The Israelo-Palestinian conflict is not “complicated”; it is the story of a colonial enterprise that the Western world either supports or deliberately ignores, undermining the foundations of democracy.
| This post is part of a reading series on Zionism vs. Democracy, by Philippe Roussel. To quickly access all chapters, open the book title tab on the Authors & Books page. |
Common wisdom among Israel’s supporters and allies is that since it is a democracy, the country necessarily fights the good fight and only defends itself against its aggressors. This is forgetting that Zionism—Israel’s foundational principle—runs at the exact opposite of the democratic ideal. The country is a settler colonial project based on religious identity; full citizenship is granted to Jews wherever they come from, whereas natives are either second-class citizens or live under occupation while being continuously dispossessed of their homes and land. Whether at a low or high level of intensity, war is thus inherent to Zionism’s colonial endeavor, whose violent history did not start on October 7th, 2023, with Hamas’ coordinated attack in southern Israel.
Since that fateful day, however, the genuine perspective of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has revealed itself in a crude light. Not only have Gazans been the target of an avowed genocidal intent; Israeli settlers in the West Bank, emboldened by their government’s explicit intent to annex the whole territory, have harassed, killed, and stolen Palestinian properties at an unprecedented rate. Confirming that Palestinians do not matter, the present Israeli government has eventually made clear that it will never allow a Palestinian state to exist.
As it has always done, Israel claims that its survival is at stake. But its survival as what? Democracy is founded upon universal and unconditional moral principles; how could it prevail through the indefinite and exclusive use of violence? If, moreover, it genuinely were about Israel’s security, peace would have been built long ago with the Palestinians, notably after their political leader, Yasser Arafat (1929–2004), formally recognized the existence of Israel in 1988.1 Instead, Israeli officials have constantly implied that no goodwill is possible on the other side. This attitude has only confirmed that a colonial endeavor is fundamentally at odds with elevating the exercise of power to the genuine political level that defines relationships among free men. Countries like the United States, New Zealand, or Australia have eventually departed from their original colonial stance; why should it be fundamentally different with Israel? How can the right of Palestinians to a viable territorial space on their ancestors’ land be a seemingly unsolvable issue?
At some point, Yitzhak Rabin (1922–1995) tried to convey to Israelis that security and prosperity for them need not and could not be equated with depriving Palestinians of the same rights. In complete denial mode, hard-core Zionists came back with revenge. In a sense, they were right: You either are a Zionist or you are not. There is no compromise to be had for nationalism, whatever the color it takes. Zionism, for its part, seized upon the long history of persecution against Jews to enter the upside-down logic of nationalism, building a country on fear—that is to say, on the negation of the other. For Zionists as for anyone subdued by the image of a dualistic world opposing “us” and “them,” the other is just that, and consequently a threat. In this view, you are forced to strike first if you do not want to be overwhelmed. Whether against immigrants, a foreign country, or natives on a coveted land, the psychological pattern that makes the aggressor the victim is always the same.
- About the Author
- Latest Posts
Philippe Roussel has long been interested in studying the power structures defining our increasingly unsustainable and undemocratic world. This website serves as the primary platform where he presents his ideas and findings to an international audience.