In exploring the philosophical underpinnings of the Israel-Palestine discourse, I revisited the writings of Abdelwahab El-Messiri, an Egyptian scholar whose analyses of secularism and modernity are profoundly illuminating. El-Messiri critiques Western modernity’s inclination towards immanence, suggesting that by rejecting transcendent values, societies risk embracing a form of nihilism where power dictates morality. He posits:
“The functional nature of Israel means that it was created by colonialism for a specific purpose. It is thus a colonial project that has nothing to do with Judaism.”
This perspective challenges us to consider how secular frameworks, devoid of transcendent moral anchors, may inadvertently justify acts of injustice under the guise of political necessity.
The global conversation around Israel and Palestine is not just political. It’s also philosophical. Beneath the headlines, beyond the talking points, lie two powerful yet problematic frameworks shaping how much of the world views the conflict: secularism and Darwinist thought. Both claim to offer objectivity. But both, when unchecked, may strip away the very humanity needed to make peace possible.
Secularism’s Moral Vacuum
Secularism often prides itself on neutrality, claiming to free public discourse from religious bias. But what happens when we remove not just religion, but transcendent moral grounding altogether?
In today’s global discourse, we frequently see ethics reduced to interests. Civilian deaths become “collateral damage.” Displacement is reframed as a “necessary security measure.” The question is no longer Is this just? but Is this strategically beneficial to us or our allies?
This moral flexibility contrasts sharply with sacred teachings. The Qur’an declares:
“Whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land—it is as if he had slain mankind entirely.” (Qur’an 5:32)
This is not just a verse; it’s a worldview. A life is sacred, regardless of its political utility.
The Western world, shaped by post-Enlightenment secularism, often claims moral leadership while simultaneously turning a blind eye to brutality when convenient. It echoes Nietzsche’s prophetic warning:
“They have abolished the true world: what world is left? The apparent one perhaps?… But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one!”
Without a higher standard, we risk living in a world where only power defines right, and peace becomes a mirage.
Darwinism’s “Survival of the Strongest”
Though Charles Darwin himself did not preach cruelty, Social Darwinism, his theory’s ideological offspring, has fueled a darker legacy: the normalization of conquest.
When Zionist rhetoric portrays Palestine as “a land for those who can secure it,” it channels a colonial logic familiar to the 19th century. Displacement becomes “natural.” Blockades become “strategy.” Borders become lines not drawn by law, but by who can hold them by force.
This isn’t just morally dangerous. It’s strategically self-defeating. Israel, in its hyper-pursuit of security, embodies the very survivalist anxiety it claims to transcend. A nation that sees its neighbors only as threats eventually becomes a prisoner of its own fear.
Here lies the great irony: in trying to rise above the primitive, we reinforce it.
The Way Forward: Rejecting the False Binary
Too often, we’re told there are only two choices:
-
Embrace cold realism, where might makes right.
-
Or fall into naïve idealism, where peace is utopian fantasy.
But there is a third way. One rooted in moral absolutes, not moral relativism. One where life is sacred, justice is non-negotiable, and peace is not a tactic, but a principle.
All three Abrahamic faiths—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—proclaim that land cannot be stolen, people cannot be dehumanized, and peace is worth sacrifice.
The real question isn’t political. It’s ethical:
Should we continue to excuse war as “human nature,” or reclaim the sacred as a guide to what humanity could be?
Until we choose the latter, we will continue to describe violence as inevitable. When in truth, it is only familiar.
When we call war “human nature,” we don’t describe reality; we excuse it.
The first step to peace is refusing to believe savagery is normal.
