Firstly Zionism is trying to establish a righteous and just establishment for its long abused brethren by way of statehood. But if justice is to be seen as a universal principle, how can one accept the fact that strength in suppressing victoriously other peoples is righteous? It is indeed a moral dilemma with no distinctly clear or certain conclusion that may be reached. .
One fascinating approach to the problem was formulated by Daniel Amit, an Israeli scientist at Brandeis University. Amit writes:.
As far as the Palestinians are concerned the origin of the conflict is the establishment of a Jewish society and eventually of the state of Israel in Palestine. They consider it a totally immoral act which resulted in the destruction of their society. This claim is to my mind beyond argument. The extenuating circumstances, namely, that European society has become an intolerable place for Jews to live in, can help to defend the moral motivations behind Zionism but cannot shed any doubt on the Palestinian moral grievance. It can also be used to promote understanding between two groups with a history full of suffering. .
On the other hand, the destruction of Israeli society as a way to correct that moral injustice is blatantly immoral. Such a program in no way follows from the recognition of the grievance of the Palestinians. What does, however, follow is the recognition of the following principle: .
Palestinian Arabs and Israelis have equal rights in the whole territory of Mandate Palestine. .
The principle suggested is morally just, but has not been accepted by either of the parties in the conflict. Nor for that matter has any real universal moral point of reference been accepted by either party that might provide a framework for a just solution. Amit's solution, although encompassing no specific steps towards fulmination, shows the fair, good and just principles by which he believes the moral dilemmas of the Jewish majority in Palestine may be solved.