"Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations"

Yasser Arafat’s assertion, “Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations,” expresses a particular outlook on the enduring Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one rooted in uncompromising hostility and a vision of peace defined by the absence of the other party. Rather than envisioning peace as mutual coexistence, negotiation, or reconciliation, Arafat’s words frame peace as attainable only through the complete erasure of Israel as a state and, presumably, as a national identity.

This statement reflects the broader sentiment that existed within some Palestinian leadership circles throughout the 20th century, particularly during periods when armed struggle and non-recognition of Israel were central tenets of political platforms. By equating peace with Israel’s destruction, the rhetoric dismisses the possibility of two states living side by side; it articulates a zero-sum logic in which Palestinian aspirations can only be fulfilled by negating the Israeli state’s very existence.

Describing preparations for “an all-out war, a war which will last for generations” suggests a long-term, intergenerational struggle. It underscores a willingness to engage in protracted conflict, regardless of the human and societal costs, and signals that the conflict is not just about land, security, or political rights, but is existential in nature. By framing the conflict as a generational war, the statement dismisses the possibility of short-term peace initiatives or compromises, emphasizing persistence, resilience, and a total victory as the only satisfactory outcomes.

This outlook has had profound consequences for the political process, often hindering dialogue and undermining trust between parties. When peace is not defined by partnership or coexistence, routes to negotiation become clouded, hardliners gain prominence, and successive generations may inherit narratives of perpetual enmity, making the conflict self-perpetuating. The quote captures a moment and mindset that has echoed throughout the conflict’s history, shaping perceptions, strategies, and hopes for resolution on both sides of the divide.