The medium-oriental question, and in particular the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is often told in a simplistic way, transforming it into a binary scheme: oppressor and oppressed, attacker and victim. This representation ignores a long, intricate and full of mutual trauma story, which has its roots at least in the UN resolution of 1947 – which provided The birth of two statesan Israeli and a Palestinian – rejected by the Arab countries and followed by a war that marked the beginning of a conflict that has lasted over the years seamlessly.
It is equally reductive to read the current escalation – including attacks on military sites and infrastructures related to the Iranian nuclear program – without considering Iran’s strategic role in the region. Reduce everything to a disproportionate reaction by Israel It removes the constellation of geopolitical actors and interests from the framework that feed the conflict.
The Israeli attack also has a strong political and diplomatic value: it represents a clear warning not only to Tehran, but also to the other regional actors – such as Syria, Iraq and Lebanon – that Israel will not hesitate to hit anyone who helps to threaten their safety.
The complexity of war and responsibility
In the context of the war, crimes and civil victims are unfortunately a tragic constant, but labeling Israel as the only responsible for atrocities, ignoring the deliberate strategy of Hamas And Hezbollah to operate within civil areas, ends up transforming Israel into a scapegoat. This does not mean justifying any Israeli military action, but recognizing that the asymmetry of the conflict does not automatically imply an asymmetry of moral responsibility.
Therefore, the Israeli-Palestinian tension cannot be reduced to a simplistic paradigm: Israel as an absolute oppressor, the Palestinians as passive victims. This narrative feeds A dangerous rhetoricwhich blinds public opinion and transforms Israel into the scapegoat of a much more complex geopolitical crisis.
The story, as already mentioned, reminds us that the conflict was not born with recent offensives, but has its roots in the UN resolution of 1947, which provided for the birth of two states. The Arab front opted for the war rather than for coexistence. Gaza was occupied by Egyptand the Palestinian cause was used for decades as a political tool by other regional actors, rather than as a question to be resolved.
A crucial passage, often removed from the public debate, is the war of the six days of 1967, unleashed following the decision of Egypt to block Israel’s access to the Strait of Tiran, vital for the Israeli maritime trade. In response to that provocation, Israel reacted with a flash war that led, among other consequences, to the occupation of the Gaza Strip, then under Egyptian control. It was a regional conflict resulting from precise Arab military choices, not by a unilateral Israeli aggression.
Subsequently, the Oslo agreements in the nineties represented an attempt at diplomatic resolution, providing A progressive Palestinian autonomy And the Israeli retreat from some territories. In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza strip, dismantling the colonies and removing the Israeli settlers. Despite this, instead of building an autonomous and peaceful reality, the strip was soon subject to Hamas domainwho made an operational basis for attacks against Israel, further demanding the conflict.
Today, Hamas – who explicitly neglect the right of Israel to exist – continues to pursue the destruction of the Jewish state. Its strategy is based on the cynical use of its population as a human shield: Palestinian civilians become torture tools, used for cause the emotional reaction of world public opinion And isolated Israel politically. In this scheme, Israel reacts to defend the survival of their people, while Hamas exploits their own to feed the conflict.
The same goes for events such as Gay Pride, where the Palestinian flag was proudly wait, a symbol of a culture and an ideology that, in its fundamentalist expressions, stigmatizes and pursued homosexuality, to punish it with prison or death. It is a contradiction that no one seems to want to face: it is praised to liberation under symbols that, in the reality of the facts, represent the opposite of the values of freedom, pluralism and civil rights.
Ultimately, continue to tell the conflict with moralistic categories And partisans means not only betraying the complexity of the facts, but also losing the ability to distinguish between those who want coexistence and those who pursue annihilation. A free and democratic society must resist the seduction of easy narratives and have the courage to face uncomfortable truths, even at the cost of c over the dogmas of dominant thought.
TheVermilion.com is also on WhatsApp. Simply click here to register for the channel and always be updated (free).