Israel’s war to end non-ending war


In a sudden and devastating attack, Hamas terrorists launched an unprecedented offensive against Israel on October 7, 2023. The Gaza-based terrorist group fired thousands of rockets into Israeli territory, causing significant loss of life, almost 300, among Israeli civilians. The attack was so severe that airlines canceled more than 80 flights to and from Tel Aviv, affecting roughly 14% of all scheduled flights. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded by declaring a state of war and mobilizing army reserves.

President Joe Biden’s recent decision to unfreeze $6 billion in Iranian assets as part of a prisoner exchange has come under intense scrutiny. The fund is a direct support of terrorist activities, given Iran’s known sponsorship of groups like Hamas. Former President Donald Trump labeled Biden an “incompetent fool” for the decision, and other lawmakers have expressed concern that the move could have far-reaching geopolitical consequences.

While many political figures have spoken out about the recent Hamas attack on Israel, Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib have remained notably silent. As members of the US Congress, their lack of public comment on the situation has drawn attention, especially given their previous stances on Israel-Palestine issues. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib must be very happy and joyous today—people who pray five times a day for the destruction of Israel and Jews.

The devastating attack by Hamas on Israel has cast a long, sorrowful shadow over the already fraught landscape of Middle Eastern politics, leaving many to question the very foundation of the two-state solution. This concept, once heralded as the beacon of hope for lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians, now proven to be a deception. The scale of the violence unleashed by Hamas not only shattered lives but also shattered the illusion that coexistence could be achieved through diplomatic means alone. The attack serves as a painful reminder that the path to peace is fraught with obstacles that can’t be easily overcome, leaving us to wonder if the dream of two states living side by side in harmony is just that—a dream.

The recent Hamas attack on Israel has elicited a range of responses from world leaders, but one that has caught particular attention is the demeanor of US President Joe Biden. During his public address, Biden’s face appeared notably composed, even radiant, depicting his emotional stance toward the unfolding crisis. His reaction claims as if he knew it already and he has no remorse. Biden tried to pretend as if he was very sad—not even a good actor. In a situation fraught with loss and geopolitical implications, the presence of fake sorrow or concern on the US President’s face has been unsettling for some, raising questions about the Biden administration’s commitment to Israel and its role in the peace process.

The recent events have certainly intensified the debate around the two-state solution, but it’s important to note that the world should come together that anyone who supports this framework—the two-state solution, should be termed “anti-Semitic” and “anti-Israel”. The two-state solution has been endorsed by a variety of international actors, including the Biden administration, as a viable “path to peace”. The recent attack by Hamas proved that the feasibility of this approach is misguided.

During his tenure, former President Donald Trump took a markedly different approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict compared to his predecessors. His administration recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the US embassy there, a move that was met with criticism by Palestine supporters but lauded by the world. Trump also brokered the Abraham Accords, a series of normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states, sidestepping the Palestinian issue altogether. While these actions were praised as bold steps toward regional stability, Hamas supporters argued that they marginalized Palestinians and made the prospect of a two-state solution even more remote. Trump’s policies toward the conflict had a lasting impact, reshaping the geopolitical landscape in a way that continues to influence the region today.

Since stepping into the Oval Office, President Joe Biden’s approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict has been a stark departure from the assertive policies of his predecessor and more popular president, Donald Trump. While Biden has paid lip service to the idea of a two-state solution, his actions—lack thereof—have raised eyebrows and drawn criticism. The administration’s decision to resume financial aid to the Palestinian Authority, which had been cut by Trump, has been particularly contentious, especially in light of recent attacks by Hamas. Biden’s tepid public statements and his administration’s cautious diplomacy have been seen by some as a failure to take a strong stance, leading to him effectively sidelining Israel while emboldening its terror adversaries. Critics argue that Biden’s approach not only lacks decisiveness but also undermines the US’ longstanding commitment to Israel, casting doubt on the administration’s ability to navigate the complexities of this volatile conflict.

In light of the recent attacks and the ongoing volatility in the region, the time has come for Israel to rally international support for a definitive solution: the establishment of a single state, Israel, in the region. Critics of the two-state solution contend that recent events have exposed its flaws, impracticality, and instability, making a compelling case for a one-state resolution. By consolidating international backing, Israel could aim to bring an end to decades of conflict and uncertainty, providing a stable and secure environment for all its inhabitants. However, such a move would undoubtedly be met with significant opposition, not just from Palestinian groups but also from the Palestinian bloc led by Hamas who still hope for a two-state solution. A decisive action like this could finally bring an end to an everlasting conflict that has been fraught with ambiguity, doubts and half-measures.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here