Lebanese, Iranians, was eliminated by Israel. While many in the Arab world actually celebrated his death and quietly America acknowledged that justice was served, the Western press described him, in part, as “a qualified Islamic scholar,” “effective public speaker,” “competent organizer,” “charismatic and shrewd,” and “father figure to many.” What was the point of giving any legitimacy to his evil leadership? 

Taking everything we see unfolding in the UN, many streets of America, the Western press, and Academia - how do we see this as anything but anti-Zionist, anti-Semeitic behavior? And let us remember, many Jewish students on campuses are being isolated, Jewish authors are being canceled and Jewish academics are being canceled too, simply because they are Jewish and support Israel. The critics have used Israel and Zionism as another tool to spew their anti-Semitism and incite anti-Semitic rhetoric in general.

This feels like a lonely time for Jews and Israel. There is a reluctance in many influential circles to acknowledge our right to exist and the suffering we have endured this past year. Much of this is the result of ongoing media bias, protests in the streets, and social media that pushes anti-Israel propaganda. Radical Islam is largely ignored, even though it is the biggest threat facing Israel and the West. Israel seems to have become a pariah state in much of world opinion.

We have formidable challenges ahead of us as a Jewish people, so we must stay vigilant in our support for Israel's right to exist and thrive, we must be vocal in our fight against anti-Semitism and we must recommit to educating our children with a sense of pride in being Jewish, a love of Israel, and a clear voice in both celebrating who we are and defending our rightful place in Israel and the world. And with it all, there is also hope. The latest Harris/Harvard poll indicates that 79% of Americans support Israel’s war against Hamas and believe any solution to the conflict must begin with the unconditional release of the hostages and Hamas leaving Gaza and relinquishing control. So, when we are feeling alone, and maybe overwhelmed by this crisis, also remember, we are not alone - we have many allies and supporters too.