Who is the Real Owner of Palestine Land? Unpacking Historical Claims and Modern Realities

Who is the real owner of Palestine land?

The question of "Who is the real owner of Palestine land?" is undeniably one of the most complex and deeply contested issues of our time. It’s a question that evokes strong emotions, historical grievances, and a seemingly unending cycle of conflict. I remember a conversation I had years ago with a Palestinian taxi driver in Jerusalem. He spoke with a quiet sorrow about his family’s history, of lands passed down through generations, now inaccessible or occupied. He wasn’t just talking about property; he was talking about identity, belonging, and a profound sense of dispossession. This personal anecdote encapsulates the heart of the matter – for many, the land is not merely a physical space but a deeply ingrained part of their cultural and personal heritage.

The answer to who truly "owns" Palestine land is not a simple declaration of title. Instead, it’s a tapestry woven from centuries of history, diverse populations, religious significance, international law, and ongoing political struggles. Different groups and individuals assert varying claims based on historical presence, religious connection, conquest, and international agreements. To understand this multifaceted issue, we must delve into the historical narratives, examine the legal frameworks, and consider the lived experiences of those most affected.

A Historical Perspective: Millennia of Presence and Shifting Control

The concept of ownership, in the modern sense of deeds and titles, is a relatively recent development in the long and intricate history of the land often referred to as Palestine. For millennia, this region has been a crossroads, inhabited by numerous peoples and empires. Its significance is rooted not just in its geographical position but also in its profound religious importance to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Early Inhabitants and Biblical Narratives

The earliest historical records and archaeological evidence point to various Semitic peoples inhabiting the land. The biblical narrative, central to the Jewish claim, recounts the covenant between God and Abraham, promising the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants. This narrative forms a foundational element for the modern Zionist movement’s claim to the land. Following their sojourn in Egypt, the Israelites, according to biblical accounts, conquered and settled in the land, establishing kingdoms such as those of Saul, David, and Solomon.

However, it’s crucial to acknowledge that these were not the only peoples present. Throughout antiquity, the region was populated by Canaanites, Philistines, and other groups. The biblical accounts themselves describe struggles for control and coexistence. The narrative of conquest and divine promise, while deeply significant to Jewish identity and historical memory, is also a point of contention, as it is interpreted by others through different historical lenses and contemporary realities.

Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic Eras

Following periods of Babylonian, Persian, and Greek rule, the land came under Roman control. During the Roman period, and later the Byzantine era, significant Jewish revolts led to widespread displacement and exile, often referred to as the Diaspora. While Jewish communities remained, their political sovereignty was broken. The area continued to be populated by diverse groups, including Christians and a growing Arab population.

The advent of Islam in the 7th century CE marked another significant shift. The Rashidun Caliphate conquered the region from the Byzantines. Jerusalem (Al-Quds) became a holy city for Islam, second only to Mecca and Medina. This era saw the integration of the land into the broader Islamic world. Arab and Muslim populations became a dominant presence, and Arabic became the lingua franca. However, the diverse religious communities, including Jews and Christians, generally continued to live in the region, albeit under Muslim rule and with varying degrees of autonomy and protection.

Crusades, Mamluks, and Ottoman Rule

The medieval period witnessed the Crusades, with European Christian armies briefly establishing kingdoms in the Levant, including parts of what is now Palestine. These were periods of intense conflict and flux, disrupting existing social and political structures. Following the Crusades, the region came under the rule of the Mamluks, and then, for over 400 years, the Ottoman Empire.

The Ottoman period is particularly relevant to modern claims because it established a relatively stable administrative system across the region. During this time, the land was part of larger vilayets (provinces) within the Ottoman Empire. Significant Arab populations, both Muslim and Christian, were the primary inhabitants, alongside smaller but ancient Jewish communities. The Ottoman census records from that era, though imperfect by modern standards, offer insights into the demographic composition. This period also saw Jewish immigration from Europe, particularly in the later 19th century, driven by anti-Semitism and the nascent Zionist movement. These immigrants, while contributing to the land's development, also represented a new dynamic in the existing demographic and social fabric.

The Genesis of Modern Claims: Zionism and Arab Nationalism

The late 19th and early 20th centuries witnessed the rise of two powerful nationalist movements that would profoundly shape the destiny of Palestine: Zionism and Arab Nationalism.

The Zionist Movement and the Balfour Declaration

Zionism, emerging as a political ideology in response to centuries of anti-Semitism and persecution, advocated for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the historical land of their ancestors. The movement gained momentum in the late 19th century, with figures like Theodor Herzl articulating its political vision. Early Zionist activities included land purchases and the establishment of agricultural settlements.

A pivotal moment arrived during World War I with the Balfour Declaration of 1917. The British government declared its support "for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people," while simultaneously emphasizing that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." This declaration, made in a context of wartime strategy and seeking support from various factions, would become a cornerstone for Zionist aspirations and a source of deep grievance for the Arab population.

The British Mandate and Growing Tensions

Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, the League of Nations granted Great Britain a mandate over Palestine. The mandate's stated purpose was to prepare the territory for eventual self-governance. However, the conflicting promises made during the war—to Arab leaders for an independent Arab state and to Zionists for a Jewish national home—created an inherently unstable situation.

During the Mandate period (1920-1948), Jewish immigration increased significantly, partly due to rising anti-Semitism in Europe and the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. This influx led to growing tensions and frequent clashes between the Arab and Jewish populations, fueled by competition for land, resources, and political influence. Arab leaders, fearing that the Zionist project would lead to their displacement, organized resistance. The Peel Commission of 1937 proposed a partition of Palestine, which was rejected by Arab leaders but accepted in principle by the Jewish Agency.

World War II and the United Nations Partition Plan

The horrors of the Holocaust intensified the international pressure to find a solution for displaced Jewish populations and solidified support for a Jewish state. After World War II, Britain, unable to resolve the escalating conflict, handed the issue over to the newly formed United Nations.

In 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, the "Partition Plan for Palestine." This plan proposed dividing Mandate Palestine into an Arab state, a Jewish state, and an internationally administered zone for Jerusalem. The Jewish leadership accepted the plan, while the Arab leadership and neighboring Arab states rejected it, arguing it was unjust and that the UN had no right to partition their land without their consent. They argued that the partition awarded a disproportionate amount of land to the Jewish minority.

The Establishment of Israel and the Palestinian Exodus

The rejection of the UN Partition Plan and the imminent end of the British Mandate set the stage for open conflict. On May 14, 1948, as the British mandate expired, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, declared the establishment of the State of Israel.

The 1948 Arab-Israeli War (Al-Nakba)

Immediately following the declaration of Israel, armies from neighboring Arab states—Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan, and Iraq—invaded. This war, known to Israelis as the War of Independence and to Palestinians as Al-Nakba (the Catastrophe), resulted in a decisive victory for Israel. Israel expanded its territory beyond the boundaries set by the UN partition plan. Crucially, the war led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, who became refugees. The exact numbers are debated, but it's widely estimated that around 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homes. This event is a central pillar of the Palestinian narrative of dispossession and a core element of their claim to the land.

The armistice agreements that followed the war did not establish permanent borders. Jordan annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Egypt took control of the Gaza Strip. These territories were not recognized as sovereign Palestinian states but were administered by Jordan and Egypt, respectively. The Palestinian people lost their political self-determination and their direct connection to the land within Israel.

The 1967 Six-Day War and the Occupation

The geopolitical landscape shifted dramatically again in 1967. Following a period of heightened tensions and military buildup, Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt, initiating the Six-Day War. In a swift and decisive campaign, Israel occupied the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights (from Syria), and the Sinai Peninsula (from Egypt).

The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip fundamentally altered the situation. These territories were considered occupied Palestinian territories under international law. The Palestinian population in these areas came under Israeli military rule. This occupation has led to the establishment of Israeli settlements, the division of Palestinian communities, and a continuing struggle for self-determination and statehood. For Palestinians, this marked a further loss of land and sovereignty, extending the experience of displacement and dispossession.

Contemporary Claims and Legal Frameworks

In the present day, the question of ownership is framed by a complex interplay of historical narratives, demographic realities, international law, and the ongoing political conflict. The land in question is often understood as encompassing Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.

The Israeli Perspective

The Israeli perspective on ownership is multifaceted. Fundamentally, Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is paramount. This right is grounded in the historical and religious connection of the Jewish people to the land, the principle of self-determination exercised after centuries of persecution, and the UN partition plan, albeit imperfectly realized. Israelis view the land as their ancestral homeland, a place where they have a historical right to sovereignty and security.

Legally, Israel’s claim to territory beyond its 1967 borders (the West Bank and Gaza) is more contested. While Israel considers its presence in these areas as a matter of security and historical connection, it does not formally annex most of the West Bank. The status of East Jerusalem, which Israel annexed unilaterally in 1980 and considers its undivided capital, is a particularly contentious issue, rejected by most of the international community.

The Palestinian Perspective

The Palestinian perspective asserts a deep historical and continuous presence on the land, stretching back millennia. Palestinians view themselves as the indigenous people of Palestine, whose rights and self-determination have been systematically undermined by external forces and the establishment of Israel.

Their claim is rooted in:

Historical Continuity: The presence of Arab populations for over a thousand years prior to the rise of modern Zionism. Dispossession and Displacement: The trauma and injustice of Al-Nakba in 1948, leading to the loss of homes, lands, and national identity. Right to Self-Determination: The inherent right of the Palestinian people to govern themselves and establish their own independent state in their homeland. International Law: The principles of international law, particularly regarding the illegality of acquiring territory by force (as established in UN Security Council Resolution 242 following the 1967 war, which calls for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in that conflict).

For Palestinians, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza since 1967 represents an ongoing denial of their fundamental rights and aspirations. They see the Israeli settlements in these territories as illegal under international law and a significant obstacle to a two-state solution.

The Role of International Law and UN Resolutions

International law plays a crucial, though often debated, role in framing the claims to Palestine land. Key principles and resolutions include:

UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967): This resolution, passed after the Six-Day War, calls for "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories of recent conflict" and "termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area." It is widely interpreted as requiring Israel to withdraw from the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights. UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947): The partition plan that, while not legally binding in the same way as Security Council resolutions, laid the groundwork for the establishment of Israel and outlined a partition that was not fully implemented. The Geneva Conventions: Particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. This is the basis for the international consensus that Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal. The Right to Self-Determination: A fundamental principle of international law, underpinning the Palestinian demand for an independent state.

Despite these legal frameworks, enforcement has been inconsistent, leading to a protracted stalemate. The international community largely supports a "two-state solution," envisioning an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, but the path to achieving this remains elusive.

Demographics and Land Ownership: A Complex Picture

Understanding who "owns" the land also requires looking at the demographic realities and the patterns of land ownership, which are themselves products of historical events and ongoing policies.

Land Ownership in Israel

Within Israel’s internationally recognized borders (pre-1967 lines), the vast majority of land is state-owned or managed by quasi-governmental bodies like the Israel Land Authority. This authority manages about 93% of the land in Israel, leasing it for various uses. Private ownership exists, particularly for urban properties, but large-scale agricultural land is often managed by state entities.

The concept of Jewish ownership is deeply embedded in Israel’s national identity and legal framework, often enshrined in laws that prioritize Jewish settlement and development. However, Israeli Arab citizens, who constitute a significant minority, also own land and reside within Israel, though they often face challenges related to land access and development.

Land Ownership in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

The situation in the occupied Palestinian territories is far more complex and contested. Land ownership here is fragmented and impacted by Israeli military control and settlement policies.

Palestinian Private Ownership: A significant portion of land in the West Bank and Gaza is privately owned by Palestinians, with land titles often passed down through generations. This private ownership is a critical aspect of the Palestinian claim to their homeland and their right to return. Israeli Settlements: Israel has established numerous settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, often on land that was either state land (under Jordanian or Ottoman law, reclassified by Israel), confiscated for military purposes, or acquired through complex legal means. International law considers these settlements illegal, viewing them as a violation of the prohibition against an occupying power transferring its population into occupied territory. Area A, B, and C in the West Bank: Under the Oslo Accords (a series of agreements between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in the 1990s), the West Bank was divided into areas with varying degrees of Palestinian and Israeli control. Area A: Under full Palestinian civil and security control (covering about 18% of the West Bank). Area B: Under Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control (covering about 22% of the West Bank). Area C: Under full Israeli civil and security control (covering about 60% of the West Bank). This area includes most of the settlements, natural resources, and strategic territories. Palestinian construction and development in Area C are severely restricted. Gaza Strip: Since Israel’s disengagement and withdrawal of settlers and troops from Gaza in 2005, the territory has been under an Israeli and Egyptian blockade. While Israel no longer directly administers land within Gaza, its control over borders, airspace, and maritime access is extensive, leading many to classify it as still occupied.

The fragmentation of land, the restriction of Palestinian movement and development, and the expansion of settlements all contribute to the ongoing dispute over who effectively controls and benefits from the land.

The Concept of "Ownership" in the Context of a Protracted Conflict

Ultimately, the question of "Who is the real owner of Palestine land?" cannot be answered with a simple legal deed or a single historical narrative. It is a question that is perpetually being negotiated and contested through political action, international diplomacy, and the lived experiences of millions.

From my perspective, the concept of ownership in this context is not just about who holds title to a piece of earth. It's about:

Historical Justice: Rectifying past wrongs and addressing the dispossession and displacement that have occurred. National Self-Determination: The right of both Israelis and Palestinians to live in safety and security, with their own recognized states. Human Rights: Ensuring that all people living in the land, regardless of their ethnicity or religion, have their fundamental rights respected. Religious Significance: Acknowledging and respecting the profound religious importance of Jerusalem and other holy sites for Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and ensuring access and freedom of worship.

The claims are not mutually exclusive in their aspiration for legitimacy, but they are in direct conflict in their territorial and political demands. The land is central to the identity and survival of both Israelis and Palestinians. For Israelis, it represents a return to their ancestral homeland and a refuge. For Palestinians, it is their only homeland, the place of their heritage, and the site of their ongoing struggle for freedom and statehood.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

How can the competing claims to Palestine land be reconciled?

Reconciling the competing claims to Palestine land is the central challenge of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Historically, various peace proposals and negotiation frameworks have been attempted, with varying degrees of success and eventual failure. The most widely supported framework internationally is the "two-state solution," which envisions an independent Palestinian state existing alongside the State of Israel. Under this model, the borders would largely be based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed land swaps. Jerusalem would likely be shared or divided, and a solution for Palestinian refugees would need to be found.

Another proposed framework, though less widely supported by the international community, is a "one-state solution," which could take different forms. One version suggests a single, secular, democratic state encompassing all of historic Palestine, where all citizens, Jewish and Arab, would have equal rights. Another version envisions a binational state with power-sharing arrangements. However, these solutions face significant hurdles, including deep-seated mistrust, security concerns, and the question of national identity for both peoples.

Key elements that any potential reconciliation must address include:

Borders: Establishing secure and recognized borders for both states, likely based on the 1967 lines with adjustments. Jerusalem: Finding a mutually acceptable arrangement for the city, which is holy to three major religions and claimed by both sides as their capital. Refugees: Addressing the plight of Palestinian refugees and their demand for a "right of return" to their ancestral homes in what is now Israel. Security: Ensuring the security of both Israelis and Palestinians, with robust guarantees and mechanisms to prevent future conflict. Mutual Recognition: Israel recognizing a Palestinian state, and Palestinians recognizing Israel's right to exist securely.

The process requires immense political will, compromise from all parties, and sustained, constructive engagement from the international community. It is a journey marked by decades of failed attempts, but the underlying imperative for a just and lasting peace remains.

Why is the historical ownership of Palestine land so contentious?

The historical ownership of Palestine land is contentious primarily because multiple groups, each with deep historical, religious, and cultural ties to the region, assert legitimate and often exclusive claims. The narrative is not a single, undisputed lineage but a layered history of migrations, conquests, exiles, and returns.

For Jewish people, the historical connection to the land of Israel is central to their religious identity and national narrative, dating back thousands of years to biblical times. The period of exile (Diaspora) following Roman rule is seen as a prolonged period of statelessness, and the establishment of Israel in 1948 is viewed as a fulfillment of a historical right and a necessary refuge. This claim is supported by archaeological evidence and millennia of religious and cultural connection.

For Palestinian Arabs, the historical claim is based on centuries of continuous habitation, cultural development, and a strong sense of belonging to the land that predates the modern Zionist movement. They trace their presence back through various eras, including the Arab conquests and Ottoman rule, and view the establishment of Israel as an act of dispossession that displaced hundreds of thousands of people from their homes and lands. They see their historical presence and continuous community as the primary basis for their claim to self-determination.

The conflict is exacerbated by the fact that both claims often overlap geographically and temporally, and historical events have been interpreted and utilized differently by each side to bolster their present-day arguments. The dispossession of one group is often viewed as the necessary condition for the establishment of the other's state. This creates an inherent zero-sum dynamic in historical narratives, making reconciliation incredibly difficult.

Furthermore, external powers and international decisions throughout the 20th century (such as the Balfour Declaration and the UN Partition Plan) have significantly shaped the modern claims and added layers of international legal and political complexity, without fully satisfying the aspirations of either group. This history of competing claims, dispossession, and external intervention is why the ownership of Palestine land remains one of the most intractable historical disputes.

What role does religion play in the claims to Palestine land?

Religion plays an absolutely pivotal and deeply interwoven role in the claims to Palestine land, particularly concerning Jerusalem and the broader historical narratives of both Jewish and Muslim peoples.

For Judaism, the land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael) is the biblical homeland, promised to Abraham and his descendants by God. It is the site of ancient Jewish kingdoms, the location of the First and Second Temples (destroyed by the Babylonians and Romans, respectively), and central to Jewish law, prayer, and identity for millennia. The concept of returning to Zion, or the return to the Land of Israel, has been a core tenet of Jewish hope and religious observance throughout the Diaspora. Jerusalem, especially the Western Wall, is the holiest site in Judaism.

For Islam, Palestine holds immense religious significance. Jerusalem (Al-Quds) is considered the third holiest city in Islam, after Mecca and Medina. It is believed to be the site of the Prophet Muhammad's miraculous night journey (Isra and Mi'raj), during which he ascended to heaven from the Dome of the Rock. The Al-Aqsa Mosque complex, located within Jerusalem, is a central holy site for Muslims worldwide. The historical narratives of Islam also connect to figures and events in the region, such as the prophets Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.

Christianity also holds the land of Palestine as sacred, as it is the birthplace of Jesus Christ. Sites like Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Jerusalem are central to Christian pilgrimage and theology. While direct political claims by Christian denominations are less pronounced in the current conflict, the religious significance of the land to billions of Christians globally influences international perspectives and humanitarian concerns.

The religious dimensions often elevate the dispute beyond mere territorial claims. They imbue the land with divine sanction and profound spiritual meaning, making compromise exceptionally difficult. The competing religious narratives and the sanctity of certain sites, especially Jerusalem, are not just historical footnotes but are active elements in the ongoing conflict, often used to mobilize support and justify positions. The struggle for control of the land is thus often perceived, by those involved and their supporters, as a struggle for the heart of their faith.

What does international law say about the ownership of occupied Palestinian territories?

International law, particularly concerning the laws of occupation, addresses the status of territories captured in war. Following the 1967 Six-Day War, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip came under Israeli military occupation. International law, specifically the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, governs the conduct of an occupying power.

Key aspects of international law regarding occupied territories include:

Prohibition of Annexation: The acquiring of territory by force is prohibited under international law. This is enshrined in UN Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict. Inapplicability of Settlement Activity: Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." The international community, including the UN, the International Court of Justice, and most countries, considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to be illegal under this provision. Temporary Nature of Occupation: Occupation is considered a temporary legal status. The occupying power has administrative responsibilities but does not gain sovereignty over the territory. The ultimate aim is to restore the sovereign rights of the local population. Obligations of the Occupying Power: The occupying power must administer the territory in a manner that ensures the welfare of the local population, respects their existing laws and customs as much as possible, and maintains public order and safety. It cannot exploit the resources of the occupied territory for its own benefit beyond what is necessary for administration and security.

Based on these principles, international law does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over the West Bank, East Jerusalem, or Gaza Strip. While the legal status of these territories remains contested in the political realm, their classification as "occupied Palestinian territories" under international law is widely accepted. This legal framework underpins the international community's position regarding the illegality of settlements and the requirement for Israeli withdrawal.

Who currently administers the West Bank and Gaza Strip?

The administration of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is a complex and fragmented situation, reflecting the ongoing conflict and the Oslo Accords.

West Bank: The Oslo Accords divided the West Bank into Areas A, B, and C. Area A: Under full Palestinian civil and security control. This includes major Palestinian cities like Ramallah, Nablus, and Jenin. The Palestinian Authority (PA) is the governing body here. Area B: Under Palestinian civil control but joint Israeli-Palestinian security control. The PA has primary responsibility for civilian matters, while Israel retains security oversight. Area C: Under full Israeli civil and security control. This comprises about 60% of the West Bank and includes most of the settlements, industrial zones, natural resources, and strategic land. Israel’s Civil Administration is responsible for governing Area C, which severely limits Palestinian development and access. The Palestinian Authority (PA), established by the Oslo Accords, is intended to govern Palestinian areas, but its authority is severely constrained by Israeli military control, the presence of settlements, and internal Palestinian political divisions.

Gaza Strip: Since 2007, the Gaza Strip has been governed by Hamas, an Islamist political and militant organization, following a conflict with Fatah (the dominant faction within the PA). Israel and Egypt maintain a blockade on Gaza, severely restricting the movement of people and goods. While Israel withdrew its settlers and military from within Gaza in 2005, it maintains significant control over Gaza's borders, airspace, and maritime access, leading many international bodies to still consider it an occupied territory. The PA nominally still has some role, but Hamas is the de facto governing authority within Gaza.

The administration is therefore not a clear-cut division of sovereignty but a system of shared and contested control, with Israel retaining significant overarching authority, especially concerning security and movement, in the occupied territories.

Conclusion: A Continuous Search for Justice and Peace

The question "Who is the real owner of Palestine land?" is not one that can be answered definitively with a historical document or a single legal decree. It is a question that has been shaped by millennia of human history, religious devotion, national aspirations, and profound human tragedy. The land is claimed by Israelis as their ancestral homeland, a refuge, and the site of their renewed sovereignty. It is claimed by Palestinians as their indigenous homeland, the land of their heritage and their struggle for self-determination.

Both Israelis and Palestinians have deep, intertwined, and often conflicting historical narratives and religious connections to the land. International law provides a framework for understanding the current situation, particularly regarding the occupied territories, but its enforcement has proven challenging. The demographic realities, patterns of land ownership, and the ongoing political realities further complicate any simple assertion of ownership.

Ultimately, the "ownership" of Palestine land is less about a single definitive title and more about the ongoing quest for justice, security, and the right to self-determination for both peoples. A lasting resolution will require acknowledging the historical narratives and grievances of all parties, upholding international law, and fostering a political process that can lead to a future where both Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and dignity on their ancestral land.