Who is right in Palestine?

1. The roots: competing national movements and legal claims

The conflict springs from two self-determination movements—Zionism and Palestinian nationalism—whose competing claims to the same territory were amplified by 20th-century events such as the Balfour Declaration, British mandate rule, growing Jewish immigration, and partition recommendations that many Palestinians rejected ^{[1] [5] [6]}. International frameworks, including UN resolutions and Security Council principles like Resolution 242, have tried to mediate those claims by calling for withdrawal from occupied territories and a just solution for refugees, which frames the legal case many international actors use to assess who has rights and responsibilities ^[3].

2. Violence and tactics: Hamas and Israel’s mutual condemnations

Hamas’s 2006 political victory, subsequent control of Gaza, and the October 7, 2023 attack that initiated the recent war are central to arguments about illegitimate use of force by non-state actors; Hamas is designated a terrorist organization by the United States and its attacks are cited as a fundamental breach of law and morality ^{[7] [2]}. Israel’s military campaigns in Gaza, described in multiple sources as causing very high civilian casualties, have led to international investigations and legal challenges, including proceedings at the International Court of Justice and UN inquiries into possible violations of international humanitarian law ^{[2] [3] [8]}.

3. Occupation, settlements, and human-rights assessments

Many international observers and human-rights groups point to Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza—settlements, movement restrictions, and military administration—as systematic deprivations of Palestinian rights and grounds for international criticism; some organizations describe structures that resemble apartheid, while others dispute that legal characterization and emphasize Israel’s security context ^{[1] [9] [10]}. The UN historical record and academic summaries document long-standing grievances about displacement and refugee rights that underpin Palestinian claims of injustice and the demand for a state along 1967 lines ^{[3] [7]}.

4. Security, sovereignty, and shifting international politics

Israel’s insistence on security—especially after mass-casualty attacks—is supported by allies who view dismantling hostile armed groups as imperative, and that position shapes foreign aid and diplomatic backing ^{[2] [11]}. Conversely, international public opinion and humanitarian metrics show rising skepticism about Israeli conduct and growing demands for more protection and aid for Palestinian civilians, reflecting a global debate over proportionality, occupation, and state responsibility ^{[11] [4]}.

5. Conclusion: who is “right”? — Standards determine the answer

If “right” is defined as the right to exist as a nation-state and defend citizens, Israel’s position has strong legal and political backing; if “right” is defined by the right to self-determination, end of occupation, and redress for displacement, Palestinians’ claims are equally supported by UN resolutions and human-rights arguments ^{[5] [3] [1]}. Where both sides employ or suffer serious violations—terrorist attacks against civilians by Hamas and heavy military operations by Israel producing high civilian tolls—the moral clarity dissolves and the judgment becomes: both parties have legitimate claims and responsibilities, and both have committed actions that many international bodies consider violations of law or human rights ^{[2] [4] [3]}. Sources provided do not permit declaring a unilateral moral victor; they do, however, make clear that any durable answer requires political compromises rooted in internationally agreed standards—withdrawal from occupied territory, security guarantees, refugee solutions, and protection of civilians—that the parties and their supporters have repeatedly failed to realize ^{[3] [1] [7]}.