By Dr. Tim Orr

For decades, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been framed through an oversimplified and often misleading narrative: a territorial dispute between two peoples, each with valid claims to the land, both striving for self-determination. The prevailing international consensus insists that the only solution is a two-state model in which Israelis and Palestinians share the land through separate sovereignties. However, this framework is fundamentally flawed, built on historical revisionism, legal distortions, and a refusal to acknowledge the underlying ideological forces that sustain the conflict.

Brooke Goldstein, a prominent legal expert and human rights activist, has challenged these deeply ingrained assumptions, arguing that the international community’s approach is not only misguided but actively harmful to the prospects of real peace (Weinstein, 2024). Goldstein highlights several key points that disrupt the mainstream narrative: the legal and historical right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria, the weaponization of international law against Israel, the failures of the two-state solution, and the role of radical Islamist ideology—particularly Iran’s proxy warfare—in perpetuating the conflict. Furthermore, she exposes the hypocrisy of those who claim to advocate for Palestinian rights while simultaneously condemning efforts to remove Palestinians from Hamas’ grip.

If we are to move beyond the cycle of violence, we must confront the realities that have long been ignored or suppressed. This article deeply delves into these issues, dismantling the myths surrounding the conflict and presenting a fact-based, legally grounded, and strategically sound framework for understanding what is truly at stake.

Imagine a world where legal terminology shapes geopolitical realities—where words like settlers, occupation, and two-state solution dictate policy more than historical rights or on-the-ground facts. For decades, international discourse on Israel and the Palestinian territories has been locked into a framework that portrays Israel as an occupying force and Palestinian groups as resistance movements, obscuring deeper realities. But what happens when that framework is shattered?

Enter Donald Trump’s bold, paradigm-shifting approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Aryeh Weinstein discusses in his interview (Weinstein, 2024), Trump has fundamentally disrupted long-held assumptions, much like he did with the Abraham Accords and the relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. His latest move regarding Gaza has reignited controversy, forcing the world to reconsider the legitimacy of Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria (commonly referred to as the West Bank). But beyond political maneuvering, this debate exposes the deeper ideological fault lines about sovereignty, self-determination, and the very nature of what constitutes justice in the Middle East. Below, I will examine this.

The West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria: The Importance of Language

Words shape perception. Using “West Bank” rather than “Judea and Samaria” is not a neutral choice—it is an act of political framing. The phrase “West Bank” implies that the land is a peripheral region of Jordan rather than a historical heartland of Jewish civilization. This terminology was popularized after Jordan’s illegal annexation of the area in 1948, an occupation that was never recognized by the international community except by Britain and Pakistan (Shavit, 2013). Before that, the land had always been referred to by its biblical and historical names—Judea and Samaria—terms that affirm its deep-rooted Jewish identity.

Imagine if international bodies began referring to Tibet as “West China” or to Kurdistan as “North Iraq.” These terminological shifts would immediately erase the indigenous identities of Tibetans and Kurds, effectively endorsing Chinese and Iraqi territorial claims over their lands. Yet, this is precisely what has been done with Judea and Samaria—by renaming them the “West Bank,” the world has subtly rewritten history, transforming an ancestral homeland into a disputed border region.

The evidence of Jewish historical presence in Judea and Samaria is overwhelming. Archaeological discoveries dating back thousands of years—including the remains of the Second Temple period, ancient synagogues, and Jewish burial sites—affirm a continuous Jewish presence (Finkelstein, 2018). The Jewish connection to the land is so deeply embedded that even the Arabic name for Jerusalem, Al-Quds, is derived from the Hebrew Ir HaKodesh—the Holy City. Despite this, the world demands that Jews justify their right to live in their homeland while simultaneously treating the Palestinian national movement as an unassailable truth.

International Law and the Double Standard Against Israel

Israel is routinely accused of violating international law by building Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, yet this claim does not hold up to legal scrutiny. The primary legal argument against Israeli settlements is based on the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its population into occupied territory (Roberts, 2006). However, this law was created in response to the forced deportations and resettlements carried out by Nazi Germany during World War II. It was never intended to apply to voluntary migration, particularly to land that was never the sovereign territory of another state.

Judea and Samaria were not legally Palestinian land before 1967. From 1920 to 1948, the land was part of the British Mandate for Palestine, which explicitly recognized the Jewish right to settle anywhere within its borders, as affirmed by the League of Nations (Katz, 2021). When Jordan seized the territory in 1948, it did so through military aggression, and the international community widely rejected its annexation. In 1967, Israel reclaimed the land in a defensive war, meaning that it cannot be considered an illegal occupier.

Furthermore, the selective application of international law reveals an undeniable bias against Israel. While Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are condemned as illegal “settlements,” the world turns a blind eye to actual instances of colonial expansion. For instance, Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus, China’s forced resettlement of Han Chinese in Tibet, and Morocco’s annexation of Western Sahara all involve clear violations of international law. Yet, none of these cases receive a fraction of the scrutiny directed at Israel.

Trump’s Policies and the Transformation of Middle East Diplomacy

Breaking the Two-State Solution Paradigm

One of the most significant Middle East peace process disruptions came under President Donald Trump, who fundamentally reshaped U.S. policy by challenging long-standing diplomatic assumptions. Trump’s approach was simple: discard the failed strategies of the past and engage with the region based on reality rather than wishful thinking.

By moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, Trump defied decades of diplomatic fear-mongering that warned of Arab riots and regional instability. The reaction? Business as usual. The decision exposed the lie that the Palestinian issue was the central cause of Middle Eastern strife. The Abraham Accords further proved this by facilitating peace agreements between Israel and Arab nations without Palestinian preconditions.

More importantly, Trump’s policies dismantled the two-state solution as the default paradigm. By recognizing that Palestinian leadership—whether the Palestinian Authority or Hamas—has no real interest in peaceful coexistence, his administration shifted the conversation away from unrealistic concessions toward strengthening Israeli sovereignty.

The Real Obstacle to Peace: Hamas and Iran’s Proxy Warfare

At the heart of the conflict is not a land dispute but an ideological war rooted in Islamist extremism. Hamas is not fighting for an independent Palestinian state—it is fighting for the destruction of Israel. This is evident in Hamas’ charter, which openly calls for Israel’s annihilation and the establishment of an Islamic state in its place.

Hamas is not an independent actor but a pawn in a larger regional strategy orchestrated by Iran. Tehran funds, arms, and trains Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Islamist factions as part of its broader ambition to dominate the Middle East. Iran does not support Palestinian statehood—it exploits the Palestinian cause as a means to wage war against Israel.

Conclusion: The Need for a Paradigm Shift

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long been mischaracterized as a simple territorial dispute when, in reality, it is an ideological and geopolitical battle in which radical Islamist forces seek to dismantle Jewish sovereignty. The refusal of the international community to confront this reality has not only prolonged the conflict but has also emboldened terrorist organizations, rewarding extremism while undermining genuine peace efforts.

It is time to abandon the failed two-state framework—a model that has proven ineffective time and time again. Peace will not come through diplomatic appeasement, symbolic gestures, or rewarding bad actors with statehood. Rather, it will emerge when the international community ceases its habitual enabling of Palestinian terrorism, ends the weaponization of international law against Israel, and recognizes Jewish historical and legal rights to their ancestral homeland. As Weinstein (2024) asserts, Trump’s approach to Middle Eastern policy represents a long-overdue return to pragmatism—one that treats Israel as a legitimate sovereign nation, acknowledges the failures of Palestinian leadership, and prioritizes security over unrealistic peace plans.

References

Finkelstein, N. (2018). Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom. University of California Press.

Katz, D. (2021). The Weaponization of Human Rights: Lawfare Against Israel. Routledge.

Roberts, A. (2006). The Laws of Occupation: Continuity and Change of International Law. Oxford University Press.

Shavit, A. (2013). My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel. Spiegel & Grau.

Weinstein, A. (2024, February 6). Pro-Israel lawyer makes Ben Shapiro go quiet with real lesson from Trump's Gaza plan [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD_GiJvrEIc

Tim Orr is a scholar of Islam, Evangelical minister, conference speaker, and interfaith consultant with over 30 years of experience in cross-cultural ministry. He holds six degrees, including a master’s in Islamic studies from the Islamic College in London. Tim taught Religious Studies for 15 years at Indiana University Columbus and is now a Congregations and Polarization Project research associate at the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University Indianapolis. He has spoken at universities, including Oxford University, Imperial College London, the University of Tehran, Islamic College London, and mosques throughout the U.K. His research focuses on American Evangelicalism, Islamic antisemitism, and Islamic feminism, and he has published widely, including articles in Islamic peer-reviewed journals and three books.

Share this article
The link has been copied!