A Palestinian Hamas terrorist shakes hands with a child as they stand guard as people gather on the day of the handover of Israeli hostages, as part of a ceasefire and a hostages-prisoners swap deal between Hamas and Israel, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, Feb. 22, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ramadan Abed

When assessing claims about Israel, I notice recurring errors in Western discourse. These mistakes generally fall into three patterns:

• Failing to ask the right questions — e.g., “What has led to the current reality?” “Why would Israel have taken a particular action?” “What alternative actions might it have taken?”

• Dismissing the agency of Israel’s counterparts — attributing full responsibility to Israel while overlooking the role and decisions of other parties involved.

• Ignoring historical and regional context — judging Israel’s or the Jewish people’s actions without considering global events, prevailing norms, or broader regional dynamics.

These blind spots repeat across debates on checkpoints, Jewish Holy Site access, settlements, governance, education, and more.

Checkpoints: Freedom Lost After the First Intifada

Critics often highlight Israel’s restrictions on Arab movement — but ignore their origins.

Before the 1987 Intifada (a wave of terrorism against Israeli civilians), Arabs and Palestinians moved freely between Israel and the territories. The checkpoint system arose only after escalating violence, with each attack prompting tighter controls.

These security measures undeniably create hardships, but the dynamic is predominantly reactive. It can also be compared to customs systems worldwide, where non-citizens face scrutiny not applied to citizens.

Jerusalem: Jordan’s Broken Promises

The 1949 armistice between Israel and the surrounding Arab countries that sought to destroy it, gave Jordan control of many Jewish holy sites.

Though Jordan’s king promised Jewish access, Jews were barred — and sacred places were desecrated. From Mount Zion, Jews could see their heritage being literally destroyed.

Israel’s record on this matter contrasts sharply.

In July 1948, David Ben-Gurion ordered that any Jew attempting to desecrate Muslim or Christian sites be stopped “without mercy.”

After Israel captured the Old City in a 1967 defensive war, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan ordered that the Israeli flag be removed from the Temple Mount and quickly arranged for the Jordanian Waqf to manage religious affairs, while Israel retained security control of the area — to keep the peace between Jewish and Muslim activists.

While controversial, this “status quo” demonstrated restraint in managing shared sacred spaces, and a respect for non-Jews that is not present in any Palestinian or Arab territory.

Settlements: Growth Tied to Conflict

After 1967, Jews could have rushed into the territories, yet by 1973, only about 1,500 lived there (excluding eastern Jerusalem). Expansion accelerated after the trauma of the Yom Kippur War. This demonstrated that settlements were as much about security concerns as ideology.

Israel has dismantled settlements for peace in both Sinai (1982) and Gaza (2005). Equating settlement growth with terrorism oversimplifies a complex reality. Condemning settlement expansion implies that a future Palestinian state must be Judenrein (free of Jews), while Israel remains home to a 20% Arab minority with citizenship rights — most of whom, in a 2010 survey, preferred to remain in Israel even if a Palestinian state were created.

The cycle is clear: security measures spark resentment and resentment fuels tension — this is the feedback loop in action.

Palestinian Governance: Corruption and Cynicism

The Palestinian Authority (PA), created during the Oslo peace process, has been plagued by corruption, embezzlement, nepotism, and repression.

Mahmoud Abbas was elected in 2005 for a four-year term but remains in power two decades later. He has distorted Holocaust history, suggesting in an August 2023 speech that Hitler’s motives were financial rather than antisemitic.

Western-backed efforts to professionalize PA security forces have fared no better. Intended to protect civilians, these forces have frequently beaten dissidents and punished alleged Zionist collaborators. The 2021 death of activist Nizar Banat at the hands of PA police exposed this reality. Some PA security forces members have also been proven to be members of terrorist groups and support violence against Israelis.

Instead of fostering legitimacy, foreign investment in PA policing deepened cynicism and inadvertently fueled radicalization.

Palestinian public opinion reflects this. In May 2025, the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found Hamas would outpoll the PA (34% vs. 25%), while 80% of Palestinians wanted Abbas to resign. In 2024, 85% said the PA was corrupt.

Such dysfunction helps explain why Israeli leaders often view the PA as a poor partner.

Education: Gaza and Iran Compared

Education shapes future radicalism. A 2022 IMPACT-se report found that Israeli Arabic and Hebrew textbooks promoted coexistence and avoided incitement.

By contrast, Gaza’s PA-produced “abridged curriculum,” introduced mid-war in 2025, continued to promote hatred of Jews and Israelis — even after the EU pledged €380 million in aid tied to reform.

Western media often spotlight “incendiary” remarks from Israeli figures such as Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, commonly labeled “far-right.” While they hold ministerial portfolios — finance and national security — neither is part of the six-member war cabinet directing wartime policy. The disproportionate attention to their statements obscures this fact.

Israel’s proportional system amplifies smaller parties relative to the United States. Each Knesset member represents about 82,000 Israelis, compared to 762,000 constituents per US representative — the second-highest ratio among democracies after India. This structure gives small factions outsized attention, but does not make them primary decision-makers on war and peace.

Across checkpoints, holy sites, settlements, governance, and education, the same pattern emerges: Israel responds to violence or broken agreements, its measures (which are often justified) breed hostility, and radicalization deepens. Pretending radicalism flows in only one direction obscures reality.

Israel is not blameless, but the record shows who has broken more promises, who has pursued coexistence, and why harsh-seeming measures often follow hard realities.

The question remains: faced with a society where elections favor Hamas, schools incite hatred, and Western-trained police kill dissidents — what should Israel do? Stop defending itself and risk more October 7ths? Or recognize the feedback loop for what it is, and act accordingly?

Alexander Mermelstein, a recent USC graduate with a Master’s degree in Public Policy and Data Science, is an aspiring policy researcher with a focus on Middle East affairs and combating antisemitism.