The world after 7 October: Israel's strategic defeat and the future of Zionism

Supporters and members of the Palestinian community gathered to stage a pro-Palestinian march peacefully through the streets in Lima, Peru on October 7, 2024 [Klebher Vasquez/Anadolu via Getty Images]

The world will never be the same again post-7 October 2023. The events that have unfolded over the past year have shaken the foundations of the Middle East and challenged long-held assumptions about what is commonly referred to as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Ever since it founding in Palestine, the ball has always been in Israel’s court to demonstrate to the world that Zionism and the idea of settler-colonialism could reconcile with its neighbours that it has taken their land, and live in peace. After eight decades, Israel has demonstrated beyond any doubt that it cannot square this circle. The continued indulgence of the Zionist project to establish a state built on Jewish supremacy in Palestine promises nothing but more death, more destruction and more wars.

The significance of this moment was captured by the famed Israeli writer Yuval Noah Harari: “Israel is at a crossroads,” said Harari in an interview three days ago. “I do think its [Israel’s] identity is at stake. The soul of the country is now the battleground, and the outcome will decide not just the shape of Israel for many, many years to come, but also the shape of Judaism.”

Harari drew a stark parallel between the current situation and a pivotal moment in Jewish history when Jewish extremists in the first century CE threated the existence of Judaism itself. “The Second Temple era ended after the Zealots took over with messianic visions and almost destroyed the Jewish people, almost destroyed the Jewish religion, which had to then reinvent itself,” he explained, referring to the Jewish sect known for their violent opposition to Roman rule in Palestine. Their extremism gave rise to the modern term “zealot”, denoting a fanatical adherent to a cause.

The Zealots have now taken over Jerusalem again

Drawing a direct parallel between ancient Jewish extremists and the current Israeli government, Harari said that the Zealots have now taken over Jerusalem again, by which he means the far-right government of Benjamin Netanyahu. “And the question that keeps bothering me: What did Jews learn in those 2,000 years? Why did it take 2,000 years of learning in yeshivas to go back to that same moment and basically adopt the values of the Roman legion?”

Nevertheless, he went on to defend Zionism as “simply the national movement of the Jewish people.” In his lengthy defence of the political ideology, he failed to address the fundamental contradiction at its core. How does one establish national self-determination for Jews in a land that was 90 per cent non-Jewish? The answer, tragically, has been ethnic cleansing and settler-colonial violence against the indigenous population.

This inherent contradiction was foreseen over a century ago by the likes of Yusuf Diya Al-Khalidi, a prominent Palestinian intellectual and politician. In 1899, Al-Khalidi wrote a prescient letter to Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism, warning that the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine would inevitably lead to conflict and violence.

His concerns were echoed in the findings of various US and British commissions in the early 20th century. The King-Crane Commission of 1919, dispatched by US President Woodrow Wilson to gather opinions from the local population, found strong opposition to the Zionist project among the indigenous Arab population of Palestine. The commission noted that Arabs feared becoming a minority in their own land and viewed Zionist ambitions as a form of colonialism that would lead to their displacement and marginalisation.

Similarly, the Haycraft Commission, established in 1921 to investigate the causes of Arab-Jewish riots, identified Palestinian fear of Zionism as one of the main drivers of violence. The commission documented widespread anxiety among the Palestinian population regarding rising Jewish immigration and land purchases, which were seen as precursors to their eventual dispossession and ethnic cleansing.

These warnings have been vindicated tragically over the past year.

More than 42,000 people have been killed in Israel’s military offensive against the Palestinians in Gaza. Western doctors and reputable medical publications estimate that the true number of casualties may exceed 118,000, representing more than five per cent of Gaza’s population.

The scale of destruction is staggering. With an estimated 12,000 children among those killed and Gaza rendered more or less uninhabitable, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has indicated that Israel’s actions may amount to “plausible genocide”. The ICJ has called upon the international community to take decisive action to bring an end to Israel’s decades-long illegal occupation of Palestine within a year, underscoring the urgency of addressing the root causes of the cycle of violence.

Despite warnings issued nearly a year ago, never mind over a century ago, about the violence that would be required to impose a Zionist state in Palestine, world leaders have failed to act effectively. Israel has not only continued its offensive in Gaza but has also expanded its operations into the illegally occupied West Bank, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon, displacing over one million people in the process.

What has become more apparent than ever is that the maintenance and servicing of Zionism requires continued violence and conflict. The need for an endless supply of enemies was foreseen by Herzl himself. He believed that the very existence of the Jewish nation depended on the presence of a common enemy. “A Nation is, in my mind, a historical group of men of a recognisable cohesion held together by a common enemy,” said Herzl. He went on to apply this specifically to the Jewish nation: “Then if you add to that the word ‘Jewish’ you have what I understand to be the Jewish nation.”

According to Zionism’s founder, therefore, a steady supply of enemies is essential for the cohesion and existence of the Jewish nation. This belief, however, stands in stark contrast to the foundations of Judaism itself. Jews and Judaism have existed for millennia before the advent of Zionism, with their identity and cohesion rooted in religious, cultural and ethical traditions rather than in opposition to a common enemy. Herzl, however, said that the perpetuation of Jewish nationhood is contingent upon the constant presence of adversaries, a notion that fundamentally redefines Jewish identity in terms of conflict rather than heritage.

Over the past year, despite its overwhelming military superiority, Israel has suffered a number of strategic defeats. For a start, the myth of Israeli invincibility as a military force has been shattered. Israel has failed to eradicate Hamas in Gaza. This failure has exposed the limitations of Israel’s military might and challenged its long-standing deterrence, known as the Dahiya doctrine, which relied on the threat of overwhelming force to maintain Israel’s perceived invincibility.

Moreover, Israel has cemented its status as a pariah state in the eyes of the world. The brutality of its actions in Gaza, coupled with its expansion of the conflict into neighbouring countries, has stripped away any pretence of victimhood. Israel can no longer claim credibly to be acting in self-defence against existential threats, a narrative rooted in the historical trauma of the Holocaust and experiences of anti-Semitism. Instead, it has revealed itself as an aggressor — occupation is, by definition, an act of aggression — willing to carry out what many consider to be genocide and to bomb four countries in the region in pursuit of its goals.

This strategic defeat goes to the heart of Israel’s identity and its place in the international community.

The two pillars upon which Israel has built its policy — invincibility and victimhood — have crumbled. The world has witnessed both the limits of Israel’s military power and the extent of its willingness to inflict pain on civilians.

The events of the past year have demonstrated that Zionism, as it has been implemented, is fundamentally incompatible with peace and stability in the Middle East. It is time for a paradigm shift in how we approach the so-called Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one that recognises the rights and aspirations of all people in the region and seeks to build a future based on equality, justice and mutual respect.

The strategic defeat suffered by Israel presents an opportunity for reflection and change. It is a moment for the international community to reassess its approach to the conflict and for Israeli society to confront the contradictions at the heart of the Zionist project. Only by addressing these fundamental issues can we hope to break the cycle of violence and move towards sustainable peace in the region.