The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an incredibly tragic and complex issue.  I certainly don't have more wisdom on this issue than all those who came before and tried to develop solutions.  That said, I believe it is imperative that all candidates and politicians make their position on this issue clear.  Mine is a position that rejects the false choice between unconditional support and wholesale condemnation. It is a position rooted in moral consistency: one can support the existence and security of Israel, recognize terrorism for what it is, mourn the death of every innocent civilian, and still demand accountability from those in power; including governments that act in the name of nations we support.

Support for Israel, With Clear Limits

Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation is not in dispute. The State of Israel was established in the wake of one of history's most horrific genocides, and the Jewish people's connection to the land is deep, historical, and legitimate. The international community's recognition of Israeli sovereignty is appropriate, and I completely reject efforts to delegitimize Israel as a state.

Support for Israel, however, is not the same as support for any particular Israeli government. The current government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a coalition that includes far-right ministers who have openly called for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the annexation of Gaza, does not represent the values of liberal democracy that Israel has historically aspired to embody. Many Israelis themselves have protested vigorously against this government's policies, its undermining of judicial independence, political graft and corruption, and its conduct in Gaza.  I, too, reject the Netanyahu Coalition as one that works counter to those values our nation stands for.

To support Israel is to support its people, its democratic institutions, and its security. It is not to grant a blank check to a government whose actions have drawn condemnation from international courts, former allies, and Israel's own civil society. Genuine friendship sometimes requires speaking hard truths.

Hamas and Hezbollah Are Terrorist Organizations

Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations—period. This is not a contested characterization; it is a legal and moral designation supported by the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and numerous others.  Both organizations have deliberately targeted civilians, used human shields, fired rockets indiscriminately into populated areas, and explicitly called for the annihilation of Israel and the Jewish people.

The attacks carried out by Hamas on October 7, 2023, in which approximately 1,200 Israelis were killed and over 250 taken hostage, were acts of terrorism by any definition. They were barbaric, deliberate, and unjustifiable. There is no political grievance, however legitimate, that justifies the massacre of civilians, the rape of women, or the abduction of children.

I believe that acknowledging Palestinian suffering does not require softening this condemnation. In fact, I believe that Hamas's continued governance of Gaza and its exploitation of civilian populations for military cover have deepened Palestinian suffering. The Palestinian people deserve leadership that prioritizes their welfare and dignity, not armed factions that use them as pawns in an endless war.  Hamas and Hezbollah should be shown no quarter and have no continued place in this world.

The Right to Self-Defense, And Its Limits

Every nation possesses the inherent right to self-defense under international law, including Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Israel was attacked, and Israel has the right, and the obligation, to protect its citizens and to pursue those responsible. No reasonable government, official, or legislator disputes that a military response to the October 7 attacks was both legally justified and strategically necessary.

However, the right to self-defense is not unlimited. International humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, the principle of proportionality, and the prohibition on collective punishment, binds all parties. The right to defend oneself does not include the right to starve a population, to destroy civilian infrastructure without military necessity, or to conduct operations that kill tens of thousands of non-combatants.

The question is not whether Israel had the right to respond to terrorism. It did. The question is whether the manner of that response has respected the laws of armed conflict and the fundamental dignity of human life.  It did not.  

The Death of Civilians in Gaza Constitutes War Crimes

The scale of civilian death in Gaza is not an abstraction. As of early 2026, credible estimates place the Palestinian death toll at more than 70,000,  a figure that heartbreakingly includes thousands of children. Entire neighborhoods have been reduced to rubble. Hospitals, schools, refugee camps, and clearly marked aid convoys have been struck. Humanitarian access has been systematically obstructed and denied. Famine conditions were deliberately allowed to develop, leaving citizens in the most deplorable and desperate state.

These are not incidental tragedies of war. Under international humanitarian law, the deliberate or reckless targeting of civilians, the use of disproportionate force, the destruction of facilities and infrastructure indispensable to civilian survival, and the use of starvation as a weapon of war are war crimes. The International Court of Justice has found plausible evidence of genocide. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Netanyahu.  I believe both international bodies are justified in these actions and that accountability of the Netanyahu regime is mandatory.

To acknowledge these facts is not antisemitism. It is not a denial of Israel's right to exist or a minimization of Hamas's crimes. I am applying the same legal and moral standard to all parties, the standard we demand of every nation that calls itself a democracy committed to the rule of law. The deaths of Palestinian civilians demand accountability, not rationalization.

Atrocities do not cancel each other out. Hamas's terrorism does not justify Israeli war crimes, just as Israeli military operations do not justify Hamas's terrorism. Both can be condemned simultaneously and with equal moral conviction.

The Imperative of a Two-State Solution

History has shown us there is no military solution to this conflict. History has demonstrated this with devastating clarity. Decades of occupation, war, blockade, and reprisal have produced only more suffering on both sides.  I have long believed the only path to lasting peace, for Israelis and Palestinians alike, is a negotiated two-state solution that provides both peoples with safety, sovereignty, and dignity.

A viable Palestinian state must have genuine sovereignty, contiguous territory, and the institutional capacity to govern. It cannot be a collection of disconnected enclaves under Israeli military oversight. At the same time, Israel's security concerns must be taken seriously and addressed through concrete guarantees and international monitoring mechanisms and involvement.

The international community, including the United States, the European Union, Arab nations, and regional powers, bears collective responsibility for making this happen. Decades of half-measures, failed negotiations, and diplomatic cover for the status quo have contributed to the catastrophe now unfolding. That must change. 

The Duty to Rebuild Gaza

The international community now faces a moral obligation of historic proportions: the reconstruction of Gaza. What has been destroyed, homes, hospitals, universities, water systems, roads, and entire communities, must be rebuilt. This is not charity. It is a legal and moral duty owed to a civilian population that has suffered catastrophically.

Reconstruction must be substantial, sustained, and unconditional on Palestinian political compliance. It must be funded by the international community, including those nations whose military and diplomatic support enabled the destruction—the United States and Israel, among them. It must be designed in partnership with Palestinian civil society, not imposed from outside. And it must be accompanied by a genuine political horizon: a peace process with real stakes and real consequences, not a managed occupation dressed up in the language of diplomacy.

A rebuilt Gaza that remains under blockade or occupation will not produce stability. Reconstruction without political resolution is a foundation on sand. The two must proceed together, with international oversight, accountability mechanisms, and a genuine commitment to Palestinian self-determination.

Conclusion

This is not a comfortable position for me, or any politician. It will satisfy neither those who demand unconditional support for Israeli government policy nor those who refuse to acknowledge Israel's legitimate security needs or Hamas's terrorism. But moral clarity sometimes means standing in uncomfortable places.

The position outlined here rests on a simple foundation: human life has equal value, regardless of nationality or religion. Palestinian children and Israeli children both deserve to grow up in safety. Both peoples have suffered too much, for too long. And the international community, too long complicit in a status quo that served no one, must finally summon the will to act.