For years, talking heads and Middle East “experts,” including academics from top universities, have been declaring the “inevitability” of a Palestinian state based on the “1967 borders” (which are actually the 1949 ceasefire lines).

According to this conventional wisdom, Jerusalem is going to be the shared capital of both Israel and this Palestinian state. Their quick peace recipe calls for knocking mostly Israeli and some Palestinian heads together until this deterministic prophecy becomes reality.

However, in international politics, and in the Middle East in particular, nothing is “inevitable.” Instead, such predictions reflect wishful thinking that ignores or distorts deep-seated Palestinian rejectionism and violence that shows no sign of disappearing.

The myths also blame Israel and the “occupation” for the absence of peace, and even for internal Palestinian cruelty and civil warfare, including the brutal murders in the hospitals and streets of Gaza.

In contrast, a serious analysis leads to a very different source of responsibility for this all-directional violence. For almost 60 years, the international community has patronized the Palestinians, treating them as helpless victims who are unable to take control of their own fate. Just as Palestinians were not held accountable for decades of terrorism, they were also not encouraged to take action to prevent violence and corruption within their own society.

The massive welfare system run by UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) has contributed greatly to this process. The massive amounts of money kept flowing, and the photo opportunities continued, regardless of the corruption or the incitement and terror that was being promoted by some UNRWA employees and from within its schools and other institutions.

Similarly, for years, the main international aid donors provided Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and his PLO henchman with steady bags of cash, much of which ended up in secret bank accounts, or bought weapons and explosives. There was certainly no signs of economic or democratic development. (The European Union’s report on its role in Palestinian corruption remains secret, despite the emphasis on transparency in Europe’s preachings to others.)

Canada, which often follows the European version of conventional wisdom, is also responsible for some of this disaster, having provided a great deal of funding to UNRWA and to the NGO network.

Hamas and its supporters grew resentful of the corrupt and inept leadership of the PLO and Fatah, and began to take power. Under these conditions, the effort to prop-up the remaining façade of the Palestinian Authority, created under the 1993 Oslo agreement and headed by Mahmoud Abbas could not have succeeded, and the capture of Gaza was the latest step in this process. Had the calls from the United States and others to provide Fatah with weapons been heeded, they would have simply been captured by Hamas.

As a result, instead of moving “inevitably” toward the promised peace agreement, we now have a civil war with two Palestinian Authorities – both of which are failed proto-states – turning into new Somalias or Afghanistans.

The main question now is how to respond. There is no basis for clinging to the myths that the radical Islamic leaders of Hamas will suddenly become responsible partners seeking stability in Gaza. Aid that continues to flow into this area must finally come under very strict controls, both to prevent diversion for terror and to end the culture of victimization and dependency.

At the same time, Fatah and the Palestinian Authority are in a stronger position in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), and having finally awoken, they may be able to fight off the challenge posed by Hamas.

At best, this will take many years, and the Palestinian side will remain unstable and not readily predictable. In this environment, those who insist on clinging to the myths of “inevitability” and magical instant peace will cause even greater damage.