Fact check: Tell me about the history of Isreal and palestine. Who is right and wrong in this war? When was palestine a country? What exactly is going on over there?

Executive summary

The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is a century-long, multi-layered dispute rooted in competing nationalisms, colonial-era decisions, wars in 1948 and 1967, and ongoing disputes over territory, refugees and sovereignty; recent reporting through September 2025 emphasizes intense fighting in Gaza, hostage releases and short-term ceasefires mediated by international actors ^{[1] [2]}. Determinations of who is “right” or “wrong” are contested and politically charged; contemporary coverage documents both Israeli security claims and Palestinian calls for self-determination, with international actors advocating a negotiated two-state solution while different narratives emphasize different legal and moral claims ^{[3] [1]}.

1. A century of roots and turning points that still shape today's violence

The conflict’s modern phase began in the early 20th century as Jewish nationalism (Zionism) and Palestinian Arab nationalism converged in the same territory under Ottoman then British control; partition plans, Jewish immigration, and communal violence culminated in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, displacing large Palestinian populations and creating the state of Israel, an event repeatedly cited as foundational for both sides’ narratives ^[1]. The 1967 Six-Day War is another decisive turning point: Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and other territories, establishing an occupation that international diplomacy and most legal frameworks treat as central to the dispute over sovereignty and settlement activity ^{[1] [3]}. Contemporary reporting frames these historical events not as settled background but as active drivers of current grievances and claims to territory, making historical memory a live element in negotiations and public opinion ^[1].

2. Who claims what — competing legal and moral narratives on each side

Israel frames many of its recent military actions as measures of self-defense against armed groups such as Hamas and threats to its civilians, citing security imperatives and the need to prevent attacks and hostage-taking; Israeli leaders also cite historical and religious ties to parts of the land as part of their legitimacy claims ^{[2] [4]}. Palestinians, including leaders in the West Bank and Gaza, frame their struggle as anti-colonial and national liberation, emphasizing displacement from 1948, the occupation of 1967, and the denial of statehood and refugee rights; Palestinian narratives stress civilian suffering and legal arguments about self-determination ^[1]. International actors and legal experts counter with diverse assessments: many support a negotiated two-state solution but differ on the legality or proportionality of specific military actions and settlement policies, producing a patchwork of endorsements and condemnations across states and organizations ^{[3] [2]}.

3. When was “Palestine” a country? The contested question of statehood

The territory historically called Palestine had no fully sovereign, continuous modern state in the 20th century recognized by all parties; it was an Ottoman province, then a British Mandate, and subsequent partition and wars produced different administrative controls rather than a universally recognized Palestinian state ^[1]. The Palestine Liberation Organization proclaimed a state in 1988 and the Palestinian Authority was established following the 1993 Oslo accords as an interim self-governing body; many UN members recognize Palestine as a state but it lacks full UN member status and control over borders, airspace and security, which are core attributes of sovereignty in practice ^{[1] [3]}. Contemporary reporting notes that questions about when Palestine was a “country” are shaped by political recognition, international law debates and the practical realities of occupation and governance, meaning the answer varies depending on legal, diplomatic and political frameworks cited ^[1].

4. What is happening now — the immediate facts behind the headlines

Recent coverage through September 2025 reports intense hostilities in Gaza, significant civilian casualties, infrastructure damage, and international diplomatic activity leading to hostage releases and temporary ceasefires brokered with external mediation, notably involving the United States and regional actors; these reports highlight urgent humanitarian concerns alongside security rhetoric from Israel and political demands from Palestinian factions ^[2]. Journalistic accounts emphasize cyclical dynamics: military escalation, international pressure, negotiated pauses, and unresolved political issues that permit renewed violence; observers point to humanitarian access, reconstruction, and the question of Gaza’s governance as immediate practical challenges following ceasefires ^[2]. Different outlets frame casualty figures, legal assessments and responsibility differently, reflecting editorial lines and the sources they rely on, so readers should expect variance in emphasis and detail across reports ^[4].

5. Why “who is right” cannot be answered as a single factual verdict

Determining a single “right” or “wrong” side requires normative judgments about history, law, proportionality and politics that exceed neutral fact-reporting; factual areas—such as where and when wars occurred, population movements in 1948, and the occupation after 1967—are documented, but moral and legal conclusions about proportionality, responsibility and legitimacy remain disputed among states, courts and scholars ^{[1] [3]}. Contemporary journalism and diplomatic statements illustrate that different communities and international actors prioritize different principles—security, self-determination, humanitarian law—leading to conflicting verdicts and policy prescriptions; this plurality explains why public debates are deeply polarized and why international mediation emphasizes negotiated compromises over absolute adjudication ^{[1] [2]}.

6. What to watch next — diplomacy, humanitarian relief and political change

Key indicators to follow include the durability of ceasefires, the status of hostage releases and prisoner exchanges, international humanitarian access to Gaza, Israeli domestic politics and coalition dynamics, Palestinian political unity and elections, and diplomatic moves toward a two-state framework or alternative arrangements; reporting in September 2025 underscores that short-term reductions in violence do not automatically resolve underlying political claims ^[2]. External actors—particularly the United States, regional states, and international organizations—remain influential in shaping incentives for cessation, aid and potential negotiations, but their agendas and constituencies produce divergent approaches and pressures that observers should scrutinize for bias and political motive ^{[4] [2]}.

7. Bottom line: facts to hold onto while narratives compete

Key established facts are consistent across reporting: the 1948 and 1967 wars reshaped the map, an Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories after 1967 is central to the dispute, Palestinians seek recognized statehood while Israel cites security concerns, and recent 2025 developments involved intense Gaza fighting, hostage releases and temporary ceasefires mediated by external powers ^{[1] [2]}. Readers should treat sources as having agendas, cross-check casualty and legal claims, and recognize that historical grievances, legal disputes and immediate humanitarian crises coexist; resolving the conflict remains a political undertaking requiring mutual concessions and international engagement rather than a simple factual adjudication ^{[1] [4]}.