Palestine-Israel conflict. An issue of recognition

Pills of Thought 1: Palestine and Israel start from an unequal recognition status, and thus, an unequal status of existence.

---

The problem we have in the Near East transcends the worldliness of political-nationalistic issues or even the religious dimension that it seems to have. The war that exploded again between Israel and the Palestinian territory of Gaza on October 7th is only the logical and unavoidable effect of a deep and fundamental problem in the background: an issue of recognition.

In Hegel’s political philosophy we can find an important concept about how the interaction between human beings and states actually works, and that concept is recognition. Following Hegel’s conception we can assume that, due to the fact that the ultimate end of the state is to be recognised by others for its independence and sovereignty, then that recognition means the essential way of political and human existence, and therefore, the end which every state tends to.

This Hegelian discussion about the ontological significance of the state existence that derives from the relation of recognition is a crucial issue to think about nowadays, because it is in the heart of the matter that occupies the ancient quarrel whose implications we are living today. The incidents that are happening today in the Gaza Strip are the obvious consequence of the conflict opened and fed by the international community after the Second World War, in 1945. And furthermore, the problem is not only the fact that the international community has created the conflict following the particular interests far away from any Human Rights, the real crucial point is that they do not have the slightest intention to solve or overcome the dispute.

The foundation of almost any war, the moment when the conflict arises, begins from a starting-point situation that we can consider a situation of a kind of equality. This equality is not related to the size of the army or the quality of the contenders’ economy or so on, but it refers to a more essential feature in political and ontological terms: to be recognised as an enemy implies to be recognised as an existent and independent entity; in fact, an entity that should be destroyed or subordinated, but who still keeps a certain dignity. This is the background of war that we are seeing in regards to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Russia recognises the existence of Ukraine, the problem is not there. The problem is placed on the lack of legitimacy that Russia perceives for Ukraine to exist, but also because Ukraine in fact exists. That is why Russia actually considers Ukraine and Ukrainian people as a part of itself, because the problem for Russia is not the existence of Ukraine people, but that Ukrainians are living independently and outside Russia’s sphere of influence.

The quarrel between Israel and Palestine is somewhat different to most of the wars that we have seen in the last years, because the foundation of that war is moderately different too. Since its modern origin, the very conflict was created by the International community; firstly due to the signature of the Sykes-Picot Pact between France and the United Kingdom in 1916, and later with the division of the territory of Palestine into two regions by the United Nations’ resolution adopted in 1947. In both cases, the main problem was the same: the lack of recognition of the people who lived in that land and the over-recognition of the people who wanted to live there and replace the original population. With the arbitration of the International community countries, the land where Palestinian people lived was divided, and the 55% of it was ceded to the new state of Israel, a state that never existed before at least in the recent past in that region. That decision led by the United Nations provoked the exodus of thousands of Arabian people that never recovered their properties nor land, and that implied a precedent for the colonial process established by the state of Israel that unleashed a kind of “soft” ethnic cleansing that still reaches to these days.

Therefore, the state of Israel was built up; first, on the undermining of the ontological foundation of Palestinian people existence led by the diplomacy of the United Nations and the USA, and, on the other hand, on the use of force and violence that Israel has always used against Palestinian people, and whose methods we do not hesitate to denounce when they are used by other hostile nations.

In my point of view, the core of the problem lies in the kind of recognition linked to some particular states’ interests and spheres of influence that work to justify words, policies and actions, even though these words, policies and actions are against the International Public Law or Human Rights. This lack of recognition suffered by Palestinians during decades is the main factor to understand any lack of serious denunciation of Israel’s actions in Gaza. An example of that is what was said by the minister of Defence a few days ago. While the army was bombing civilians in Gaza the minister justified that massacre saying that they were fighting against animals, not humans. This is one of the most significant message that can be sent to any population, because it represents the absolute lack of recognition of their existence and humanity. The intention of Israel regarding the conflict in Gaza is not, and never was, the mere annexation of the land; the primary goal for them is to destroy and annihilate any Palestinian presence in its area of influence. That is the reason behind this declaration because, in essence, with these words Israeli politicians and army are assuming the permission to bomb and invade the territory if they deem it necessary, because the general harm that they provide is not significant due to the fact that it is not a human who is harmed, and as such they do not have any Human Rights to protect or guarantee in the region.

After all, and despite some international complaints against Israel’s hostile actions in Gaza actually exist, we are used to listen to the international condemnation to any Hamas’ aggressions in this conflict, but we are not hearing any condemnation on Israel’s actions on Palestinian population in the same intensity. And the problem is not that the condemnation to Hamas’ attacks on Israel is not obvious, but that the condemnation to the state of Israel’s response bombing civilians, considering its colonial policies in Palestinian regions and people in the last decades, is also clearly condemnable, and the difference in the international approach to that lies, yet again, in the fact that Palestine and Israel start from an unequal recognition status, and thus, an unequal status of existence.

Indeed, the unique difference between the massacres perpetrated by Hamas and the massacres perpetrated by the state of Israel is that Hamas’ attack became the perfect casus belli and gave to the state of Israel a justification and an excuse to start an eventually more aggressive Arabian genocide in the region.