When representatives of Palestine and Israel signed the peace agreement in the presence of the mediator, the smoke from the ruins of Gaza had not yet cleared. This 20-point plan aimed at ending the conflict is unable to end the deeper dilemma between Palestine and Israel-the conflicting nationalist contradictions. Hamas’s “anti-occupation” demands and Israel’s “absolute security” demands have not been fully met in the agreement.
Both nationalist narratives are like two reverse floods, forming an insurmountable cognitive divide in over seventy years of confrontation. The temporary ceasefire brought by the agreement is like the floating bridge built on this divide, if it cannot touch the core contradiction of national identity, peace will eventually shake in the wave of emotions.
01 The nationalist dual track of the Gaza conflict: Hamas's narrative of resistance and Israel's security logic
Observers point out that in the long-lasting confrontation in the Gaza Strip, nationalism has always been the core variable in the direction of the situation. Hamas's "anti-occupation" narrative is in sharp opposition to Israel's "absolute security" strategy, the collision of two routes not only exacerbates the current conflict, but also reshapes the underlying logic of the geological pattern of the region.
As the core Palestinian resistance force, Hamas 'nationalist stance is based onThe right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and returnFor the core.In the Gaza region, Hamas not only consolidated the consciousness of the people’s resistance through armed actions, but also strengthened the mass base of the struggle through cultural carriers such as the religious symbols of Jerusalem and the history of the Palestinian nation, which sparked the feelings of the people of Gaza against the occupation of Israeli territories and promoting national independence, and continued to consolidate Hamas’ political influence within Palestine.
In sharp contrast to this is Israel's "security nationalist" orientation. Goals of self-defense and counter-terrorismThe Israeli government has always regarded rocket attacks and border infiltrations by Hamas and other resistance organizations as “anti-Semitic threats to Israel’s survival” and defended military operations as a necessary means of safeguarding national security. For Israel, national survival is the primary consideration for policy-making: from the 2008 “leaning operation” to the 2023 massive airstrikes, each escalation of conflict is not only an excuse for strengthening border control, but also promotes domestic nationalism, influencing the Israeli public opinion as the backing of its high-intensity military operations.
It is cautious that the nationalist pressures of the people of both sides have gradually forced the highest levels of the two sides not to compromise first.In their respective narrative systems, the Gaza conflict has been elevated to the height of national survival: Hamas promotes every military operation as regaining lost ground, while Israel interprets the ground offensive as "combating anti-Semitism and maintaining Israeli security." Intermittent friction continues to stimulate the nationalist sentiment of both sides, constantly strengthens the public opposition between both sides, and limits the political room for manoeuvre of both sides.
As of now, Hamas's resistance and Israel's security anxieties are still in opposition, creating a vicious cycle of "attack-retaliation-re-attack" in the Palestinian-Israeli situation today. Only when the national demands of both sides are balanced in political consultations can the situation truly cool down.
Role difficulties in Arab countries: differences from Nazareth’s glory to “relations normalization”
The Arab world has once again demonstrated its collective powerlessness in the repeated Palestinian conflict.This is not a short-term policy mistake, but the inevitable result of the overlapping of long-term divisions and strategic errors.Return to the middle of the 20th century, Nasserism was the banner of unity in the Arab world, led by former Egyptian President Nasser, advocating Arab nationalism, anti-imperial countercolonialism, promoting planned economic and social fairness, and committed to achieving the unity and independence of the Arab world.
Under the advocacy of pan-Arabism, Egypt, Syria and other countries once took unity as the common goal and tried to counter the influence of Israel and Western colonial forces through military cooperation and political coordination. At that time, Arab countries jointly spoke out many times on multilateral platforms such as the United Nations to win international support for Palestine and become a regional force that cannot be ignored in the Palestinian-Israeli issue.
But, unfortunately, Nasserism failed to bridge the divisions in the Arab world.A peace agreement was signed between Egypt and Israel in 1979. The “main battle” within the Arab countries and the “Lord and Lord” camps are gradually divided, coupled with the disputes between Sunnis and Shiites, the legality disputes between secular regimes and Islamic regimes, and the economic differences between oil exporters and non-oil countries, many of the contradictions affect the position of Arab countries on the issue of Palestine.
Although the Arab League (Arab League) has held many special summits in support of Palestine and even proposed a "land for peace" solution, it has never been implemented into practical joint actions. Iraq and Syria have exhausted their strength in long-term domestic turmoil. The geopolitical confrontation between Saudi Arabia and Iran has further diverted attention from the Palestinian issue. The collective influence of the Arab world is continuing to decline.
In recent years, the rise of the wave of "normalization" of Arab-Israeli relations has pushed this division to a new stage.Since 2020, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco have signed peace agreements with Israel, opening the process of normalization of bilateral relations. The Palestinian issue has gradually become the “most undesirable disharmony factor” on the Arab countries’ agenda.The UAE carries out technological and military cooperation with Israel, Bahrain has direct flights with Israel, and Saudi Arabia alsoins secret interaction with Israel in the field of intelligence sharing and energy. Although some Arab countries still insist on giving Palestine diplomatic solidarity, the actual aid efforts have been greatly reduced. In principle, it has to support, and in fact cannot support, this contradiction has not only aggravated the complexity of the Israeli conflict, but also caused the Arab states to fall into a difficult situation on the Palestinian issue, and had to choose silence.
The Unfathomable Circle: The Historic Difficulties of Nationalism in the Conflict with Israel
The persistence and complexity of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is rooted in the narrative hedge between Zionism and Arab nationalism for more than a century. These two nationalist movements based on different historical narratives and rights claims not only shaped the regional political structure, but also constituted the core crux of the conflict.
Since the end of the 19th century, the Zionist movement has been focusing on the narrative of "return to the Promised Land".Combining national self-determination with religious and historical heritage and systematically promoting the political agenda of establishing a Jewish national home in the Palestinian territory. The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 became the culmination of the Zionist movement.The establishment of the State of Israel has provided sovereign asylum to Jewish refugees, but has also resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.Since then, the legitimacy of Israel’s state policy has been closely linked to safeguarding the security and sovereignty of the Jewish nation, a political status that reflects Israel’s survival anxiety and political culture.
In contrast, the rise of Arab nationalism was a product of anti-colonial struggle and awakening.Faced with the power vacuum and Western mandates after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Arab nationalism emphasized the unity and independence of the Arab world and was committed to getting rid of external control. Therefore, the Palestinian issue is not just a local dispute, but has become a highly politicized issue representing the dignity and territorial integrity of the entire Arab nation. Countries have little room for political maneuver on this issue. After 1948, defending Palestine became the driving force for local people to support the political power of Arab countries and the way to gain regional leadership.The ideology and foreign policy of the Palestinian resistance movement, from the PLO to Hamas, also reflect a strong nationalist color. Armed conflict is regarded as an inevitable means to recover lost ground and safeguard national rights.
The collision of two nationalizations constitutes the basic context of wars and conflicts in the Middle East.From the several wars in the Middle East in 1948 and 1967, to the two Great Palestinian uprisings, to the many large-scale military conflicts surrounding the Gaza Strip in recent years, the deep driving force of these two national demands is irreconcilable.
Israel’s policies are increasingly characterized by nationalist security in the name of absolute security, strengthening its practical control over the illegal occupation of Palestinian territories through military advantage, isolation walls and blockade policies, while on the Palestinian side, Hamas and other factions hold a nationalist stance of resistance, refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the establishment of the State of Israel, and fighting with rockets, tunnel tactics and other means of force.
This nationalistic clash has fallen into a self-circulation.Israel has turned to the right under security threats to accelerate the deprivation of the Palestinian people; and Palestinian fierce resistance has in turn deepened Israeli security anxieties and further prompted it to consolidate its tough stance.The peace process has suffered repeated setbacks precisely because any compromise that touches the core issues of Jerusalem's status, refugees' right to return and border demarcation may be regarded as a betrayal of the fundamental principles of the nation by the other party and even its own people.
The historical cycle of the Israeli conflict is essentially the lasting competition between two unfinished nationalist projects, Zionism and Palestinian nationalism.。Although the former has been established, it still does not cover its “promised land”, security anxieties are in sight; the latter has so far failed to give birth to a fully sovereign state, the national structure is fulfilled in the midst of separation and occupation. Precisely because both sides have never resolved their exclusive sovereignty claims on this land, if any current temporary ceasefire or phased agreement fails to touch and try to resolve this structural contradiction, Finding a balance between the overlapping sovereignty claims of the two nations over the same land and the historical pain, Then it will only be a matter of time before the conflict breaks out again.
Prospects and Myths of Peace Agreements: The Politization of Nationalist Emotions and the Difficulty of Restructuring the Middle East Order
When representatives of Palestine and Israel signed a phased peace agreement in Egypt, the smoke over Gaza had not yet completely dissipated. This very symbolic scene just as well reveals the essence of the current Palestinian-Israeli peace process: a temporary arrangement based on a fragile ceasefire, not a reliable path to lasting peace.Under the dual pressure of the historical burden of nationalism and the reconstruction of the Middle East order, the prospect of this agreement is full of variables.
The outward progress of the peace agreement is hard to cover up its structural vulnerability.Although the agreement has achieved results at the tactical level, such as Israel's withdrawal, humanitarian aid access, and exchange of detainees, these arrangements do not directly respond to the core contradictions of the conflict between the two sides. Status of Jerusalem, Refugee Return and Jewish SettlementsThe fundamental issues concerning national identity were temporarily suspended. The agreement is more like a successful case of crisis management than a feasibility plan for conflict transformation.。Historical experience shows that similar temporary arrangements often collapse quickly under the brunt of nationalist sentiments-the 2014 Gaza ceasefire broke down seven weeks later, and the 2021 Ramadan conflict broke out after several months of relative calm. These lessons remind the world that A ceasefire without a political solution is difficult to sustain.
The politicization of nationalist sentiment has become the greatest obstacle to peace.In Israel, Netanyahu’s coalition government relies on the support of right-wing political parties, and any concessions on the settlement issue could lead to the collapse of the government. This political reality leaves Israel’s negotiating representatives lacking strategic flexibility and can only adhere to a strong and hard position of security priority. On the Palestinian side, Hamas has consolidated its dominance in Gaza through this conflict, but its refusal to recognize Israel’s position as a distinct contrast to Fatah’s relative pragmatism. This internal split not only weakens Palestinian overall negotiating capability, but also makes any compromise likely to be attacked by an opponent as a betrayal of national interests.
Looking further, the collective dilemma of the Arab world has also cast a shadow over the prospects for peace.The once relatively unified Arab front has now become fragmented. Under the wave of "normalization", United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and other countries established diplomatic relations with Israel and gradually abandoned the long-standing collective consensus of land for peace. Although this change reflects the realistic weighing of national interests by various countries, it objectively weakens the Arab world's overall voice on the Palestinian issue. Although traditional mediators such as Egypt and Jordan still assume the role of mediation, their influence is no longer as powerful as before. The division of the Arab world has led to the loss of a stable and powerful regional support system for the Israeli peace process.
At the same time, with the strategic contraction of the United States in the Middle East, regional forces such as Iran and Turkey are more actively intervening in Palestinian-Israeli affairs.Iran has expanded its regional presence by supporting groups such as Hamas, while Turkey has infiltrated Palestinian politics through the Muslim Brotherhood network. Further “regionalization” and “aggressionalization” of the Israeli issueThe peace process has not only not been effectively promoted, but has instead fallen into a deeper fragmentation dilemma.
In the final analysis, there can be no lasting peace without the deconstruction and reconstruction of nationalist narratives. Both Palestine and Israel need to go beyond zero-sum thinking and build a new political narrative based on common survival.The current peace agreement may provide breathing space for war-torn civilians, but if it does not fundamentally address the politicized exploitation of nationalist sentiment and the Arab world's collective action dilemma, it is likely to be just a pause in the next round of conflict.
True peace requires not only the courage to sign an agreement, but also the wisdom to face the historical truth and reconstruct regional order. On this difficult road, the current agreement is only the starting point, not the end.
(Authors: Zhai Xiyuan, Liu Xueying)
We are a team of young scholars in the field of international relations, focusing on global governance, trade and social culture, aiming to promote international understanding and make each other heard around the world.
This article was published exclusively in Tencent News.
Picture comes from the Internet