The Dark Side of Modernity: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Article by Wang Junwu
Abstract:
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been one of the most controversial geo-political conflicts of the past and present century, and it has reached a new height with the ongoing bloodshed in Gaza. Amidst this stark humanitarian crisis, one cannot help but reflect on the fundamental causes of this conflict, the most important of which, I argue, is the age-old, naturalistic understanding of the modern state as nation-states. Specifically, it is the idea that a state arises from a political entity representing a culturally defined group residing in a well-defined territory, or state-people-territory unity. This naturalistic justification of nation-states, a distinctly modern concept, can be found in Kant’s First Supplement to his famous political sketch, Perpetual Peace. As I will demonstrate in the first section, it is precisely this understanding of nation-states that gave rise to conflicting nationalistic aspirations of both Jews and Palestinian Arabs and the ensuing conflict.
Nevertheless, Kant’s preliminary and definitive articles of perpetual peace can still be salvaged to decide on long-term solutions to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I will challenge perhaps the most realistic two-state solution in Palestine by appealing to Kant’s preliminary articles of perpetual peace. Specifically, I argue that trust between the two national groups has been irrevocably eroded by historical precedents of indiscriminate and secretly perpetrated violence. Therefore, the current authorities on both sides seriously doubt each other’s honest commitment to any form of peace, which will only stoke further hostility. Hence, according to the preliminary articles of peace, there is little possibility that a two-state solution may be reliably implemented which overtly affirms the national character of both sides.
Finally, I demonstrate how Kant’s definitive articles for perpetual peace can be applied to propose the establishment of a unitary, secular, and democratic state in the region of Palestine. Because Israel is currently the dominant power in the region, I focus on how Kant’s definitive articles require Israel to relinquish its Jewishness, and in particular the Law of Return. Though a democratic one-state solution is rather idealistic and definitely not simple to implement, I argue that it holds promise for fostering long-sought peace and prosperity in the region.
Keywords: Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Kant, perpetual peace, one-state solution, nation-state, liberalism
Header Image by Alisdare Hickson shared under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
Introduction
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been one of the most controversial geo-political conflicts of the past and present century, and it has reached a new height with the ongoing bloodshed in Gaza. At the time of writing, there are merely reluctant signs of temporary pauses of aggression, though the spectrum of proposals have been converging, or at least spreading, towards a permanent ceasefire, albeit each with its own set of nebulous descriptors, such as “tactical pause”, “durable end to the war”, or “lasting peace” (Guardian, 2024; Debebe, 2024). Amidst this stark humanitarian crisis, one cannot help but reflect on the fundamental causes of this conflict. While opinions include more recent narratives such as the defence of democracy, or the fight against extremism and terrorism, I argue that the most important cause is the age-old problem of the naturalistic understanding of the modern state. Specifically, it is the idea that a state arises from a political entity representing a culturally defined group residing in a well-defined territory, or state-people-territory unity.
This naturalistic justification of nation-states, a distinctly modern concept, can be found in Kant’s First Supplement to his famous political sketch, Perpetual Peace, and it forms the theoretical foundation of his preliminary and definitive articles in the main text. However, as I will demonstrate in the first section, it is precisely the principle of self-determination and the trinitarian framework of state-people-territory so assumed and justified by Kant that gave rise to conflicting nationalistic aspirations of both Jews and Palestinian Arabs and the ensuing conflict.
Given this, could Kant’s conceptions of perpetual peace lead to a true resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? In the remaining sections, I argue that Kant’s preliminary and definitive articles of perpetual peace can still be salvaged to decide on long-term solutions to Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because the current international order is still based on a system of sovereign states. Then, I will challenge the two-state solution in Palestine by appealing to Kant’s preliminary articles of perpetual peace. Finally, I will envision a highly hypothetical one-state solution anchored in the principles outlined in Kant’s definitive articles, while acknowledging the deeply entrenched complexities that defy any easy or short-term solution.
One Land, Two Traumatised Nations
Kant greatly shaped modern political thought not only through espousing democratic values, but also through his implicit justification of national self-determination. In his First Supplement to Perpetual Peace, he believes that Nature “irresistibly wills” the establishment of nations based on “linguistic and religious differences” (Kant, 1991, 113-114). Further, he assumes that nations can be clearly defined via ancestral descent and territorial boundaries (Kant, 1991, 111). Therefore, Kant believes that perpetual peace involves the natural creation of states which each represent the interests of a national group. In particular, the groups are assumed to have significant in-group cultural, linguistic and religious homogeneity which are clearly delineated from each other along cultural and territorial faultlines. In doing so, Kant takes the unity of the political entity of state, the culturally defined people as well as the geographically defined territories as natural and desirable.
However, this idealistic picture of unity often masks complexities of history, and it has been continuously challenged for adversely impacting the rights and personhood of marginalized peoples (Gundogdu, 2015, 108). These minority groups may be disadvantaged, for example, because they are not recognised as part of the dominant group, to which is accorded the cultural and territorial rights of the state. The complications of applying these principles to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are even more acute, due to the unique historical circumstances not accounted for by Kant.
Historically, the Jewish people lacked a well-defined territory or political self-government after the destruction of the Second Temple. This presents an exception to the modern principle of nation-states, where a distinct group with shared cultural and religious characteristics are expected to have a corresponding territory and political representation. Therefore, when the Zionist movement developed at the turn of the 20th century, the establishment of self-government and territorial control was at its core. However, there was no “land with no people”, and if the state created was to be predominantly Jewish, it inevitably risked infringing upon the land and political rights of existing inhabitants in the chosen territory. Hannah Arendt, otherwise a supporter of Zionism, acknowledges this dilemma, highlighting that while the creation of a Jewish state could address the historical plight of Jews in Europe, it “merely produced a new category of refugees, the Arabs, thereby increasing the number of stateless and rightless” (Arendt, 1973, 270). This highlights the Jews as an exceptional case which problematizes the trinitarian framework of state-people-territory.
On the other hand, Palestinian Arabs also experience challenges in aligning with Kant’s conception of nation-states. The Palestinian national identity is shaped by a shared history of resistance to displacement and dispossession since the British Mandate period, with particularly tragic events such as the Nakba. Their sense of national unity based on collective struggles is exemplified in the Haifa Declaration: written on behalf of Palestinian Arabs who remain in Israeli territories, it highlights such resistance movements as Land Day commemorations which connect all Palestinians (Mada al-Carmel, 2007, 9). The emphasis of shared struggles for self-determination over historical cultural heritage is reminiscent of Fanon’s conception of national culture for the then-colonized African nations (Fanon, 2004). Therefore, this quintessentially Palestinian experience based on collective resistance forms an inalienable layer over any pan-Arab identity, and any proposal which overlooks it, such as the integration of Palestinian Arabs into surrounding Arab nations, is but an insult to the Palestinian cause. Consequently, Palestinian Arabs, too, demand self-determination in Palestine based on the modern principle of nation-states.
Therefore, Kant’s naturalistic conception of nation-states, typical of liberal political theory, lies at the root of the contradicting aspirations of Zionists and Palestinian Arabs. On the other hand, Kant derives the claim that perpetual peace is “guaranteed” from this simplistic theory of the formation of states (Kant, 1991, 108). Does this, then, weaken the role of Kant’s preliminary and definitive articles as principles to achieve peace? I believe not: Kant’s articles only concern the internal political system of a state and inter-state relations, with no mention of the national character of the state. In other words, his liberal political theory is culture-neutral, and does not prescribe that states be nation-states. Moreover, the current international order is still defined by sovereign states and relations between them, whether they are nation-states or not. Hence, Kant’s preliminary and definitive articles enjoy continuing relevance as guidance to achieving peace in international relations. In the next sections, I will evaluate the long-term feasibility of proposed resolutions of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, specifically the two-state and one-state solutions, through the lens of Kant’s preliminary and definitive articles, respectively.
Precarious Partition
If there exist two (however clearly delineated) cultural groups, and if Kant conceives that separate nation-states naturally arise for distinct linguistic and cultural groups, it seems that a two-state solution in Palestine aligns well with both Kant’s theory and realpolitik demands. Here, I take “two-state solution” to mean any proposal which involves one constitutionally Jewish state with direct historical legacy of Israel, and one constitutionally Palestinian Arab state with direct historical legacy of current Palestinian political institutions. In the following, I argue that this approach is untenable in the long-term due to its violation of Kant’s preliminary articles of perpetual peace, owing to their historical legacies. Specifically, the first article states that: “No conclusion of peace shall be considered valid as such if it was made with a secret reservation of the material for a future war.” (Kant, 1991, 93).
Historical precedents suggest that both Zionists and Palestinian Arabs may fail to adhere to this principle. For instance, some argue that partition plans such as the Peel Commission in 1937 and the United Nations partition plan in 1947 were only accepted by Zionists with the undisclosed long-term aim of eventual control of the entire Mandatory Palestine, rather than with a commitment to lasting peace (Smith, 2017, 136-191). In other words, Zionists may have viewed partition plans as proof of their international recognition and milestones to the grander project. Indeed, amidst the ongoing war, Netanyahu openly rejected the two states solution and stated his desire for “full Israeli security control over all the territory west of the Jordan River” (Beaumont, 2024).
In contrast, Palestinian Arabs consistently rejected partition plans in favour of a unified Palestinian state. This stance primarily stemmed from their strong rejection of any solution that would legitimize the territorial claims of Zionism, and subsequently the newly established state of Israel, which was regarded as a violation of their own historical and national rights in Palestine. Indeed, a popular slogan in support of Palestinian nationalism, deemed to be antisemitic, is “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!”, which reflects the popular rejection of a two-state solution and the aspiration for total control of Palestine. In light of the inexorable territorial demands of both groups, it is hard to imagine a two-state solution based on national groups which does not lead to preparations for future war, thus hindering any possibility of perpetual peace.
Moreover, through assassinations and human rights violations, both sides have arguably flouted the final preliminary article of perpetual peace, which reads: “No state at war with another shall permit such acts of hostility as would make mutual confidence impossible during a future time of peace.” (Kant 1991, 96). Despite stern warnings from Kant, indiscriminate terrorist attacks and retaliatory assassinations plague the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In 1972 alone there were the Lod Airport massacre and the Munich massacre aimed at Israeli civilians, and the corresponding retaliatory assassinations committed by the Israeli government, including the killing of the prominent Palestinian novelist and politician Ghassan Kanafani. More recently, the Gaza war has been noted to disproportionately impact vulnerable communities, with over 70% of casualties being Palestinian women and children (UN Women, 2024). The shockingly numerous examples of indiscriminate and secretly perpetrated violence call into question the legitimacy of actions and basic conscience of both sides of the conflict. Given these historical precedents, there is little doubt that the current authorities on both sides have deep-seated distrust of each other’s honest commitment to any form of peace, which will only be intensified with further hostility. Therefore, according to the last preliminary article of Kant, there is little possibility that a two-state solution may lead to sustainable peace which affirms the overtly national character on both sides.
Utopian Union
The persistent animosity between current Israeli and Palestinian authorities casts doubt on two-state solutions in Palestine. Similarly, a one-state solution which explicitly favours either Jewish or Arab identity is also highly controversial, if thoroughly impossible. At heart, this is because establishing nation states in Palestine cannot reconcile the contradicting nationalistic ambitions. Therefore, a true resolution of the conflict must establish states which are non-national, binational or multiethnic. If so, there is no reason left which could justify dividing Palestine into multiple states. Hence, a non-national solution in Palestine is preferably a one state solution. In this section, I demonstrate how Kant’s definitive articles for perpetual peace can be applied to propose the establishment of a unitary, multiethnic and democratic state in Palestine. Because Israel is currently the dominant power in the region and is establishing de facto occupation over the West Bank and Gaza strip, I will focus on how this hypothetical unified state differs from Israel in civil and cultural policies. Though a democratic one-state solution is neither novel nor simple to implement, I argue that it holds promise for fostering long-sought peace and prosperity in the region.
Drawing inspiration from Kant’s first definitive article of perpetual peace, which asserts that “The Civil Constitution of Every State shall be Republican” (Kant, 1991, 99), a unitary state in Palestine should embrace democratic principles and ensure equal rights and liberties for both Jewish and Palestinian Arab populations. Superficially, this article seems simple to satisfy, since by “republican”, Kant seems to simply mean representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy. In this sense, both Israel and Palestine already possess representative assemblies – the Knesset and the Palestine Legislative Council, though the latter has been defunct since 2006. However, upon closer inspection on Kant’s requirements of a “republican constitution”, we see that the condition of “legal equality” is contradicted by current legislations in Israel.
Israel claims to be “Jewish and democratic”. That is, in addition to its elective structures, special status is granted to Jewish cultural elements. The Jewish character of Israel manifests as a priority for Jewish language and culture, as well as a mandate for the numerical majority of Jews in Israel (Israel Democracy Institute, 2007, 184). Now, under Kant’s definition of “external and rightful equality”, no group should bear disproportionate obligations without others bearing the same (Kant, 1991, 99). While this requirement does not concern cultural groups specifically, one observes that policies such as the mandate of the numerical majority of Jews have historically resulted in discriminatory land policies and displacement of population. These restrictions harm the rightful equality required by Kant, as some individuals exclusively benefit from them. Hence, a truly “republican” one-state solution will entail Israel relinquishing its exclusively Jewish character, as the special status given to Jewish population is arguably a form of legal inequality. Convincing Israeli Jews that the state losing its Jewish character does not entail persecution and antisemitism will be an essential and difficult task for the establishment of such a unitary state.
Another definitive article relevant to current Israeli policies is the third, which states that “Cosmopolitan Right shall be limited to Conditions of Universal Hospitality” (Kant 1991, 105). This in particular means that citizens of other states should be given equal and amicable treatment on issues such as immigration. Nevertheless, the contemporary Israeli policy diverges from these principles as it professes to be the “Jewish national home”. In particular, every person who has a Jewish grandparent is given a right to immigrate to Israel under special legislation (“Israel’s Law of Return”, n.d.). Meanwhile, Palestinian refugees displaced from current Israeli territories are systematically denied their right to return and citizenship, thereby compromising their civil and political rights. These measures blur the distinction between citizens and foreigners, as citizenship is preferentially granted to some foreign citizens while intentionally withheld from some inhabitants of its territories. Therefore, in adhering to Kant’s third definitive article, a hypothetical unified state in Palestine should extend citizenship to forcibly displaced Palestinian refugees, but Jews with foreign citizenship should not receive preferential treatment in their immigration application, which means a repeal of the Law of Return.
Although Kant’s definitive articles of perpetual peace are almost strictly political and do not directly concern culture groups, they imply that a unified state in Palestine should relinquish the exclusively Jewish character of Israel and be a multiethnic democratic state. Such a model is not without successful precedents, but the antagonism between Jews and Palestinian Arabs will be the largest obstacle to its formation, which can only be resolved through continual peaceful dialogue.
Conclusion: The Light and Shadow of Modernity
Kant’s vision of perpetual peace may have laid out aspirational goals for modern international relations, but his underlying assumptions regarding nation-states can indeed stoke conflicts when confronted with the complexities of reality. As evidenced in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the distinctly modern concept of state-people-territory unity, while appealing and seemingly natural, can result in tragedy when applied rigidly. However, we must not abandon the pursuit of peace altogether. Even though Kant’s definitive articles do not engage with clash of cultures and nation groups, they offer valuable principles that, when creatively adapted to the specific complexities of Palestine, can still serve as a framework for dialogue and compromise. Ultimately, achieving lasting peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict necessitates a transcendence of rigid national identities in favour of a shared hope for a better future.
References:
Arendt, H. (1973). The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Beaumont, P. (2024, January 18). Netanyahu tells US he opposes creation of Palestinian state after Gaza war. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/18/netanyahu-tells-us-opposes-palestinian-state-after-gaza-war
Debebe, E. (2024, June 10). Gaza: Security Council adopts US resolution calling for ‘immediate, full and complete ceasefire’. UN News. https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/06/1150886
Fanon, F. (2004). On National Culture. In Wretched of the Earth (pp. 145-180). Grove Press.
Netanyahu reportedly criticises military tactical pause in Gaza amid divisions with IDF. (2024, June 17). The Guardian . https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/17/netanyahu-reportedly-criticises-military-tactical-pause-in-gaza-amid-divisions-with-idf
Gundogdu, A. (2015). Borders of Personhood. In Rightlessness in an Age of Rights (pp. 90-125). Oxford.
Israel Democracy Institute. (2007). Constitution by Consensus. https://en.idi.org.il/media/6361/constitutionbyconsensus_draft.pdf
Israel’s Law of Return. (n.d.). Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved March 3, 2024, from https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israel-s-law-of-return
Kant, I. (1991). Perpetual Peace. In Political Writings (pp. 93-130). Cambridge University Press.
Mada al-Carmel. (2007, May 15). The Haifa Declaration. https://www.adalah.org/uploads/oldfiles/newsletter/eng/may07/haifa.pdf
Smith, C. D. (2017). Palestine and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Bedford/St. Martin’s.
UN Women. (2024). Gender Alert: The Gendered Impact of the Crisis in Gaza. https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2024-01/Gender%20Alert%20The%20Gendered%20Impact%20of%20the%20Crisis%20in%20Gaza.pdf
