The Palestinian Delusion

1. The "Palestinian People" is a Modern Invention

There is a very simple reason for this: there were no Palestinians.

A recent construct. The concept of a distinct "Palestinian people" with a unique national identity is a modern invention, largely for propaganda purposes, dating back only to the 1960s. Historically, Arabs living in the region now known as Palestine considered themselves part of a larger Syrian or Arab identity, often referring to the area as "Southern Syria." This is evidenced by petitions to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 from groups identifying as the "Muslim-Christian Association," insisting on Palestine's inseparability from Syria.

Historical figures' admissions. Prominent Arab leaders themselves acknowledged this lack of a distinct Palestinian identity. Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, an Arab Muslim leader, told the Peel Commission in 1937, "There is no such country as Palestine! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented!" Similarly, PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein stated in 1977 that "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity." Even Yasser Arafat, the supposed father of the Palestinian nation, admitted in 1993 that "Palestine is nothing but a drop in an enormous ocean. Our nation is the Arabic nation."

Propaganda's success. The Soviet KGB is credited with inventing the "Palestinian people" in the 1960s to counter Israel's image and create a narrative of a small, oppressed indigenous group. This involved fabricating historical records, such as falsifying Arafat's birth certificate to claim he was born in Jerusalem. Despite the lack of historical or archaeological evidence for a distinct Palestinian culture, language, or political entity prior to the mid-20th century, this narrative has been widely accepted globally, becoming a powerful tool in the ongoing conflict.

2. Palestine Was Desolate Before Zionist Settlement

Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes.

A barren land. For centuries before significant Zionist immigration, the land that would become Israel was largely desolate, sparsely populated, and economically stagnant. Numerous travelers and chroniclers, from the Roman historian Dio Cassius in the 2nd century AD to Mark Twain in 1869, consistently described the region as ruined, barren, and depopulated. Twain famously wrote in "The Innocents Abroad" that "Palestine is desolate and unlovely," noting vast stretches with "not a solitary village" and "not ten human beings."

Eyewitness accounts. European visitors in the 16th to 19th centuries painted a consistent picture:

• 1590: An English visitor to Jerusalem noted "Nothing there is to be scene but a little of the old walls... and all the rest is grasse, mosse and Weedes."
• 1697: Henry Maundrell found Nazareth "an inconsiderable village" and Acre "a few poor cottages."
• 1816: James Silk Buckingham described Jaffa as having "all the appearances of a poor village."
• 1840: A traveler noted the land between Hebron and Bethlehem was "now abandoned and desolate."
• 1857: The British consul in Palestine stated, "the country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is that of a body of population."

Jewish continuity and Arab influx. Despite this desolation, a continuous, albeit small and often oppressed, Jewish presence remained in the land. The influx of Arab populations, particularly in the 19th and early 20th centuries, often coincided with and was spurred by the economic development brought by Zionist settlement. The Peel Commission in 1937 acknowledged that "Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the National Home." This historical context challenges the narrative of a vibrant, indigenous Palestinian society being displaced by Jewish "settler-colonialism."

3. Islamic Texts Fuel Anti-Semitism and Jihad Against Israel

You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers to be the Jews...

Religious imperative. The core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not merely territorial or political, but deeply religious, rooted in Islamic texts that mandate hostility towards Jews and the subjugation of non-Muslims. The Qur'an consistently portrays Jews as treacherous, scheming liars, the "most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers" (5:82), and even cursed by Allah, with some transformed into "apes and pigs" (2:63-66).

Jihad and supremacy. This theological framework makes genuine peace with a Jewish state impossible for many Muslims. Key Islamic doctrines include:

• Jihad: Warfare against unbelievers to establish Muslim supremacy and Islamic law.
• "Drive them out from where they drove you out" (Qur'an 2:191): A divine command interpreted by Palestinians as a mandate to expel Israelis.
• No non-Muslim rule: Non-Muslims have "absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth" (Syed Abul Ala Maududi).
• End Times prophecy: Hadith states Muslims will kill Jews until stones and trees reveal their hiding places, except for the Gharqad tree (Muslim 6985).

Palestinian leaders' explicit statements. Numerous Palestinian and Arab clerics openly declare the conflict a religious war, not a territorial dispute. Hamas, for instance, states, "Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah." Mahmoud al-Habbash, a close advisor to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, has called it "the Battle of History between Islam and the enemies of Islam; between the Muslims and the enemies of Muslims." This pervasive religious animosity, often downplayed or ignored by Western policymakers, is the fundamental obstacle to any lasting peace.

4. Arab Leaders Orchestrated Palestinian Exodus in 1948

The Arab state which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refugees.

A tactical evacuation. Contrary to the widely accepted narrative that Israelis forcibly expelled Palestinians in 1948, a significant portion of the Arab population left their homes at the explicit urging of Arab leaders. This was a strategic decision, intended to clear the way for invading Arab armies who promised a swift victory and the subsequent return of the Arabs to their homes, enriched by the property of the vanquished Jews.

Evidence from Arab sources:

• May 1946: Abdul Rahman Hassan Azzam, Secretary-General of the Arab League, proposed evacuating "all Arab women and children from Palestine" to declare "Jehad."
• January 1948: The Arab newspaper Ash Sha'ab lamented that Arabs were abandoning their homes, but this was part of the larger plan.
• October 1948: The Economist reported that "the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit."
• February 1949: The Jordanian daily Falastin complained that "the Arab state which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily... have failed to keep their promise."
• October 1963: The Egyptian daily Akhbar el Yom reported that "the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."

The "refugee" weapon. This orchestrated exodus created the "Palestinian refugee" problem, which Arab states deliberately perpetuated by refusing to integrate these populations, instead using them as a permanent political weapon against Israel. The expectation was that the Arab armies would "smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in," allowing the Palestinians to return to a land free of Jews. When the Arab armies were defeated, the narrative shifted to one of Israeli expulsion, fueling the Qur'anic imperative to "drive them out from where they drove you out."

5. The "Two-State Solution" is a Failed Delusion

Partition offers a chance of ultimate peace. No other plan does.

A persistent, yet failed, paradigm. The "two-state solution," first proposed by the Peel Commission in 1937 and formalized by UN Resolution 181 in 1947, has been consistently presented as the only path to peace. However, its repeated failure over decades stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the conflict's religious underpinnings and the Palestinian leadership's unwavering commitment to Israel's destruction. The Arabs immediately rejected UN Resolution 181, leading to the 1948 war.

Khartoum's rejection. After Israel's victory in the Six-Day War in 1967, the Arab League's Khartoum Resolution explicitly declared "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it." This demonstrated a categorical rejection of any solution that would legitimize a Jewish state. Despite this, international efforts, including UN Resolution 242, continued to push for a negotiated settlement, often demanding Israeli territorial concessions in exchange for vague promises of peace.

Gaza as a precedent. The 2005 Israeli unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, dismantling all settlements and leaving behind valuable infrastructure like greenhouses, served as a stark illustration of the two-state solution's likely outcome. Instead of building a peaceful state, Palestinians immediately looted and destroyed the greenhouses, and subsequently elected Hamas, which transformed Gaza into a launchpad for continuous attacks against Israel. This demonstrated that for many Palestinians, a "state" is not an end to conflict, but a new base for continued jihad, as articulated by Hamas's 2017 program accepting 1967 borders "without recognising Israel or ceding any rights." The "river to the sea" chant remains a potent symbol of this maximalist goal, leaving no room for a Jewish state.

6. Arafat's "Peace" Was a Tactical Deception (Hudaybiyya)

This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our Prophet Muhammad and Quraish, and you remember the Caliph Omar had refused this agreement and considered it ‘Sulha Dania’ [a despicable truce]. But Muhammad had accepted it and we are accepting now this [Oslo] peace accord.

The Hudaybiyya precedent. Yasser Arafat's apparent embrace of peace and recognition of Israel during the Oslo Accords (1993) was a calculated tactical deception, explicitly framed by Arafat himself as a modern-day Treaty of Hudaybiyya. This 7th-century treaty, signed by Prophet Muhammad with the pagan Quraysh of Mecca, was a temporary truce (hudna) undertaken when Muslim forces were weak, only to be broken when they regained strength. Arafat's private and public statements to Muslim audiences confirmed this strategy.

Arafat's duplicity:

• Pre-Oslo: Arafat's 1974 Political Program called for "armed struggle" to liberate "every part of Palestinian territory," aiming for "completing the liberation of all Palestinian territory."
• Oslo commitment: In his letter to Rabin, Arafat recognized Israel's right to exist and renounced terrorism.
• Post-Oslo reality: Arafat immediately reverted to incitement, calling for "jihad, jihad, jihad" and praising terrorists as "martyrs." He told a journalist that the Oslo gate was merely a means to "bring back to there [Palestine] the PLO and the resistance," promising "the Jews will leave Palestine like rats abandoning a sinking ship."
• "War is deceit": This Islamic principle (Muhammad's Hadith) justifies lying to the enemy during wartime to achieve strategic objectives.

Consequences of deception. The Oslo Accords, despite being hailed as a breakthrough, led to a surge in Palestinian terrorism, strengthening groups like Hamas who saw the PLO's "peace" as capitulation. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the accords, was assassinated by an Israeli extremist, while Arafat continued to receive international accolades, including a Nobel Peace Prize, for a "peace" he never genuinely intended to uphold. This pattern of Palestinian leaders making promises for international consumption while inciting violence internally has consistently undermined any genuine path to coexistence.

7. Palestinian Victimhood is Systematically Fabricated

I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story. He said, ‘We must make the most of this. So he wrote a press release, stating that at Deir Yassin, children were murdered. Pregnant women were raped. All sorts of atrocities.’

Propaganda as a weapon. A cornerstone of the Palestinian cause is the systematic fabrication of Israeli atrocities and the projection of victimhood, leveraging the Islamic principle that "war is deceit." This strategy aims to demonize Israel, garner international sympathy, and pressure the Jewish state into concessions. The UN, often uncritically accepting these claims, has condemned Israel far more than any other nation, while ignoring Palestinian incitement and terrorism.

Historical fabrications:

• Deir Yassin (1948): Dr. Hussein Khalidi, secretary of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, admitted to fabricating claims of massacres and rapes to incite Arab armies against Jews. This backfired, causing Palestinians to flee in terror, but the legend of a "massacre" persists, repeated by figures like Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi with grotesque embellishments.
• Muhamed al-Durah (2000): The alleged Israeli killing of a 12-year-old boy, caught on video, became a symbol of the Second Intifada. However, evidence suggests the incident was staged, with inconsistencies in footage and family photos, and no ambulance arrival.
• Jenin "massacre" (2002): Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat claimed "not less than five hundred" massacred. International investigations by Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, and the UN found no evidence of war crimes, confirming most killed were combatants.

Modern deceptions:

• Fake photos: A 1945 photo of Jewish Holocaust victims was used by Palestinian media to depict "massacres" at Al-Dawayima and Deir Yassin. A photo of an American toddler was used to claim an Israeli rocket killed a "2-year-old baby" in Gaza.
• Gaza border protests (2018):
  • Razan al-Najar, a "nurse" allegedly murdered by Israelis, was filmed stating she acted as a "human shield."
  • Layla Al Ghandour, an 8-month-old baby, was claimed killed by Israeli tear gas, but died of a heart defect. Hamas paid her family $2,200 for the claim.
  • Hamas offered $500 for wounded and $3,000 for killed in protests, and admitted 50 of 62 killed were its members.

This relentless campaign of deception, often amplified by an uncritical international media, successfully portrays Israel as a brutal oppressor, justifying Palestinian violence and demanding further concessions.

8. US "Peace Process" Consistently Favored Palestinians, Pressured Israel

I will represent your interests as if they were my own. You are my brother.

One-sided diplomacy. The American-led "peace process" has historically been characterized by a consistent pattern of favoring Palestinian demands, pressuring Israel for concessions, and largely overlooking Palestinian intransigence and incitement. This approach, often driven by a naive belief in the possibility of a negotiated solution despite the religious nature of the conflict, has repeatedly undermined Israel's security and failed to achieve lasting peace.

Examples of US bias:

• Jimmy Carter at Camp David (1978): Carter's deep admiration for Anwar Sadat ("my wonderful friend," "my brother") contrasted sharply with his "icy" relationship with Menachem Begin, whom he privately called a "psycho." Carter adopted Sadat's demands as his own, pressuring Begin to accept principles like "inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war" and the "right of return" for Palestinians, which would have fundamentally weakened Israel.
• James Baker (1989): As Secretary of State, he urged Israel to "forswear annexation. Stop settlement activity. Allow schools to reopen. Reach out to the Palestinians," placing the onus for peace almost entirely on Israel.
• George W. Bush's Road Map (2002): While calling for Palestinian reform and an end to terror, Bush also lectured Israel on "occupation" threatening its identity, demanded withdrawal to pre-Intifada lines, and a settlement freeze, assuming an equivalency in responsibility for the conflict.
• Barack Obama (2009-2017): Obama's administration showed a marked pro-Palestinian bias, equating Israeli self-defense measures with slavery and racism, and calling Mahmoud Abbas a "true partner" despite Abbas's consistent praise for terrorists and incitement. His final act was to allow a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements to pass, further isolating Israel.

Ignoring the core issue. This consistent pressure on Israel, coupled with a reluctance to hold Palestinian leaders accountable for their actions and rhetoric, stems from a failure to acknowledge the deep-seated Islamic imperative for jihad against Israel. By treating the conflict as a solvable political problem rather than a religious war, US diplomacy has inadvertently encouraged Palestinian intransigence and perpetuated the cycle of violence.

9. Palestinian Leaders Profit from Conflict, Reject Genuine Peace

The Palestinian people…doesn’t care about those [Hamas] with ‘the emotional stories of heroism,’ those with the slogans of heroism—slogans that when you hear them, you think that the people saying them are inside the al-Aqsa Mosque after they liberated it. And afterwards you discover that they’re only selling illusions, trading in suffering and blood, trading in victims, [saying]: ‘You Palestinians, our people, go and die so that we’ll go to the TV and media with strong declarations.’

Corruption and self-enrichment. A significant factor perpetuating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the widespread corruption and self-enrichment of Palestinian leaders, who benefit immensely from the ongoing "victimhood" narrative and the massive international aid it attracts. While ordinary Palestinians endure hardship, leaders like Mahmoud Abbas and his sons control a business empire worth hundreds of millions, and top Hamas figures like Musa Abu Marzook and Khaled Mashaal are billionaires, their fortunes often skimmed from aid money.

"Pay for Slay" and incitement. This corruption is intertwined with the deliberate perpetuation of violence and incitement. The Palestinian Authority's infamous "Pay for Slay" program, which rewards families of imprisoned or killed jihad terrorists with millions of dollars annually, directly incentivizes violence. Mahmoud Abbas defiantly defends this, calling prisoners and martyrs "planets and stars in the skies of the Palestinian struggle." This system ensures a continuous supply of "martyrs" and "victims" for propaganda, while leaders profit from the resulting international aid and political leverage.

Rejection of generous offers. The true extent of this rejection of genuine peace is evident in the repeated refusal of incredibly generous Israeli offers. In 2000, Ehud Barak offered Arafat a state in over 90% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, and East Jerusalem, which Arafat rejected, insisting on the "right of return" that would demographically destroy Israel. Similarly, in 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered Mahmoud Abbas an even more expansive deal, including land swaps and a resolution on Jerusalem, which Abbas also rejected. These rejections underscore that for these leaders, the goal is not a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel, but the eventual elimination of the Jewish state, a goal that sustains their power and wealth.

10. There is No "Solution" to the Conflict, Only Management

The reality is that there is no solution, at least not one that will bring about genuine amity and a situation in which Israelis and Palestinians live peacefully as neighbors.

The illusion of a solution. The persistent belief that a "solution" exists for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly through negotiated settlements, is a dangerous delusion. Decades of failed "peace processes," marked by Israeli concessions and Palestinian intransigence, demonstrate that the fundamental religious imperative of jihad, coupled with deep-seated anti-Semitism and supremacist ideology, makes genuine amity impossible. Palestinians consistently view negotiations as tactical maneuvers to achieve Israel's ultimate destruction, not as a path to coexistence.

Lessons from past failures:

• Gaza withdrawal (2005): Unilateral Israeli withdrawal led not to peace, but to the rise of Hamas and Gaza becoming a terror base.
• Oslo Accords (1993): Arafat's "recognition" of Israel was a tactical deception, leading to increased terrorism and incitement.
• Rejected offers: Palestinian leaders have rejected multiple, highly generous Israeli peace proposals, prioritizing the "right of return" and the elimination of a Jewish state over a viable Palestinian state.

A path of sober realism. Since a permanent peace based on mutual acceptance is unattainable under current conditions, the conflict must be managed with sober realism and strength, rather than wishful thinking. This requires:

• Unwavering strength: Military, cultural, and societal strength from Israel, as jihadists respect only power.
• Accountability: Holding Palestinian leaders accountable for incitement, "Pay for Slay" programs, and terror activities, with tangible consequences for non-compliance.
• Challenging narratives: Exposing Palestinian propaganda, fabricated victimhood, and the UN's anti-Israel bias.
• No more concessions for empty promises: Future negotiations, if any, must be contingent on verifiable, sustained renunciation of jihad in word and deed.

The free world must abandon the "whistling in the dark" approach that has enabled Palestinian intransigence for decades. Recognizing the conflict's true nature is the first step toward a more effective, albeit grim, management strategy that prioritizes Israel's security and challenges the destructive ideology of jihad.

Last updated: October 30, 2025