All around the world, many political issues seem to strike a nerve with people from different walks of life. As a result, passions boil and arguments ensue. But for some, they aren’t just political; they’re personal. In fact, for the past century, the rift between Israel and the people of Palestine has run deep. The conflict has burgeoned into a massive human rights violation, which in turn called the attention of P5 states and the eyes of the world. So why hasn’t a solution been found 100 years later? And why haven’t we used history as a clearer lens toward finding a solution?

In November 1917, the British government broadcasted the Balfour Declaration, which vowed to the world that they would uphold a Jewish state due to aligned interests in the Middle East. But by elevating Israeli interests, they were simultaneously deprioritizing Palestinian communities. The flames of conflict between the two groups were fanned more so by the Treaty of Versailles, which splintered relations in the Middle East versus salvaging them.

By dividing the Middle East between European powers to preserve Western influence, countries weren’t allowed to develop their identities, and diversity further became intolerable. Tensions finally culminated with the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which saw rising Arab and Jewish nationalist movements, one-sided British policies, and the fight for an authentic state. Ultimately, the war was a massive and decisive defeat for all Palestinians, and most of them became refugees.

Even before their exile and condemnation, practicing Islam has been intrinsic to how Palestinians express their national identity. However, the Balfour Declaration showed their people, and the world, that powerful states were purposefully choosing to align with Israeli values over theirs. Post-war, they were struggling to not only stay alive but to keep a foothold in the fight for their state. Therefore, the Fatah, a movement based on the armed struggle to free Palestine from Israel, was formed.

Many describe it is as a secular political party, but for Palestinians, it was the middle ground between Marxism and Islamism.

For those in exile, associating with the Fatah became a popular option because membership elevated their social and financial status, allowed a single interpretation of Islam, and created better opportunities for oppressed groups, such as women. But like any movement finding its footing, it was still inherently complex and fragmented. Notably, the fragmentation came from two problems: generational splits in the organization and tensions between “insider” and “outsider” groups. However, the introduction of a new faction would mark the definitive start of Palestinian nationalism mixed with vibrant, radical Islam.

While the Fatah was developing within Palestinian quarters, another infamous faction had been making strides in Egypt: the Muslim Brotherhood. Like Palestinians, Egypt did not include Arabs in the new pluralistic worldview. The Brotherhood was formed around a personal value set centered on Islam. Like the Fatah, the movement is on a spectrum, and from it, many violent offshoots developed—most notably the Hamas.

Due to war in the region, extremist views on religion, and a new generation, the Hamas’ radical Islamic national identity spread into Palestinian refugee camps and flourished. In Identity & Religion in Palestine, the author corroborates this by writing, “the arbitrary killing of friends and neighbors…; alienating encounters with secular-nationalists…; negative or alienating experiences related to the general secular ethos of Bethlehem and Thawra; and a consequent crisis of values that resolved itself through positive interactions with Islamists and Islamism.” Through these groups, many gained the will to fight again for their state, and for others; it was a reevaluation of their tenets.

But for all, it was a sharing of suffering, a collective struggle, and an ethical pathos that cut across every Palestinian faction.

So why hasn’t it been easy for Israel and Palestine to find a resolution, even when it’s clear that religion is inherently tied with each sides’ nationality and cannot be ignored? As mentioned before, the Balfour Declaration and Treaty of Versailles destroyed a group of people and set the stage for rebels to emerge, like the Fatah and Hamas. Traditional Islam was ebbing into a radical territory and was considered successful, due to multiple victories against adversaries, including the Soviets. Violence became a facet of the Palestinian people’s autonomy. However, instead of acknowledging their slow upward climb for freedom, Israel and Western allies have reshaped it into their narrative. That narrative is fear. Fear of the unknown and misunderstood.

Fundamentalist offshoots have committed violent acts against Israelis; in fact, the entire world has seen this. But what most of us don’t see or refuse to acknowledge are the violent acts committed by Israel against Palestinians. According to the Human Rights Watch, “Fifty years after Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip, it controls these areas through repression, institutionalized discrimination, and systematic abuses of the Palestinian population’s rights.” So, while we see news channels splash images of a bombing by Palestinians all over television, they refuse to show the entrenched abuse used by Israel every single day. In the end, both are rooted in religion and violence, but the world only seems to condemn one side.

Therefore, not only has that narrative successfully placed the full blame on the Palestinians, but it also constructed a new worldview that has convinced people that Islam cannot coexist peacefully.

One person, in particular, made shockwaves in the world arena by articulating that exact dilemma, and his name is Dr. Edward Said. He did this by taking one of the West’s biggest core issues and questioning it: why do we constantly define ourselves against an “other?” In other words, people are often afraid of what they do not understand, and the West perpetuates this by not allowing a cohesion between themselves and these identified “others.” Because Islam won’t accede to the mold created by the West, Israel and its allies have categorized it as “other” and therefore unacceptable.

Because of this, there has been a systematic prioritization of Israel’s need for land above Palestine’s, despite having that space and home for centuries before. That has made legitimate statehood hard for Palestinians to achieve, which is an integral part of peace talks. During the Oslo Accords, Palestine not only recognized Israel’s “right to exist,” but it also conceded much of the land they used to call home, simply because the need for independence is too high. While Palestine would accept a two-state solution if international borders would revert to the original 1948 ones, Israel has stalled for years because they don’t want to forfeit land or authority.

By rejecting Palestinians and their values, struggles, and history, we are single-handedly ruining chances of peace with Israel. Palestinians have put their lives into the groups and identities they have formed, and they cannot give that up so easily to appease the same people who have oppressed them. Without a doubt, everyone who has a hand in the Arab-Israeli cookie jar has got to be held accountable, even Palestine. But we shouldn’t place all the blame, weight, and fear on a group of people who have been discriminated against from the start. Ultimately, those in positions of power, especially Western allies, need to change the narrative through a better understanding of history and perspective and a more responsible mindset.