Why we are here: two peoples, one land

by Monica Toft, Academic Dean

The horrors we are witnessing in Israel and Gaza have been long in the making. At their core they involve a territory that is claimed by two peoples; two nations which, in spite of their shared history, believe this territory cannot be shared. Why? Because territory is the basis on which nations define themselves and the basis on which they ensure their future as a nation, a people.

As a scholar of ethnic violence and war, I can verify that, historically, territory is the single biggest issue over which most wars have been fought. Contestation over boundaries, who resides within them, and how they can live is the crux of the issue and will remain so. 

With few exceptions, every nation has a defined homeland, a place of exogenesis, from which narratives of the birth of the nation emanate. Tales of horror and destruction give way to tales of bravery and courage, with tombs of unknown soldiers erected as symbols of that heroism. 

What is most striking about these narratives is that for nations and those defending them, sacrificing one’s life is considered heroic because it supports the nation’s survival, even at the expense of one’s own. Blood spilt, graves dug and filled guarantee that the nation maintains control over the borders of its territorial homeland, that its language can continue to be spoken, and its cultural and religious practices can flourish. By contrast, in the Christian and Muslim traditions, sacrificing one’s life promises eternal paradise or heaven. Religious adherents thus believe they personally benefit from the sacrifice of their lives in fights with those deemed to threaten their faith.

The problem, of course, is that these national origin stories almost always involve violence and war with other nations. The case of Israel and Palestine is therefore not unique (just consider what is happening in Ukraine and the increasing tensions returning to the Balkans). The beauty of nationalism is that it helps to create and consolidate a people. Its tragedy is that this creation and consolidation come at the expense of another people, another nation aspiring to the same.

Where does this tragic situation of two peoples fighting over the same land leave us now? Obviously, there is no easy fix. We know that violence begets violence and that the latest round is only going to reinforce the narratives on both sides in this conflict. It will only more deeply embed the notion, though false, that each side must target the other, even if its only wish is to simply survive. It has been done before: in April of 1998, two bitterly divided contestants for control of Northern Ireland—contestants who like Palestinians and Israelis had come to view each other as existential threats to their own survival—agreed to disarm, share power, and address the rights of both communities. To do that in today’s war will demand things that rarely go together: leadership, courage and persistence.

Extremist ’never enders’ on both sides will assassinate moderates and attempt to overwhelm peace with barbaric attacks on civilians. So the leaders that follow will need to be brave in turn, as well as persistent. They will need to be patient in circumstances in which both sides are convinced they’ve already waited long enough. The alternative is for Israel to forever blight its legitimacy by initiating a war against a people increasingly able to launch their own violence against it. Not only can there be no victors in such an act; there can be no survivors either.

This piece was submitted for publication on October 17th, 2023.