In a recent article, I wrote about some of the beginnings of anti-Semitism to give context to the conflict in Gaza that has brought unprecedented global attention because of the lopsided military equation — which looks more like a sophisticated army and air force backed by American aircraft carriers attacking a refugee camp.

This raises at least two primary questions: what has this war done to Israel’s reputation internationally? And, where does the world go from here, as it relates to the Palestinian question?

We could easily ask a third question: what answer does Israel foresee as a peaceful resolution or is its position going forward one of continuous expansion, occupation and conflict?

From a United Nations perspective, out of 197 countries, Israel has the support of eight, including four that are small Pacific islands. Israel is as popular as North Korea. The latest saga and war against Hamas, with its heavy casualty list being women and children, triggered marches and protests all over the world in support of Palestinians. Israel has become increasingly narcissistic, isolated and dragging the US along with it.

It is so dramatic a situation that Saudi Arabia had a summit in Riyadh for all the Arab and Muslim countries. It was well attended, the most amazing phenomenon being the presence of the leader of Iran, whom the world hitherto considered as the arch rival of Saudi, and a speaker at the conference organised by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. He reiterated his support of those who resist the armed forces of Israel, including Hamas, but condemned the October 7 attack on innocent Israelis. The effects of this coalition have weakened American diplomacy in the region because she is seen now clearly as aiding Zionism by supporting the killing of innocent children. This is how they are being perceived.

Capitalism does not have an ideology; rather, it goes wherever it is likely to see profit. The Zionist experiment has failed. Instead of being the hoped-for democracy as an example in the region, which can be built upon, it has become an ethnostate and a form of apartheid that the American taxpayer is supporting with billions of dollars every year to maintain their expansionist policy.

A nation is built out of fear that its neighbour may attack it, so it chooses the path of remoteness rather than seeking pathways towards being inclusive. The world wanted to look away and turn a blind eye to the “settler” plan of occupying more and more Palestinian lands. This plan makes the two-state idea impossible, leaving only the possibility of a one-state solution where everyone has the same rights if indeed there is to be a peaceful resolution.

I know it sounds impossible and idealistic to have a partition with separate sovereignties that allow, for example, a Palestinian to have residency in Israel while an Israeli citizen can have residency in Palestinian lands. It may be the only solution left because the level of Israeli occupation makes two states a virtual impossibility.

The present path of Israel is untenable and can lead only to continuous conflict. Eventually, the economy of Israel, which was reliant on exporting its technology, will begin to suffer as the boycotts are launched from Arab and Muslim countries, plus South Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. We are already hearing of trading nations discussing the boycott of Israeli products.

Israeli supporters are quick to remind of the Oslo trial and failed Camp David agreement, which in essence was a trial balloon floated between the two peoples — not, as thought, an actual workable agreement with mass local support on all sides. Both populations disagreed and, as proof of that, Yitzhak Rabin was murdered by one of his own extremist Israelis. They do so without recognising that the agreement was an impossible agreement from the start to allow continuous occupation.

Sovereignty without land is a fallacy. The pre-1967 borders allowed for the possibility of the sovereignty of the Palestine region as a contiguous land. Under such a design the Israeli nationals that have settled in Palestine can remain but under the stewardship and leadership of Palestinian sovereign law. Conversely, an equal amount of Palestinians can live in Israel under the sovereignty of Israel.

The practice of one set of rights and privileges for Israelis and another set of rights and privileges for Palestinians is universally condemned. The Palestinians have not lost their moral status or the right to the table to discuss peace simply because they disagree with the Israeli occupation. Nor can the mistakes of the past on both sides over the past 75 years, which is the longest in the world for military occupation, be considered as a factor for continuing what in the eyes of the world is an untenable situation.

It is also abundantly clear that neither side can bring a peaceful solution that the other side will support. It is therefore a moral imperative for the world to arbitrate and implement a peace solution. They should start from where the world already agreed as the pre-1967 borders between the two states. The international community needs to step up the demand for a peace resolution and mandate it.

When we examine the history of the world, both the Palestinians and the Jews are of the same DNA, and have historical ties to the same region. The biblical term Philistine places everyone in the same area and under Roman occupation. It is difficult today to distinguish an Arab-Israeli from a Palestinian. Two thousand years of exile by half the population of the region does not translate to a right of occupation and, more importantly, the expulsion of the other half.

That idea of occupation based on a Jewish return is not Judaism, but rather an embarrassment. Were it Judaic, the example would be a democracy of equal rights for everyone, not apartheid. The same would be true of a Muslim state or a Christian state; a Jewish state is no exception.

The only perfect state is a state where all people are equal and entitled to certain inalienable rights, including freedom of religion or belief. Anything less is an ethnostate and not a democracy. America needs to support democracy at home and abroad.