I am regularly appalled by Israel’s critics and friends’ constant criticism of the “settler violence” they claim comes from our communities, while they remain silent about endless Palestinian terrorism, attacks, and violence directed at our children and residents. It seems that they are either unaware of the frequency of daily Palestinian violence or choose to accept and excuse it, while exaggerating the scale and scope of Jewish violence. The Palestinians who surround our communities are committed to our destruction, yet we are told by the world to negotiate and compromise for peace with the Palestinians.
How do you negotiate peace with a neighbor who dreams not of coexistence, but of your erasure?
True peace requires mutual desire, but Palestinian popular opinion and leadership prioritize Israel’s destruction over statehood. From Israel’s declaration of independence to the Oslo Accords to repeated offers of compromise for peace, Israel has demonstrated its desire for peace with the Palestinians. Contrast Israel’s commitment to peace with the Palestinian rejectionism and intransigence that have characterized their responses to Israeli offers and international efforts to mediate an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel faces an impossible task of making peace with an enemy that shows no interest in peace.
Israel’s peace deals with Egypt and Jordan, and its normalization agreements under the Abraham Accords, show that the Jewish state will continue to work toward the hope of peace. Israel has always understood that peace with Arab and Muslim countries is directed by leadership rather than by popular opinion on the Arab street. Jerusalem is willing to ignore Palestinian public opinion if the Palestinian leadership shows genuine interest in peace.
The latest results of polls on Palestinian public sentiment toward Israel from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research are discouraging, if not depressing. Some 59% of Palestinians in Judea and Samaria/the West Bank thought Hamas’s decision to launch the October 7 attack was the right decision. An overwhelming majority (87%) said Palestinians did not commit atrocities during those attacks.
Majority of Palestinians believe the two-state solution is unfeasible
Only 40% of Palestinians support the two-state solution – the preferred outcome of the Palestinian negotiated position. Some 64% believe that the two-state solution is no longer practical. Another 68% believe that the chances for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel in the next five years are slim or non-existent.
When Palestinians were presented with three ways to end the Israeli occupation and establish an independent Palestinian state, and were asked to choose the most effective one, 41% chose armed struggle; 33% chose negotiations; and 20% chose popular, peaceful resistance. These results indicate a stronger preference for resistance – whether violent or peaceful – over negotiations for peace.
Palestinian rejectionism of peace is not reflected only in polls. In 1947, the United Nations’ partition plan called for a two-state solution with the peaceful establishment of independent Jewish and Arab states. The Arabs of Palestine rejected the offer. Palestinians followed the rejection of the partition plan with 45 years of terrorism directed at Israel and Jews around the world. In 1993, Palestinians appeared to turn toward peace with the Oslo Accords, only to dash the world’s hopes with the second, violent intifada. In 2008, they rejected the overly generous compromise offer of Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert.
Ignoring the reality of Palestinian intransigence and obsession with violence is naïve. Israel cannot “make peace” unilaterally. We yearn for quiet borders, towns and communities, but wishing does not rewrite Palestinian hearts hardened by hatred. Yet history shows that even hostile publics can yield to peace – under the right leadership.
In 1979, Egyptian public opinion was overwhelmingly anti-Israel. Fueled by decades of hatred, war, and propaganda, Egyptians called for the same destruction of Israel that Palestinians hear from today. Yet Egyptian president Anwar Sadat had a bold vision that led him to visit Jerusalem, speak to the Knesset, and push for peace despite his people’s objections. Sadat’s leadership overcame public resistance, leading to a cold but enduring peace. As Israelis, we remember the hope Sadat ignited – a reminder that one courageous voice can redirect a nation’s path.
Similar anti-Israel sentiment and rhetoric were expressed by an overwhelming majority of Jordanians in 1994, when Jordan signed a peace deal with Israel. Yet King Hussein’s strategic choice for peace, driven by economic benefits and security considerations, prevailed.
In both cases, leaders prioritized peace over populism, even while failing to foster gradual shifts in public attitudes.
Palestinian leaders such as Arafat, Abbas and Haniyeh have instead exploited hatred for power, rejecting offers and inciting violence. The gap between Israelis and Palestinians lies not only in public attitudes, but in leaders who direct their people toward war and hate rather than harmony and coexistence.
From Yasser Arafat wearing a pistol into the United Nations General Assembly while disingenuously declaring, “Today I have come bearing an olive branch and a freedom fighter’s gun,” to the Palestinian “pay-to-slay” program that incentivizes terrorism by Palestinians as young as teenagers and as old as senior citizens, Palestinian leadership has shown more interest in destroying Israel than in making peace with it, perpetuating a culture of victimhood and vengeance.
Israel cannot force peace on unwilling Palestinians dedicated to its destruction. Every failed attempt at peace raises – and then dashes – hopes in the region. Dashed hope is often followed by a rise in violence. Naïve peace efforts risk Israeli security without any realistic expectation of reciprocity. Change must come from the Palestinian side, especially through a shift in leadership attitudes.
True peace remains elusive not because Israel lacks the will – as evidenced by repeated offers, withdrawals, and successful treaties with Arab neighbors – but because Palestinian society and leadership continue to cling to rejectionism, the glorification of violence, and dreams of Israel’s destruction. Recent polls confirm this entrenched mindset; a majority still views Hamas’s October 7 attack as correct and prioritizes armed struggle over negotiation.
Until Palestinians fundamentally shift toward coexistence rather than erasure, and elect leaders committed to peace, genuine reconciliation will remain an unattainable hope, perpetuating suffering on both sides.
The writer is a certified interfaith hospice chaplain in Jerusalem and the mayor of Mitzpe Yeriho.