A good friend of mine, Emily, who holds progressive political views, recently asked me what I thought about the West Bank.

I told her that if I believed withdrawing from the West Bank would bring peace, I would support it.

I do not want Israel to rule over millions of Palestinians indefinitely. Palestinians deserve dignity, opportunity, and self-determination.

Yet underlying many conversations about Israel is an assumption that the occupation of the West Bank is both morally wrong and the central obstacle to peace. Among many Democrats, this is not merely an argument but a starting premise.

Many people move quickly from the belief that the occupation is wrong to the conclusion that Israel should withdraw from the West Bank. What is often missing is an understanding of why so many Israelis became skeptical that withdrawal would bring peace.

The problem is that many Americans discussing the conflict today either do not know or have forgotten the history that shaped Israeli public opinion.

Palestinians tell a very different story about these events, one that includes displacement, military occupation, and unfulfilled aspirations for statehood.

My purpose here is not to tell that story, nor to deny the hardships Palestinians have experienced. Rather, it is to explain a part of the Israeli story that many Americans rarely hear and that I believe is essential to understanding why so many Israelis became skeptical of territorial withdrawal.

Many Israelis view the history differently than it is often presented in the United States. Israel gained control of the West Bank during the 1967 Six-Day War after facing threats from neighboring Arab states. Before 1967, Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt controlled Gaza, yet neither territory became an independent Palestinian state. Whether one agrees with Israeli conclusions or not, these facts are also part of the historical context that shapes Israeli thinking.

When Israel is discussed in American political circles, the focus is often on Benjamin Netanyahu, Itamar Ben-Gvir, and Bezalel Smotrich. Whatever one thinks of those politicians, they did not create Israeli skepticism about territorial withdrawal.

That skepticism was shaped by decades of experience.

Many Americans are unaware that Israel repeatedly pursued land-for-peace agreements.

The first Likud prime minister, Menachem Begin, signed a peace treaty with Egypt and returned the entire Sinai Peninsula—territory roughly three times the size of Israel itself—in exchange for peace. This is worth remembering because Likud is generally considered Israel’s major right-wing party. The idea that territorial compromise has been pursued only by the Israeli left is historically inaccurate.

In the 1990s, Israeli leaders entered the Oslo process. At the time, many Israelis genuinely believed they were witnessing the beginning of reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)