By Omar Shahabudin McDoom
Omar Shahabudin McDoom is Associate Professor of Comparative Politics at the London School of Economics where his research interests include the comparative study of war and violence. He is also the co-editor of the Journal of Genocide Research.
Views expressed herein are his own and do not reflect those of the London School of Economics or the Journal of Genocide Research
As the powerful reactions to the most recent round of violence attest, few of the world’s ongoing conflict elicit such intense and polarized feelings among observers as that between Israelis and Palestinians. Each violent episode in the struggle exposes a deeply-troubling lack of empathy on both sides for the humanity, suffering, and tragedy of the other. It also stirs sentiments among a remarkably broad and diverse set of constituencies. The Palestinian cause unsurprisingly finds much support within the Arab and Muslim worlds where feelings of ethnic and religious kinship solidarity are strong. It also resonates in many parts of the postcolonial world, and with other subjugated peoples, but especially within former European colonies in Africa and Asia that fought for their national liberation. The Palestinian struggle also has ideological dimensions. The Left sees them as a poorer, oppressed class of people whose racial subjugation is underwritten by capitalist and imperialist nations such as the United States and United Kingdom while progressives see the Palestinian plight in human rights and humanitarian terms. The Israeli cause for its part evidently engages much of the world’s small Jewish population for whom Israel represents variously a promised sacred land, a secular nationalist ideal, and a safe haven. Within the diaspora also circulates the fear that underlying criticism of Israel is longstanding antisemitism. Their cause also finds support among white Evangelical Christian communities, for whom the conflict has biblical prophetic implications and for whom it echoes the historic struggle for the Holy Land. It also draws popular sympathy within secular communities in western liberal democracies for whom the memory of the Holocaust is still fresh, for whom Palestinian militancy echoes Islamist terrorism post 9/11, and for whom Israel represents a democracy within a region of corrupt authoritarians.
Is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict then unique? If so, what is it that distinguishes the conflict and that might account for the impassioned and opposing views it inspires among so many different people not directly involved in it? I select ten explanations often given for why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is so widely-engaging and so deeply polarizing and place them in comparative and historical perspective. Ultimately, I conclude there are characteristics of the conflict that do set it apart and that merit the moral outrage so many people on all sides feel about it.
1. Civilian destruction: Is the conflict’s distinction a particularly horrific death toll? Counting in war is evidently always contentious. Israeli human rights organization, B’tselem, which has investigated and identified by name every individual killed since the start of the second Intifada in October 2000 until September 2023, numbers Israeli civilian casualties at 881 and Israeli combatants at 449; while Palestinians killed, both civilians and combatants, at 10,667. These numbers exclude those lost to the current continuing violence. While truly terrible, they do not distinguish the conflict. Estimates for the loss of civilian life to war-time violence in Syria (2011-), Iraq (2003-2017), Afghanistan (2001-2021), Sri Lanka (2008-2009) the DRC (1998-), the Sudan (2003-), and Ethiopia (2020-) – each examples of high-profile conflicts within the last 25 years – are in the tens or hundreds of thousands. While not verified as precisely as B’tselem’s data, these numbers should make clear the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not unique for its civilian destructiveness.
2. Asymmetric struggle: Is the distinction the imbalance in military power between Israeli and Palestinian armed actors? Armed resistance against occupation often features asymmetric military power. Comparable historical struggles—Viet Minh versus French in Indo-China, Mau Mau against British in Kenya, and black Zimbabweans against Rhodesian rule—highlight similar imbalances. The asymmetry is underscored by the casualty ratio for children: over 15 Palestinian for every Israeli child, reflecting a broader pattern of imbalanced victimization in occupations, such as the Algerian War of Independence, which was notably harsh on civilians. The French-Algerian conflict saw a civilian to combatant death ratio of up to 25:1. While the imbalance then is not unique and doesn’t singularize the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, it amplifies global emotional reactions, fostering sympathy for the perceived underdog and indignation towards the dominant power.
3. Indiscriminate violence: Is the conflict distinctive for the indiscriminate violence committed? The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is marked by indiscriminate violence, violating international law, with both sides either targeting civilians or failing to distinguish them from combatants. Palestinian militants, particularly during the second Intifada, carried out suicide bombings, and have fired missiles indiscriminately from Gaza, leading to early designation of Hamas and Islamic Jihad as terrorist groups by the US and UK. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), for their part, have launched aerial bombardments on civilian areas in Gaza, and used white phosphorous too.
Such tactics are not exclusive to this conflict. Suicide bombings were first used by the LTTE, the Tamil Tigers, in Sri Lanka during the 1980s, with more attacks than Palestinian groups. Missile attacks on civilian areas are common in asymmetric warfare, as seen with the Houthis in Yemen, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Historically, aerial bombardment of cities has been a widespread method of warfare, causing even more significant civilian casualties, as in World War II, Vietnam, and the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. The use of white phosphorous also has precedents, having been used by the US in Vietnam and Iraq. These forms of violence, while not unique, fuel moral indignation and exacerbate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
4. Indivisible territory: Is it because the Israeli-Palestinian rivalry is a zero-sum conflict in which both sides want the same territory? The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is characterized by deep historical claims to the same territory, viewed as a homeland by both sides. Biblical narratives suggest a Jewish presence since the second millennium BCE and Jewish rule from Joshua’s conquest of Jericho some time between the 15th and 12th centuries BCE until the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. Arabs claim their presence from Umar Ibn Al-Khattab’s conquest of Jerusalem in 638CE and near-continuous Muslim rule from then until the Ottomans’ defeat in World War I.
However, contested homelands are not exclusive to this conflict. In Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenians and ethnic Azeris both view the territory as their own. Similarly, Kosovo holds deep historical significance for both Serbs and Albanians. Such wars over homelands are emotionally charged and complex to resolve, making the Israeli-Palestinian conflict not singular but part of a broader pattern of territorial disputes grounded in history.
5. Inconsistent denunciation of international law violations: Is it that so many liberal democracies, committed to the rule of law and to human rights, seem more willing to recognize and denounce violations of international law by one party than by the other? Palestinian armed groups stand accused of deliberately and indiscriminately targeting Israeli civilians, using human shields, taking hostages, inciting individuals to violence, and summarily executing and torturing collaborators, among other wrongs. The United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada, and Australia and other democratic states have forcefully denounced many of these actions as crimes. The Israeli Defense Forces, for its part, stand accused of using disproportionate force, failing to distinguish between civilians and combatants, collectively punishing Palestinians, using human shields, deliberately depriving civilians of the necessities of life, and most recently potentially genocide. Variously, these actions are likely to be contrary to international criminal, humanitarian, and human rights law. In addition, the Israeli government has also unlawfully annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, permitted if not promoted illegal settlement in the occupied territories, erected a separation wall contrary to the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion, demolished Palestinian homes without due process, detained Palestinians without charge or trial, and severely restricted freedom of movement for them. However, official condemnation by liberal democracies of these actions is conspicuously rarer and weaker.
Inconsistent denunciation, however, is not unique to the Israeli-Palestinian context. The US has, for example, supported regimes guilty of human rights violations, such as Indonesia in East Timor or Saudi Arabia in Yemen. Critics note, however, that Israel is seen as a democracy committed to liberal values. Yet it is judged differently than these supported regimes. The tendency of democracies to overlook allies’ misconduct is not unusual, however. Few liberal democracies denounced the US for post-9/11 actions in its “War on Terror” that contravened the Geneva Conventions.
6. Alien occupation and settler colonialism: Is it the fact that Israel is involved in the continued occupation and continued settlement of Palestinian land? The United Nations recognizes Israel’s control of the West Bank and Gaza as that of an occupier. Yet Israel is hardly the only occupying power in the modern world. Ongoing situations, cited by some as occupations, include China in Tibet; Russia in Crimea; Turkey in northern Cyprus; and Morocco in Western Sahara. Israel’s occupation, however, may be the longest ongoing occupation today. While most countries see the land captured following the 1967 war as clearly under occupation, there is a reasonable case that the land captured in the 1948 war beyond the borders recognized in the UN’s partition plan is also occupied territory. The 1947 plan allocated 56% of the land for Israel, 44% for the Palestinians, and provided for the international administration of Jerusalem. Yet Israel controlled 78% of the land after the 1948 war. If this additional 22% of captured land was unlawful, then Israel’s occupation has been ongoing for 75 years.
Does the conflict also stand out as anachronistic colonial settlement in the 21st century? Israel’s occupation has been likened to apartheid in South Africa, the last and most extreme form of the racially-segregated settler-colonies in southern Africa. Israel rejects the characterization of its presence in the occupied territories as a settler-colonial project. It argues Jews have a longstanding historical connection to the land and this ancient tie means they cannot be considered colonists. Critics respond that, even according to the Jewish narrative, Abraham, the original patriarch of the Jewish people, was himself a settler from modern-day Iraq and the Jews, having migrated to Egypt, then returned and forcibly took the land from the ancient Canaanites. If international law gave credence to ancient ties then the modern-day descendants of the Canaanites, many of whom live in Lebanon, would have the strongest claim to the land. However Israel’s settlements in the occupied territories should be characterized, it is clear they stir feelings, not least in the postcolonial world, and make a peaceful and equitable solution to the conflict much harder. While such practices continue in the modern world – China’s resettlement of Han Chinese to Tibet and Xinjiang, and Morocco’s resettlement of its citizens to the Western Sahara for example – none has been likened to apartheid and the institutionalized and racialized segregation it implies.
We will conclude with Part 2 in next week’s diaspora column.
