The question of Palestine did not begin on October 8. Its roots stretch back to November 2, 1917, when British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour issued a letter to Lord Walter Rothschild pledging support for a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. Known as the Balfour Declaration, this document—produced during World War I—was intended to secure Jewish support for the Allied cause. Yet it sowed the seeds of a lasting conflict by promising a homeland on territory already inhabited by a predominantly Arab population.
One must ask: did Balfour have the authority to make such a commitment? The answer is no. He exceeded his mandate, and the consequences of that decision reverberate to this day. The ongoing suffering of Palestinians is inseparable from this declaration, which laid the foundation for displacement and dispossession.
The British Empire’s record of occupation is instructive. In India, once a thriving contributor to the global economy, colonial rule left behind famine, malnutrition, and economic ruin. This pattern repeated across the 65 countries Britain occupied. Rarely did Britain withdraw without leaving behind deep divisions and unresolved conflicts. Palestine was no exception.
The narrative of a "Promised Land" has been used to justify the displacement of Palestinians. Yet the people of Palestine have lived on this land for centuries—long before the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. To label them "illegal inhabitants" is to deny history itself. The idea of a promised land collapses when it is built on the suffering of others.
The Holocaust, a tragedy of unimaginable scale, forced Jews to flee persecution under Adolf Hitler. Books such as Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning and Anne Frank’s Diary of a Young Girl testify to the horrors of that era. Yet it is also true that many countries closed their doors to Jewish refugees, leaving them adrift and vulnerable. Palestine was among the few places that offered refuge. Today, however, Palestinians themselves are being expelled from their homes in the name of that same refuge.
Israel’s claim to "self-defense" must be scrutinized. In international law, the aggressor cannot claim the right of self-defense against the people it displaces. Palestinians, not Israel, are the ones defending their homes, their families, and their existence.
The role of international institutions is equally troubling. The United Nations, despite its charters and conventions, has failed to hold Israel accountable. The United States’ unwavering support for Israel has shielded it from consequences that other nations would face under similar circumstances. When aggression is carried out by Israel, it is tolerated; when carried out elsewhere, it is condemned in the name of "saving democracy."
Recent developments highlight the scale of this aggression. Statements by Israeli officials, including National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, who has referred to Palestinians as "animals," reveal a disturbing dehumanization. Legislation advocating the death penalty for those who reject the state of Israel underscores the coercive measures being used to enforce legitimacy. When the theory of the "Promised Land" falters, force is employed to sustain it.
The solution cannot lie in further displacement. If the principle of a two-nation theory is to be applied, it should be implemented within the lands of those nations that historically rejected Jewish refugees, not at the expense of Palestinians who once offered them shelter. Justice demands that the rights of Palestinians be restored, and that the narrative of the "Promised Land" be recognized for what it is: a political construct that has failed to deliver peace.
---
*Student and human rights activist
Comments