Albert Camus and the Israel – Palestine Conflict
✍️ Author’s Note
This reflection, Albert Camus and the Israel-Palestine Conflict, explores how the moral philosophy of Camus—his emphasis on human dignity, justice, and the rejection of absolutism—offers a lens through which to view one of the most tragic and enduring conflicts of our time. While the circumstances have evolved since I first wrote it, the core questions about justice, humanity, and moral responsibility remain painfully relevant. The post is a testament to the enduring relevance of Camus’ thought in a world still grappling with division and violence.
—WJJH
The Israeli/Palestine conflict, this festering malignant wound in the Holy Land, evokes the sentiments expressed by Albert Camus in 1956 regarding the “infernal dialectic.”
“Whatever kills one side kills the other too, each blaming the other and justifying his violence by the opponent’s violence. The eternal question as to who was first responsible loses all meaning then. And because they could not manage to live together, two populations, similar and different at the same time but equally worthy of respect, are condemned to die together, with rage in their hearts”.
He drew parallels to the conflict between France and Algeria from 1954 to 1962, known as “la guerre sans nom” — the war without a name fought between the Algerian fellagha and the French military. In the Algerian war for independence from France, numerous villages were razed, extensive damage was inflicted on forests, and around 2,000,000 inhabitants were relocated to new settlements. The human toll of the war remains a subject of dispute, with estimates ranging from hundreds of thousands to as many as 1.5 million.
At the time Camus published a series of editorials decrying the murderous quid pro quo playing out in Algeria. “We know nothing of the human heart,” he wrote, “if we imagine the French Algerians can forget the massacres at Philippeville.” “It is another form of madness,” Camus added, “to imagine that repression can make the Arabs feel confidence in France.” This is the same madness we see play out in the Israeli/Palestine conflict.
After much delay by the US, the so-called “road map” has been presented to the different parties in the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict. A central part of the road map is the sidelining of Hamas or Yasser Arafat which has done nothing to solve the conflict.
Like previous US government have supported Iraq, it should not be forgotten how Israeli government have supported Hamas, since this was seen as counterweight to the PLO. In short, Hamas is a beast of their own making, and as long as the occupation lasts the movement, and the ideology will survive.
Prime Minister Sharon must be overjoyed that his friend President George W Bush called him “this man of peace” and has waited this long giving him the opportunity to leave a path of destruction on the occupied territories.
Looking at the occupation and the Palestinian/ Israeli conflict in general it can be concluded that just like in Lebanon, Prime Minister Sharon has been inheriting the wind of his policies. Sharon “he made it a desert and called it peace,” has been on a stampede and has left a path of destruction without a battle plan, or exit strategy.
It is an illusion to think that by turning to massive violence the Israeli army can stop the resistance against occupation. The slogan “to root out terror” is a vain illusion and his so-called victory elusive, only diplomatic negotiations can bring a solution. It should be obvious that the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is in no less flagrant a violation of the Security Council than Iraq, showing the double standard of the Bush administration when international law is concerned.
Israel today is fundamentally different from the liberal Zionist state envisioned by the founders. Demographic changes in the 1980s, the arrival of Sephardic Jews, and the expansion of settlements under the Menachem Begin Government have altered the political landscape.
The shift towards uncompromising hawkish conservatism under Begin, Shamir, and Sharon replaced Israel’s moderate and secular direction. This new approach shows little interest in resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
In fact, it has always been Sharon his quest to to follow the greater Irael strategy and end the Palestine / Israeli peace process resulting in war atrocities under his responsibility in the occupied territories. The 1982 massacre in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, for which the Kahan commission after a four-month investigation held defence minister Ariel Sharon indirectly responsible, for failing to prevent the massacre.
This is the same Sharon who was in 1953 as commander of Unit 101, responsible for the massacre of Kibya, a small village in Jordan, where 75 people were slaughtered; of which 50 were women and children.
I can only conclude that the 35-year occupation of the Palestine territories has corrupted Israel morally, which is dominating, expelling, starving, killing, and humiliating the Palestinians, inviting the destructive suicides attacks, resulting in the terrible waist of young lives we see in Israel and Palestine.
The house to house razzia’s, the raids, the snipers, the executions and mass arrests remind me of the dark times of European history, we witness war crimes, crimes against humanity, a spiral of violence, which make it impossible to keep silent.
There can be only one conclusion, as Camus would have concluded, dignity and security can only come on common soil inhabited by two independent peoples. Israel has the right to exist within its own borders, defend itself, but the Palestinian people have suffered long enough under Israeli occupation, and a lasting resolution leading to their independence can only be achieved through diplomatic negotiations implementing the two-state solution.
May 2003, Revised May 2024
📌Blog Excerpt
In 1956, Albert Camus drew parallels between the conflict in the Holy Land and the Algeria-France war, highlighting the futility of violence. The current Israeli/Palestinian conflict reflects this pattern. The introduction of the “road map” and U.S. involvement has not resolved the issue, only diplomatic negotiations and the two-state solution lead to lasting peace.
