Israel Palestine

On Complexity, Certainty and Moral Responsibility

The conflict between Israel and Palestine is extraordinarily complicated, historically, politically and morally. Acknowledging that complexity is not an attempt to evade responsibility, avoid uncomfortable conclusions or retreat into a position of convenient neutrality. It is an acknowledgement of the limits of my own understanding, and a determination not to contribute to a public debate already saturated with certainty, outrage and political rhetoric, much of which appears to give little more than lip service to the suffering of the people directly affected.

There is nothing inherently wrong with an emotional response to human suffering. Anger, grief and moral outrage are entirely understandable. The problem arises when those emotions become substitutes for evidence, when political allegiance determines which atrocities deserve condemnation, or when expressions of solidarity become more concerned with signalling loyalty to a cause than with protecting the people supposedly at its centre.

Until relatively recently, I knew comparatively little about the history of Israel and Palestine. I have made an effort to understand it better, but I remain conscious that my knowledge is incomplete. Indeed, one of the difficulties of learning about this conflict is determining how much confidence to place in the information available. Facts, interpretations, allegations and propaganda are frequently presented alongside one another, often with little distinction between them. Even institutions and individuals entrusted with establishing the facts are subject to political pressure and accusations of bias.

None of this means that reliable conclusions are impossible, or that every account deserves equal weight. Uncertainty should not become an excuse for refusing to acknowledge well-established facts. There is a meaningful difference between recognising the limitations of our knowledge and pretending that everything is equally uncertain.

What I find particularly troubling is the confidence with which people who appear to have only a superficial understanding of the conflict pronounce unequivocal judgments about the absolute righteousness of one side and the absolute culpability of the other.

Israelis and Palestinians are not two homogeneous groups acting with a single purpose. They are millions of individuals with different beliefs, political allegiances, experiences and aspirations. Neither population can reasonably be treated as collectively responsible for every action committed by its government, military forces, political organisations or armed groups.

Nor is it intellectually honest to compare the worst actions of one population's most extreme representatives with the most sympathetic examples from the other. Such comparisons may reinforce existing convictions, but they do little to illuminate the reality of the conflict.

The history matters, too. The conflict did not begin on 7 October 2023. Any serious understanding must account for the events surrounding Israel's establishment in 1948 and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, the occupation of Palestinian territories following the 1967 war, repeated attacks on Israeli civilians, failed peace processes and the decisions of successive political leaders. Historical explanation, however, must not become a substitute for moral judgment. Understanding why an atrocity occurred is not the same as justifying it.

Historical source: United Nations — History of the Question of Palestine.

The positions I consider most defensible

1. Israelis and Palestinians have equal moral worth and fundamental rights.

Both populations deserve security, freedom, dignity and political self-determination. Israeli civilians have a right to live without fear of attack, just as Palestinians have a right to live free from occupation, displacement and violence.

Israel's legitimate security concerns do not extinguish Palestinian rights. Equally, Palestinian demands for freedom and self-determination do not negate the rights of Israelis.

This is not a claim that the two populations possess equivalent political or military power, have suffered equivalent harm, or bear equivalent responsibility for the present situation. They do not. Equal moral worth does not imply equality of circumstances or culpability.

It means that fundamental human rights cannot depend upon nationality, ethnicity, religion or political allegiance.

Sources: UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights · UN General Assembly — Palestinian right to self-determination, December 2025.

2. Hamas's attacks against civilians were indefensible.

The attacks carried out by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups on 7 October 2023 involved the deliberate killing of civilians, hostage-taking, torture and other atrocities.

In June 2024, an independent United Nations commission of inquiry concluded that Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups were responsible for multiple war crimes, including intentionally directing attacks against civilians and taking hostages.

These acts cannot be justified by reference to historical dispossession, occupation or oppression. Such circumstances may be essential to understanding the origins and persistence of violence, but they cannot legitimise the deliberate murder or abduction of civilians.

Condemning these crimes is not an endorsement of Israeli government policy. Nor does supporting Palestinian self-determination require defending Hamas.

Source: UN Independent Commission of Inquiry — Findings on attacks in Israel and Gaza, June 2024.

3. Israel's conduct in Gaza warrants severe condemnation and accountability.

Israel has a legitimate interest in protecting its population from armed attacks. That interest does not grant its government or armed forces unrestricted authority to pursue military objectives.

The Israeli military campaign in Gaza has caused catastrophic civilian suffering, widespread displacement and extensive destruction of homes, healthcare facilities and essential infrastructure.

In June 2024, the same independent UN commission concluded that Israeli authorities were responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. Its findings included the use of starvation as a method of warfare, forcible transfer and unlawful attacks against civilians.

These conclusions concern grave violations of international law, not merely controversial military decisions.

The presence of Hamas fighters among civilians does not remove the protections afforded to those civilians. Nor can the crimes committed on 7 October justify subsequent violations.

Where there is credible evidence of criminal conduct, those responsible should face independent investigation and, where the evidence supports prosecution, a fair judicial process.

Sources: UN Commission of Inquiry — June 2024 · UN Commission — Further findings, October 2024.

4. Israel's unlawful occupation and settlement activity must end.

The occupation of Palestinian territory is not merely a matter of competing political preferences. It is the subject of substantial international legal findings.

In July 2024, the International Court of Justice concluded in an advisory opinion that Israel's continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory was unlawful. The Court stated that Israel must bring that presence to an end as rapidly as possible, immediately cease new settlement activity and evacuate settlers from the occupied territory.

The Court also concluded that Israel's policies violated the Palestinian people's right to self-determination.

Although an advisory opinion is legally distinct from a binding judgment in a contentious case, the ICJ's conclusions carry considerable legal authority.

Opposition to occupation, settlement expansion and annexation therefore rests on more than a political preference. It has a substantial foundation in international law, independently of any judgment about Hamas or other Palestinian political organisations.

Source: International Court of Justice — Advisory Opinion, 19 July 2024.

5. The laws of war must apply consistently, without exception or selective interpretation.

International humanitarian law places limits on how wars may be fought, regardless of the legitimacy of a party's stated objectives.

It requires armed forces to distinguish between combatants and civilians, prohibits indiscriminate attacks, and requires precautions to minimise civilian harm. It also prohibits attacks expected to cause civilian harm excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Collective punishment, hostage-taking and the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare are prohibited.

It is important to be precise: civilian casualties, even in substantial numbers, do not by themselves establish that every individual military attack was unlawful. The legality of a particular attack depends on factors including its intended target, the information reasonably available at the time, the expected civilian harm and the precautions taken.

Equally, the existence of a military objective cannot automatically legitimise an attack regardless of its foreseeable civilian consequences.

These principles apply to all parties. However, their practical responsibilities are not identical. Israel's vastly greater military capabilities, its control over access to essential resources and its obligations under the law of occupation are materially relevant.

Consistency requires applying the same legal principles, not pretending that every actor occupies the same position.

Sources: International Committee of the Red Cross — Rules governing hostilities · ICRC — Conduct of hostilities and civilian protection.

6. Allegations of genocide must be taken seriously, and legal findings represented accurately.

Genocide is a specific crime under international law. Establishing it requires evidence of prohibited acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such.

In September 2025, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israeli authorities and security forces had committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Its conclusion rested on its assessment of prohibited acts, statements by Israeli officials and evidence concerning the intent behind the conduct.

This is an exceptionally serious finding from an established investigative body. It should neither be dismissed casually nor misrepresented.

Israel rejects the commission's findings and disputes the allegations of genocide.

Separately, South Africa brought proceedings against Israel before the International Court of Justice under the Genocide Convention. The Court issued provisional measures intended to protect rights under that Convention, but it has not issued a final judgment determining whether Israel committed genocide. The case remained ongoing in October 2026.

These distinctions matter. An independent commission's determination is not equivalent to a final court ruling. Equally, the absence of a final judgment does not invalidate the commission's evidence or require us to suspend all moral evaluation.

I consider the commission's findings sufficiently serious and substantial that they demand rigorous scrutiny, accountability and an effective international response. Legal precision should strengthen that response, not become a means of avoiding it.

Sources: UN Commission — Genocide findings, September 2025 · Israel's official rejection · ICJ — Provisional measures, January 2024 · South African Government — ICJ case status, June 2026.

7. Antisemitism and anti-Palestinian racism must be rejected unequivocally.

Criticism of the Israeli government, its military operations or its policies towards Palestinians is not inherently antisemitic. Equally, criticism of Hamas, its ideology or its conduct is not inherently anti-Palestinian.

There are, however, important distinctions between legitimate political criticism and prejudice directed towards an entire population.

Holding Jewish people collectively responsible for Israeli government policy is antisemitic. Treating Palestinians as collectively complicit in Hamas's actions is equally indefensible. Dehumanisation, ethnic stereotyping and the justification of violence against civilians are unacceptable regardless of their targets.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition explicitly recognises that ordinary criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic.

These principles should not be difficult to apply. Yet political debate repeatedly demonstrates how readily collective blame replaces individual responsibility.

Sources: International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance — Working Definition of Antisemitism · UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights — Articles 1, 2 and 7.

8. Accountability must extend to political leaders and armed groups, not entire populations.

A credible commitment to justice requires that allegations against powerful political and military actors receive serious consideration, regardless of which population those actors claim to represent.

In November 2024, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Court found reasonable grounds to believe that they bore criminal responsibility for specified offences.

The ICC also issued a warrant for Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity; those proceedings were subsequently terminated following confirmation of his death.

An arrest warrant is not a conviction. The distinction between credible allegations, preliminary judicial findings and guilt established at trial must be maintained.

But the underlying principle is straightforward: no political leader or armed organisation should be exempt from independent legal scrutiny, and no civilian population should be subjected to collective punishment for the actions of its leaders.

Source: International Criminal Court — Arrest warrants and judicial findings, November 2024.

9. Humanitarian protection must take precedence over political posturing.

Whatever one's preferred political settlement, there are immediate human needs that should not be conditional on agreement about the conflict's history or future.

Civilian access to food, clean water, medical treatment, shelter and essential infrastructure must be protected. Humanitarian workers and medical facilities must be afforded the protections required by international law. Civilians displaced by violence must not be treated as expendable instruments of military or political strategy.

Humanitarian assistance is not a reward for acceptable political behaviour. Neither Palestinians nor Israelis should have to demonstrate agreement with a particular government or political movement to qualify for protection.

Concern for civilians must ultimately be judged by whether it translates into practical support for their safety, dignity and wellbeing, rather than by the intensity of the rhetoric used in their name.

Sources: ICRC — International humanitarian law and civilian protection · UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights — Article 25.

10. Any lasting settlement must guarantee equal rights and meaningful security.

A sustainable resolution cannot rest on the permanent domination, dispossession or insecurity of either population.

The internationally supported two-state approach would establish an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, with both populations enjoying political self-determination and credible guarantees of security.

In September 2025, the UN General Assembly endorsed the New York Declaration supporting the implementation of a two-state solution, by 142 votes to 10, with 12 abstentions.

A single democratic state guaranteeing equal citizenship and political rights is also a morally defensible proposition in principle. However, I remain less persuaded of its political feasibility, given the profound national divisions, competing demands for self-determination and absence of the institutions and mutual trust needed to sustain it.

The two-state approach also faces formidable obstacles, including settlement expansion, territorial fragmentation and the failure of previous negotiations.

I do not pretend to know which political arrangement can realistically succeed. I am more confident about the standards by which any proposed settlement should be judged: equal rights, genuine self-determination, freedom from persecution and meaningful security for both peoples.

Sources: UN General Assembly — Endorsement of the New York Declaration, September 2025 · UN Secretary-General — Remarks on a two-state settlement, September 2026.

My overall assessment

I do not believe the most defensible position is to be unconditionally pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, as though either label necessarily captures the interests, rights or beliefs of everyone it purports to represent.

My position is one that supports Palestinian freedom and self-determination, Israeli civilian security, an end to unlawful occupation, accountability for Hamas's atrocities, and accountability for violations committed by Israeli authorities and armed forces.

These positions are not mutually exclusive. They follow from applying fundamental moral principles consistently.

Consistency, however, should not be confused with artificial balance. There is no obligation to distribute criticism equally between parties whose actions, capabilities and responsibilities differ. The objective is not to make each side appear equally culpable, but to assess claims and conduct according to the available evidence and appropriate legal and moral standards.

I recognise that some conclusions are more firmly established than others, and that my own understanding will continue to develop. I am willing to revise particular judgments as better evidence emerges. That is not a weakness of the position, but an essential part of taking truth seriously.

What I am unwilling to accept is that compassion for one population requires indifference towards another, that acknowledging historical injustice excuses atrocities, or that political loyalty should determine which human beings deserve our concern.

Ultimately, I am less interested in declaring allegiance to a side than in defending principles that should remain valid regardless of whose actions are being examined.

That is not an abdication of moral responsibility. It is an attempt to exercise it without allowing political identity, selective outrage or unwarranted certainty to take precedence over the lives of the people who must endure the consequences.