11 September 2024, NIICE Commentary 9573
Subrat Kumar Ratha
Following the irascible destruction of Israeli lives, the widespread retaliation against Hamas and the people of Gaza evokes the condition of a Hobbesian state of nature. The violent conflicts between the two belligerent neighbours have been wiping out the process of diplomatically-channelised peace negotiation and also making the world community reluctant to intervene with authoritative principles. In addition, the systemic failure of the world order has revived the condition of a Hobbesian structure where war seems inevitable given the exigency of protective national interest. The devastating conditions in Gaza and repeatable atrocities against civilians remind our transition from constant insecurity to perpetual peace through a Hobbesian lens.
Hobbesian state of nature traced its origin from the celebrated work of Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan (1651). Influenced by both childhood and the English Civil War, Hobbes was forced to get the deeper instincts of a private version of human understanding based on continual adventure for personal gain and ruthless indoctrination of fear and insecurity. Given such conditions, the war becomes a tool of all against all. Hobbes had to depict a scary image of human society to elaborate on the necessity of an authoritative ruler or a rule-based order to protect society from the spillover of constant anarchy and insecurity among fellow human beings.
The Israel-Gaza conflict, also known as the Israel-Palestine conflict, has been a prolonged territorial conflict that started in 1947 with the failure of a two-state theory proposed by the UN and was sharply rejected by Palestine. Further, during the Six Day War in 1967, Israeli forces occupied the Gaza Strip, a sandwiched land between Israel and the Mediterranean Sea, and maintained until 2005. On the other side, Palestine was endorsed by Hamas, a radical Islamist group, given the electoral victory in 2006. Despite being designated as a terrorist group, Hamas has been consistent towards the complete destruction of Israel.
The recent upsurge of conflict between Israel and Gaza started with the demise of 815 Israeli civilians attacked indiscriminately by Hamas on 7 October 2023, escalating the tension further after the hostage of 251 Israelis by the Hamas group. In response, Israel came up with an ultimatum to destroy the Hamas from its most bottomless ground. Given the wrath of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “Though Israel did not start this war, but will finish it”, it’s become crystal clear that Israel has been fighting to end the war. As usual, this conflict has claimed more than 40,000 lives of Gazans, and many people have fled the country; moreover, many asylum centres, schools and hospitals were also attacked, reportedly by Israeli forces. In particular, the most war-vulnerable have been the women and children, losing family members and suffering from acute hunger as the entire strip was secluded from being used to deliver essential supplies.
At this juncture, the world community, have to raise the question of how it is possible to end a war with the medium of war. No matter what intention Israel was engaged in the war with Hamas, it has been converted into a civilian war, draining the lives of common civilians on a larger scale without any gradation between the people of Gaza and members of the Hamas group. Since 1947, peace initiatives have been placed before Israel and Palestine to end the conflict. In the times of the Arab world, America, India, and many other countries have convinced Israel to stop the violent attacks on Gaza and open up the humanitarian corridor to extend safety measures to the civilians affected by the war. Looking at the current engagement of Israel in the war, it seems impossible for the world community to stop Israel from causing a catastrophe in Gaza.
Despite the existence of the United Nations and other related institutions and arbitration centres, violence and wars have been inevitable. In the security council meeting, the Chief of UN approached the two-state solution, which Israel ignored. On 10 June 2024, the UN Security Council adopted a ceasefire announced by US President Joe Biden. Further, the UN Security Council, since 5 March 1948, has adopted 191 resolutions to settle the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The International Court of Justice, in the advisory opinion on 19 July 2024, made Israel responsible for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and also urged the Israeli side to withdraw their presence from the disputed territory. In an update made on Palestine’s economy on 23 May 2024, the World Bank highlighted the unhealthy economy with widespread poverty, joblessness, and a sharp drop in GDP, especially in Gaza, around a 28 percent drop. All these above initiatives have been unable to create hope for tackling the disputes and human miseries between Israel and Gaza.
As stated at the outset, the nature of the entire Israel-Gaza conflict has been likely as Hobbesian anarchy prevailed in the state of nature. Based on the theoretical construction of Realism, the anarchic tendency of the world order is inherently natural due to the absence of a supreme authority to regulate world affairs. Bodies like UN, ICJ, and World Bank only have advisory jurisdiction, which cannot alter the reality until the consent of the parties involved. The trauma and anxiety of insecurity generated from the conflict need to be understood broadly as a systematic failure of the world order. The roar of great powers and institutions regarding human development could not be realised if the global order still survives in anarchy. The Israel-Gaza conflict has made us conscious to think about the future of war, violence and human catastrophe. Needless to say, the future of our world order should transition, with the due consensus among fellow states, from a Hobbesian state of nature to civil society. The process could only be possible when respect for international laws is maintained and the voices of the global bodies and institutions are heard without any ignorance. Otherwise, the war would be used as a weapon to end the war, and the lives of common citizens would be denied at a large scale.
Subrat Kumar Ratha is a PhD Candidate at Department of International Relations and Politics, Central University of Kerala, India.
