Israelis Largely Seek Mutual Recognition Despite Rightward Political Shift
A recent analysis proposes reframing solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict not by the degree of Israeli control, but by the value of mutual recognition. The author argues that Zionism's core struggle, from its inception, has been for recognition of the Jewish people's right to their own state. This fight for recognition has intensified since the October 7th attacks, both in confronting those who seek Israel's destruction and in the global legitimacy battle.
Mutual recognition, by its nature, requires reciprocity. If one side demands recognition, it must also grant it. Examining conflict resolution approaches through this lens reveals three main perspectives. Classical Zionist leftists advocate for mutual recognition between two national collectives: Israel recognizing Palestinian nationhood and Palestinians recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, leading to a two-state solution. The far-right demands full recognition of Israel and Jewish national claims but refuses to reciprocate recognition of a Palestinian national collective, favoring Jewish sovereignty over the entire land. The far-left proposes a single, binational state where Jews and Palestinians are equal citizens, a view with little traction in Israel due to the deep-seated Jewish national identity.
Despite a historical willingness, exemplified by the Oslo Accords and the Gaza disengagement, for Israeli society to recognize Palestinian existence and cede control, the public has shifted rightward. Events like the Second Intifada, Hamas's rise post-disengagement, and especially the October 7th massacre have reinforced a widespread Israeli belief that Palestinians do not reciprocate recognition. This has led most of the Israeli political system to avoid discussing conflict resolution or even ending the current war, as any solution necessitates a relationship and some degree of reciprocity.
The author posits that Israel's current military strength, despite impressive achievements, has not advanced the core goal of recognition. This creates a deep despair: Israel was willing to recognize Palestinians, is militarily superior, yet still faces a refusal of recognition. Compounding this is the emotional difficulty post-October 7th, making it hard not only to believe Palestinians are ready for recognition but also to desire granting it. However, the author distinguishes between a pessimistic assessment of current feasibility and a dangerous shift in values that rejects recognition simply because it is not reciprocated.
Drawing on Ze'ev Jabotinsky's "Iron Wall" concept, the article suggests that while force may be necessary to deter enemies and ensure existence, it must serve a vision of mutual recognition. Jabotinsky believed that a "wall of iron", demonstrating that Zionism is undefeatable, would eventually open the door to negotiation and mutual concessions. The author argues that Israel's current strength, rather than negating the pursuit of mutual recognition, makes it a necessary condition for achieving it. The ultimate Zionist goal of recognition for the Jewish people's right to a state remains incomplete, and force should serve the purpose of creating a reality where Israel is accepted as a legitimate part of the Middle East. Mutual recognition is not just a moral stance but a strategic Israeli interest, justifying the fight against those who deny its existence while clarifying Israel's demands and offers to Palestinians, regional states, and the world. Internally, a society needs more than fear and anger; it requires belief in a better future, which mutual recognition can provide, offering hope amidst despair.
