In the light of the turbulent developments in the Middle East over the past year, various analyses have emerged, each attempting to define the nature of these events and anticipate the future. 

However, given the complexities inherent in the situation and the diverse ideological and political perspectives in play, many of these assessments lack a clear compass. Correcting this requires returning to the essence of the conflict—a colonial struggle—where Israel, an occupying settler-colonial state, opposes the indigenous Palestinian population. 

After the 1897 Basel Congress, which set forth the Zionist goal of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine, successive steps led to the establishment of Israel in 1948 and its occupation of remaining Palestinian Territories in the 1967 War.

Some analysts argue that Israel’s presence is sanctioned by international legitimacy based on the 1947 UN Partition Plan, yet its occupation of territories seized in 1967 remains illegal. Moreover, while the Arab states have conditionally recognised Israel within its 1948 borders through the 1982 Fez Initiative and the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, any lasting peace is contingent upon Israel’s withdrawal from the post-1967 Occupied Territories and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

This framing is essential to understanding contemporary events. Absent this perspective, the actions of the Palestinian resistance factions in Gaza risk being labelled as mere “terrorism.” Yet, when Israel’s colonial nature is recognised, resistance aligns with legitimate opposition to occupation. The recent comments made by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres following the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation that saw attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023 acknowledged that these events did not occur in a vacuum and referencing the Israeli occupation’s brutalities.

The European countries and even more so the US often condemn Palestinian resistance as barbaric “terrorism,” thereby justifying Israel’s “right to self-defence,” even as Palestinians are the primary victims of the conflict and are in need of protection. Conversely, other countries such as Ireland have adopted stances on Israel’s conduct that align more closely with the Arab position, reflecting Ireland’s own colonial history.

Ignoring the core nature of the conflict can lead to reductive interpretations that frame the issue as purely about a rivalry between Israel and Iran. While such a rivalry exists and is evident in Iran’s support for factions in the current conflict and in Israel-Iran military skirmishes, these are symptomatic of the broader conflict rooted in Zionist expansion. Even if one argues that Iran’s antagonism towards Israel is partly motivated by its regional ambitions, this too stems from the primary Arab-Israeli conflict.

Ultimately, the Arab-Israeli struggle, which has now persisted for over a century, remains the driving force behind the region’s turmoil. Any framing of current events as merely an Israel-Iran conflict risks diverting attention from the core issue: Israel’s expansionist ambitions, which, if left unchecked, threaten not only Palestine but the Arab world at large.

* The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University.

* A version of this article appears in print in the 7 November, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly