Israel's Existence Crisis: Legitimacy in the 21st Century

The crisis of Israel's legitimacy in the modern world
Can a state whose raison d'être is a historical-mythical right to a territory survive in a world that no longer accepts settler colonialism? The question is no longer decided on battlefields, but in archaeology, genetics, and international law. October 7 proved it again: any analysis of Israel's existence becomes an ideological minefield where even verifiable data end up being used as a weapon.

The colonial anachronism of 1948
When the Zionist movement was founded, and in the years leading to the creation of the state of Israel, colonialism was fully accepted by almost everyone. The American conquest of the West had not ended when the first European settlers arrived in Palestine, and in 1948 the disintegration of the British and French empires had barely begun. No one was yet interfering with South Africa or Rhodesia. But today, that conceptual framework has disappeared: the international community no longer accepts that a people can take over a territory invoking superiority over its inhabitants.

This is the first problem of legitimacy. If the state of Israel was born with a colonial logic, as it is reproached, then its very existence is an anachronism. The comparison with Rhodesia, the white state of southern Africa that dissolved in 1980, is repeated again and again in the most critical analyses. What difference is there between the right of British settlers to govern the black majority and the right of Jewish settlers to govern the Palestinians? The question is uncomfortable, but not new.

The demographic battle: who is native?

The second front is identity. It is argued that the Palestinian people are an invention of the 20th century, a byproduct of the conflict, and that the Arabs living in the area came from recent migrations. Against this, there is a demolishing fact retrieved from the Zionist sources themselves: in 1905, Palestine had 550,000 inhabitants, of whom the Jewish presence was testimonial, and the land belonged mostly to the Arabs. The Zionist movement's own archives recognize that Jewish immigrants did not arrive in an empty territory, but in an inhabited and cultivated land.

Archaeology does not help the official narrative either. Jerusalem, the holy city, was founded between 6,500 and 5,500 years ago by the Proto-Canaanite people, long before Judaism existed, and was consecrated to the god of twilight, Shalem. The first mention of the city in Egyptian texts is prior to 2000 BC. That is, the "eternal capital of the Jewish people" has a pre-Jewish history that nationalist narratives prefer to omit.

And then there is genetics. A study widely cited in the discussion points out that Ashkenazi Jews, the elite that dominates the state of Israel, descend from populations of the ancient Russian empire: Russians, Poles, Belarusians, and Ukrainians. Their biological link with the territory of Palestine is, at best, questionable. In contrast, Palestinians are portrayed as the true natives, descendants of the Canaanites, who never entirely left. The detailed demographic analysis, with figures by year and origin of immigrants, completely dismantles the myth of an empty territory.

The geopolitical umbrella: the American golem

The third leg of the debate is purely geopolitical. Israel exists because it has acted as a colony of the United States in the Middle East, a useful partner to organize wars by intermediation without exposing American soldiers. The "golem" role of the White House has become more visible with the Gaza war. The logic is simple: why sacrifice your own soldiers when you can sacrifice those of an ally? This strategic dependence reinforces the perception that Israel does not stand on its own, but by the protection of a superpower.

However, that umbrella is trembling. The media battle is being lost at an accelerated pace. Each image from the war in Gaza, each figure of victims, each debate at the UN pushes Israel toward international isolation. The only way out, argued by an increasingly influential current, is to also recognize the Palestinian state and renounce settlement policies. Otherwise, the diplomatic cost will be unsustainable, even for Washington.

The Jewish state vs. democratic liberalism

There remains the internal contradiction, the most difficult to resolve. A state that defines itself as Jewish and democratic at the same time in a territory where two peoples coexist poses an enigma: either all citizens are treated equally, and it ceases to be exclusively Jewish, or the ethnic character of the state is preserved, and democracy becomes a farce. There is no middle ground, and recent history has shown that the defense of the Jewish character of the state prevails over the democratic principle.

The conclusion is uncomfortable: Israel can keep winning wars, but the battle of ideas is slipping away. The international community has moved from debating whether Israel has the right to exist to asking how it should do so. The answer, for many, begins by recognizing the Palestinian state. For others, that would be signing its death warrant. And meanwhile, the world keeps turning.