History Erased, Terror Rewarded: How the World Got Turned Upside-Down
I know how entrenched most views on the war in Gaza have become. This isn’t an attempt to change anyone’s mind, but to offer a fuller picture of how we got here and why the West’s response matters more than many realize. There is something terribly wrong in the way the world has responded to the war in Gaza. You have Arab nations, some of them not exactly known for supporting Israel, openly blaming Hamas for starving its own people, calling on the group to disarm and leave Gaza altogether. Meanwhile, here in the West, governments seem eager to recognize a Palestinian state with little or no preconditions.
It feels like the world has turned upside-down. Many of the Arab nations, closest to the conflict, seem to understand its complexity and danger most clearly, while many in Europe and North America act as if none of the history or context matters. That isn’t just ironic, it’s dangerous. And while much of the pressure in the West stems from genuine humanitarian concern, those concerns have been shaped by a narrative that rests on a series of flawed premises. And those premises just don’t hold up under the weight of scrutiny and history.
Take the most common understanding that the origins of the Palestinian and Israeli conflict began with “the occupation” in 1967. This version of events omits an essential piece of the story. From 1948 to 1967, Gaza was controlled by Egypt and the West Bank by Jordan. There were no calls for a Palestinian state then. The international focus wasn’t on Palestinian autonomy, it was on eliminating Israel. That doesn’t mean Palestinian identity didn’t exist, it did, and it was often suppressed by those very Arab regimes that ruled them. But the modern conflict cannot be understood by erasing the foundational desire among too many of the Arabs to completely eradicate the State of Israel.
And let’s not forget the failed peace offers. In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered a Palestinian state with all of Gaza and more than 90% of the West Bank. Yasser Arafat walked away without a counteroffer, and the Second Intifada followed. In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made an even more far-reaching offer, and again, it was rejected. Central to both refusals was the insistence on the “Right of Return,” the idea that millions of descendants of 1948 refugees would move to Israel and eventually, demographically erase its Jewish character. That demand is not a humanitarian plea or a plea for an independent State, rather it continues to be a political weapon. Of course these rejections weren’t solely about return; disputes over borders, security, and Jerusalem also played a role. But the refusal to relinquish the one demand that would end Israel as a Jewish state signaled what too many in the West still don’t want to admit: the rejection wasn’t about the terms of the agreement, it was about Israel itself. So, today, when they shout, “From the river to the sea,” they mean it.
These rejections left deep scars. The brutal violence of the Second Intifada and the rise of Hamas after Israel’s full withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 led many Israelis, especially those who once believed in “land for peace,” to lose faith. That shift opened the door for a more hawkish government, one that argued security could only come through strength. And so the cycle hardened. Palestinian rejectionism strengthened Israel’s right, and Israel’s response deepened Palestinian resentment. Meanwhile, the West developed a dangerous habit of applying different standards to each side. Even as both Israel and Hamas have faced investigations into possible war crimes, only one is routinely demonized.
This double standard is most glaring when it comes to how Hamas is treated. Technically, Hamas is not a sovereign state. But in practice, it has governed Gaza with all the tools of a regime, a military, an internal bureaucracy, and an arsenal designed for mass harm. It hides weapons in hospitals and schools, embeds fighters among civilians, and violates the laws of war as a strategy. And yet, much of the international community continues to treat Hamas like some ragtag militia, while holding Israel, precisely because it’s a state, to impossible moral standards. Yes, international law does place heightened obligations on states with advanced militaries, but ignoring Hamas’s crimes under the guise of asymmetry doesn’t make the playing field fairer, it distorts the truth and enables Hamas to essentially operate unchecked.
And then came October 7. What happened that day wasn’t just a terrorist attack. It was sadistic violence. And yet, instead of rallying to Israel’s defense, much of the world seemed to suffer a kind of moral amnesia as it related to October 7. You can see it most vividly in the media. When Hamas released a video of hostage Evyatar David, visibly skeletal, his family gave permission for a photo to be published. Major outlets like The New York Times declined. They described his condition in words, but refused to show the image. These same publications have printed graphic and often unverifiable images of Palestinian suffering on their front pages. This isn’t journalistic consistency, it’s clearly narrative bias, one that amplifies Palestinian pain while almost silencing Israeli suffering. And that distortion has only intensified since the war began, helping to fan the flames of global antisemitism.
That distortion has real consequences. It leads to a one-sided blame game for the humanitarian disaster in Gaza. The common narrative, Israel as villain, is contradicted by evidence from across the region that does not penetrate the mainstream media in any meaningful way. Yet, reports from Al-Arabiya and Sky News Arabia, and firsthand accounts from Gazans, describe Hamas stealing aid, reselling it at extortionate prices, and using food as a tool of repression. Western outlets rarely mention it. And while Egypt maintains strict border controls and plays a major role in the blockade, that too is glossed over. Even the UN’s decision to refuse IDF protection for aid convoys out of a declared commitment to neutrality rings hollow in light of evidence that Hamas operatives are embedded within UNRWA and have used UN facilities for military purposes. A principled stance on neutrality should not come at the cost of enabling terror and exacerbating a growing hunger crisis that they claim to be outraged over.
Before October 7, there was still real debate in Israel about the possibility of a two-state solution. Today, for most Israelis, the idea of granting statehood without preconditions to those who celebrated that massacre, including civilians, feels not just risky, it feels suicidal. And yet, in another twist of this upside-down reality, Western governments have accelerated their efforts to recognize a Palestinian state, often without addressing the conditions that would make such a state viable and peaceful. Ironically, many Arab states are far clearer in their expectations. The Arab League has said that any future Palestinian state must be demilitarized and Hamas must have no role in its leadership. Even Mahmoud Abbas has called for elections that would exclude Hamas and has expressed openness to a peaceful state next to Israel.
And how has Hamas responded to this sudden wave of recognition? By declaring victory. They aren’t just celebrating in vague terms, they’re drawing a direct line between mass murder and political reward. In a recent interview with Al Jazeera, senior Hamas official Ghazi Hamad said bluntly: “The initiative by several countries to recognize a Palestinian state is one of the fruits of October 7. We proved that victory over Israel is not impossible, and our weapons are a symbol of Palestinian dignity.”
This is a stunning admission. Hamas sees the international response not as a call for peace, but as validation. The message they’re hearing is clear that the slaughter of civilians, including their own, worked. It shifted global opinion. It gave their movement credibility. And in their eyes, it proved that terror pays. If this is not upside down, then what is?
This should be chilling to everyone. Now, this potentially doesn’t end with Gaza. What Hamad is really saying, to every extremist group watching around the world, is massacre enough civilians, and you’ll be treated like a legitimate actor on the world stage. That is the lesson now echoing across the region and beyond, not because of what happened on October 7, but because of how the world responded afterward.
A viable peace process cannot ignore what Hamas is, cannot reward mass murder, and cannot pretend that “Right of Return” is anything other than a threat to Israel’s existence. At the same time, it’s fair to acknowledge that ongoing issues like settlement expansion continue to erode trust on both sides. But the way forward is not to bypass these hard truths, it’s to confront them honestly.
Peace requires a Palestinian leadership willing to accept the permanent existence of a Jewish state and to abandon demographic warfare as policy. It requires a global media willing to tell the truth, even when it doesn’t fit a preferred narrative. And it requires the West to stop rewarding extremism under the guise of humanitarianism.
If we keep ignoring how Hamas truly operates, how the media shapes perception, and how the desire to “do something” leads to dangerous shortcuts, we’re not laying the groundwork for peace, we’re paving the way for the next war when this one finally ends.
This is the cost of seeing the world upside-down, and it’s time to turn it back around.
