The debate over peace: within societies and within faith

Four questions, not one

Does someone want peace? Do they believe it can happen? Which political arrangement would they accept? Would they support ordinary relations under present conditions? An answer to one question cannot stand in for the others. Someone may want an agreement and distrust its implementation; another may accept two states while opposing normalization before Palestinian rights are secured.

This page asks how disagreements work within societies. It does not rank peoples by their desire for peace. Explaining fear does not justify harm; acknowledging rights does not mean endorsing every action taken in their name.

Israel: disagreement within a society

Israeli arguments concern security, rights, territory, identity and trust. Does control of territory protect civilians or deepen conflict? Which guarantees could make an agreement credible? Who could carry it out? These questions can divide people who all care sincerely about human life.

In Pew’s February–March 2025 survey of Israeli adults, belief that Israel and an independent Palestinian state could coexist peacefully varied sharply by self-described political camp: 54% on the left, 29% in the centre and 7% on the right. It was 16% among Jewish Israelis and 40% among Arab Israelis. These are differences in perceived possibility, not measures of moral worth. Arab citizens belong within the account of Israeli society.¹

Palestinians: a settlement and its conditions

Palestinian society is not interchangeable with Hamas, the Palestinian Authority or any other leadership. Nor does support for a national goal establish support for the means used in its name. A combined result can also conceal differences between Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

In Arab Barometer’s October 2025 Palestinian survey, 59% preferred two states on the 1967 borders among the alternatives offered. Yet 88% opposed Arab normalization with Israel. With Israeli recognition of a Palestinian state on those borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, support for normalization rose to 37%; 61% still opposed it. These answers show why settlement preferences and willingness to normalize must be read separately.²

Hamas’s massacre and hostage-taking on 7 October must be condemned clearly. Palestinian civilians’ rights and humanity must also be recognized. No whole population bears an organization’s responsibility.

Arab societies: governments and publics

There is no single Arab position. Israel and Jordan signed their peace treaty in 1994. In an October 2025 survey of Jordanian citizens, however, 67% opposed Arab normalization even under the Palestinian-state recognition scenario described above. This was not a question about cancelling Jordan’s treaty, nor a count of people who want war.³⁴

Treaties, confidence between citizens and readiness for social or economic ties are distinct. Opposition cannot simply be assumed to disappear after one issue is resolved. Jordanian findings cannot stand in for other Arab countries or for Gulf publics not surveyed.

Faith, interpretation and Jewish debate

For believers, land and holy places can carry obligations rooted in covenant, commandment, memory and inheritance. Compromise may therefore raise theological questions: who has authority to concede, and what may be conceded? Religious reasoning matters, alongside national, political and security considerations.

Faith, its interpretation and the policy justified through it are different things. Jews, Muslims and Christians each disagree internally. Attachment to a place, a sovereignty claim, rejection of an agreement, incitement and attacks on civilians must not be treated as equivalent categories.

Rabbi Dov Lior grounds opposition to transferring sovereignty over parts of the Land of Israel in the obligation to inherit and settle it. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s ruling allowed, in principle, territorial concessions to save life, subject to assessments of danger by military and political authorities.⁵⁶

This is not a simple division between valuing land and valuing life. The dispute concerns religious law and judgments about danger. A conditional ruling is not blanket approval of every diplomatic proposal. The linked discussion quotes and interprets Yosef’s ruling; it is not the original publication.⁶

Muslim voices: a historical claim and religious peacemaking

Article 11 of Hamas’s 1988 covenant portrays Palestine as an Islamic endowment whose territory cannot be relinquished. It is a historical document of a particular terrorist organization, not a ruling representing Muslims generally or a complete account of Hamas’s later documents.⁷

Muslim religious leaders also joined Jewish and Christian leaders in the 2002 Alexandria Declaration, committing themselves to a just, secure peace and condemning the killing of innocents in God’s name. These different texts illustrate uses of religious arguments; placing them here does not equate a terrorist organization morally with religious teachers or peace advocates.⁸

Christian disagreements, shared safeguards

The International Christian Embassy Jerusalem links support for Israel to biblical promises; its US branch advocates an undivided Jerusalem under Jewish sovereignty. In their January 2026 statement, Jerusalem’s patriarchs and church heads criticized local advocates of Christian Zionism, their political sponsorship and their claims to represent local Christian communities. These are the respective speakers’ positions, not a consensus of Christians or evangelicals.⁹¹⁰

Religious support for Israel does not in itself endorse violence; church criticism of policy does not in itself deny Jewish rights. The Alexandria Declaration calls for protection of holy places and freedom of worship. In 2019 Pope Francis and Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahmad Al-Tayyeb rejected using religion to justify terrorism, oppression and bloodshed. Neither declaration settles sovereignty or proves that all believers agree.⁸¹¹

Taking doubt seriously without making it destiny

In Pew’s spring 2026 surveys, 17% of Israeli adults and 21% of Palestinian adults in the West Bank and East Jerusalem believed a way could be found for peaceful coexistence between Israel and an independent Palestinian state. Gaza was excluded. These are perceptions of possibility, not direct measures of wanting peace or endorsing a settlement.¹²

Women Wage Peace and Women of the Sun work towards an agreement; the Parents Circle – Families Forum organizes dialogue and reconciliation. Their existence neither establishes a public majority nor cancels opposition. It shows that other choices are also being made.¹³¹⁴

Responsible hope asks how to protect religious attachment, freedom of worship and human security amid disagreement over sovereignty. It needs credible guarantees, rights regardless of identity and leaders who keep commitments. Understanding a religious motive never licenses violence against civilians.