THE ISRAEL–PALESTINE CONFLICT: THE HOLOCAUST AND THE NAKBA
- angelogeorge988
- Aug 31
- 13 min read
Updated: Sep 20
In a world marked by geopolitical tensions, armed conflicts, and ideological divisions, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict stands out for its longevity, complexity, and symbolic weight. It fuels intense and often polarised debates, in which each side asserts the absolute legitimacy
of its own position, while compromise appears exceedingly difficult to achieve. A proper understanding of this conflict requires an objective historical analysis—one that avoids simplistic or partisan interpretations and instead situates its causes and consequences within the broader context of twentieth-century history.
The Persecution of the Jews
The Jewish people, long subjected to discrimination and persecution, suffered acutely in modern and contemporary Europe, where antisemitism was deeply entrenched. The rise of the Nazi regime in Germany during the 1930s transformed antisemitism into official state policy, culminating in the genocide known as the Holocaust. At the Wannsee Conference of 20 January 1942, Nazi leaders resolved to implement the “Final Solution,” which led to the extermination of approximately six million Jews in concentration and death camps—the largest genocide in modern history (Bauer, 2001; Friedländer, 2007). Holocaust survivors, together with many members of the wider Jewish diaspora, regarded the British Mandate of Palestine (under the authority of the League of Nations) as the natural setting for the reconstruction of a national homeland, in keeping with religious tradition and the Zionist ideology that had gained momentum since the late nineteenth century (Herzl, 1896/1988; Shapira, 2012). Successive waves of Jewish immigration, accelerated by the tragedy of the war, gave further impetus to the political project of establishing the State of Israel.
The United Nations Partition
In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, which proposed the partition of Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state, with Jerusalem placed under a special international regime. While the plan was accepted by Zionist leaders, it was rejected by Arab states and Palestinian representatives, who regarded it as unjust, arguing that it disregarded both demographic realities and the rights of the Arab majority population (Morris, 2008; Khalidi, 1997). The immediate response was the outbreak of hostilities, culminating in the first Arab–Israeli war of 1948. On 14 May 1948, the State of Israel declared
independence and was swiftly recognised by the major powers. During the ensuing conflict,
more than 700,000 Palestinians were displaced or fled from territories that became part of Israel, an event referred to in Arab historiography as the Nakba (“Catastrophe”). This foundational rupture—the establishment of Israel alongside the mass Palestinian exodus—remains the historical core of the conflict and helps to explain its persistence to the present day (Pappé, 2006; Morris, 2008).
The Fundamental Issue
At the heart of the conflict lies the fact that both Jews and Palestinians claim the same land as their legitimate national homeland: for Jews, it is the “historic home” regained after centuries of exile and persecution; for Palestinians, it is the locus of their collective identity, threatened by colonisation and displacement. This overlap of historical and religious claims, compounded by contradictory international decisions and the intervention of external geopolitical interests, has made the dispute one of the most complex and enduring conflicts of the modern world. What follows is an account of the history of this conflict. This is only a brief overview of the historical evolution of the situation. For a more in-depth understanding, after reading this article, we recommend consulting the specialised works listed at the end.
Jewish Claims: The Biblical Homeland, the Temple, and the Continuity of the Diaspora
In Jewish tradition, the “Land of Israel” (Eretz Israel) constitutes the historical and religious matrix of the Jewish people, with Jerusalem—the site of the First and Second Temples—functioning as a theological, cultic, and identity centre until its destruction in 70 CE, and thereafter within the memory and liturgy of the diaspora. Prayers such as the Passover refrain “Next year in Jerusalem” preserved, across the centuries, a symbolic orientation toward return. Historiography emphasises that both archaeology and textual sources attest to the centrality of the Temple in the life of ancient Judaism. In the modern era, this cultural and religious continuity nourished the political project formulated under the name of Zionism in the late nineteenth century. From the Jewish perspective, the biblical–historical bond underpins the legitimacy of national claims, even if within Jewish tradition there remains an ongoing debate over the relationship between religious promise, historical right, and contemporary political solutions.
Islamic and Christian Claims: Jerusalem as a Shared Sacred Space
For Islam, the Haram al-Sharif/Al-Aqsa complex (including the al-Aqsa Mosque) is the third
holiest site, associated with the Prophet’s Night Journey (Isrāʾ) and Ascension (Miʿrāj), as recorded in Qur’anic tradition and hadith. Over the centuries, it has been maintained, rebuilt, and symbolically invested with meaning by successive Muslim powers. For Christianity, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre embodies the memory of the Passion, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Jesus, serving as a major centre of pilgrimage from Late Antiquity to the present day. Its confessional arrangement—the “Status Quo”—reflects the plurality of Christian traditions. In both cases, the sacrality of these sites anchors religious identities and historical narratives—Palestinian and Arab on the one hand, Christian on the other—that endow the territory with a significance extending far beyond political or demographic considerations.
The Overlapping Claims and the Transformation of Jerusalem into a “Flashpoint”
For all three traditions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—the same sites delineate partially overlapping sacred geographies: the Temple Mount (Har HaBayit) for Jews, the Haram al-Sharif/Al-Aqsa for Muslims, and the Holy Sepulchre together with other sanctuaries for Christians. This co-location of sacredness generates tensions whenever questions of control, access, and sovereignty are framed in political terms. Academic scholarship highlights that Jerusalem functions simultaneously as a site of religious memory and as a national symbol—within Judaism/Zionism on the one hand, and within Palestinian and Arab identity on the other. As a result, territorial compromise is often perceived not merely as a political concession but as a renunciation of faith imperatives or of foundational narratives. From this perspective, the dispute over Jerusalem extends far beyond the issue of borders: it represents a conflict between competing regimes of legitimation—religious, historical, and national—each invoking its own canonical and memorial “evidence.” This helps to explain both the persistence of sensitivities and the difficulty of reaching consensual solutions. Note: the present synthesis reflects established interpretations in the scholarly literature; for further reading, see thematic volumes and chapters in The Cambridge History of Judaism, encyclopaedic studies on al-Aqsa and the Holy Sepulchre, as well as inter- and multi-confessional works on Jerusalem as a “city of three faiths.”
The Rise of Zionism
The Zionist movement emerged in the second half of the nineteenth century, shaped by the rise of European nationalist currents and the intensification of antisemitism. Theodor Herzl gave it its theoretical and political foundation through his seminal work 'Der Judenstaat' (1896), in which he argued for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland as the only viable solution to the persistent persecution and discrimination Jews faced in Central and Eastern Europe (Laqueur, 2003). Although alternative locations were initially discussed (such as Uganda), Palestine was ultimately favoured due to its biblical and symbolic connection to the Jewish people. The first waves of immigration (Aliyot) began around 1882, establishing agricultural colonies and new communities. These efforts were supported financially by Jewish philanthropists such as Baron Edmond de Rothschild. For the local Arab population, who formed the majority in the region, the new settlements were perceived as a direct threat to their social and economic standing (Khalidi, 2006). Land purchases, often carried out through absentee landlords, resulted in the dispossession of Arab peasants and heightened feelings of marginalisation. For Jews, these colonies represented the beginning of national rebirth and a legitimate return to the “land of the ancestors.” For Arabs, they symbolised an unjust colonisation, supported by external powers, and a profound danger to their demographic majority and collective identity. This dual and antagonistic perception laid the groundwork for the first violent clashes between the two communities, particularly as Jewish settlements expanded in number and economic strength (Shlaim, 2001). The rise of Zionism, therefore, placed two emerging nationalist movements—Jewish Zionism and Arab nationalism—into confrontation, each claiming the same territory in the name of historical legitimacy and collective survival.
British Promises during the First World War
During the First World War, Britain issued a series of contradictory commitments in the Middle East that directly affected tensions between Jewish and Arab communities in Palestine. The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence (1915–1916) implied that, in exchange for Arab support against the Ottoman Empire, the British would recognise Arab independence in certain territories, potentially including all or part of Palestine (Fischbach, 2000). The precise interpretation of these promises was later disputed: Arabs believed that the whole of Palestine had been guaranteed to them, while the British adopted a more restrictive reading, generating a deep sense of betrayal. A similar pattern of duplicity—compounded by imperfect translations of treaty texts—can be observed in the colonial context of New Zealand, most notably in the Treaty of Waitangi of 6 February 1840. There too, ambiguities in the British drafting and interpretation facilitated land acquisition at the expense of the Indigenous population. The long-term consequences of these inconsistencies continue to be felt today.
The Sykes–Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration
The Sykes–Picot Agreement (1916), concluded in secret between Britain and France, envisaged the future division of the Middle East into zones of influence, including over Palestine. This agreement implicitly contradicted promises made to the Arabs and undermined their trust in British intentions (Porath, 1974). In parallel, the Balfour Declaration (1917) represented an official British commitment to the Jewish community, expressing support for the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” while stipulating that the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish population would not be prejudiced (Segev, 2000). For Jews, it was perceived as international recognition of Zionist aspirations; for Arabs, it signalled that their territorial interests were being disregarded. The outcome of these contradictory commitments was a deepening of mutual distrust between Arabs and Jews, with Palestine becoming the site of heightened political and social conflict, where external promises fueled perceptions of injustice and betrayal on both sides.
The British Mandate over Palestine (1920–1948)
Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the League of Nations entrusted Britain with the mandate over Palestine in 1920, tasking it with administering the territory and implementing the Balfour Declaration, while simultaneously safeguarding the rights of the existing Arab population (Khalidi, 1997). In practice, this dual mandate proved difficult to reconcile, as the interests of the Jewish and Arab communities were often incompatible. Jewish immigration during the interwar period, particularly in response to persecution in Europe and the rise of Nazism in the 1930s, heightened local tensions. Land acquisitions and the development of Jewish settlements were perceived by the Arab population as a threat to property rights and their demographic majority (Porath, 1974). These pressures culminated in the Great Arab Revolt (1936–1939), a series of protests and uprisings against both the British administration and Jewish immigration. The British response—military repression, arrests, and restrictions on movement—further inflamed resentment in both communities. Cumulative frustration over British policies, seen as inequitable and ineffective, contributed to the radicalisation of both sides and the intensification of intercommunal violence. Jews established paramilitary organisations to defend settlements and advance the Zionist project, while Arabs engaged in resistance actions, creating a climate of persistent instability throughout the mandate period.
The Impact of the Holocaust on the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict
The Holocaust (1941–1945), during which the Nazi regime exterminated approximately six million Jews, marked a turning point in Jewish history and intensified the arguments for establishing a Jewish national state in Palestine (Bauer, 2001). The experience of genocide underscored the urgent need for a secure refuge and lent moral and political legitimacy to the Zionist movement in the eyes of the international community. In the postwar period, global sympathy for Holocaust survivors translated into diplomatic and material support for Jewish immigration to Palestine, including pressure on Britain and the United Nations to implement partition plans (Morris, 2001). At the same time, for the local Arab population, the increase in Jewish immigration in the postwar years generated fears of forced displacement and the loss of control over territory and demographic majority. This dynamic exacerbated existing tensions, contributing to the escalation of intercommunal conflict that culminated in the 1948 war.
The UN Partition Plan (1947)
Amid escalating tensions between Jewish and Arab communities and Britain’s inability to manage the situation, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 on 29 November 1947, known as the Partition Plan for Palestine. The plan proposed dividing the territory of the former British mandate into two independent states—one Jewish and one Arab—while placing Jerusalem under international administration (UN General Assembly, 1947). The Jewish community accepted the plan, viewing it as international recognition of their right to self-determination and the creation of a national state. For Arabs, however, the plan was perceived as profoundly unjust: the proportion of territory allocated to the Jewish state appeared disproportionate to the local population (56.47% to Israel, 42.88% to Palestine), and the UN decision was interpreted as a violation of the Palestinians’ right to determine their own future on their land (Khalidi, 2007). This fundamental divergence—Jewish acceptance versus Arab rejection of the plan—triggered immediate intercommunal violence, which preceded the 1948 Arab–Israeli war and marked the beginning of a prolonged military and political conflict.
The Establishment of the State of Israel (1948) and the First Arab–Israeli War
On 14 May 1948, Jewish leaders proclaimed the independence of the State of Israel, in accordance with the UN Partition Plan and in response to the impossibility of implementing a negotiated solution with the local Arab community (Morris, 2001). Immediately following the declaration, neighbouring Arab states—Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq—launched a military invasion, marking the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War. The conflict combined conventional military operations with intercommunal violence between Jewish and Arab populations within the former British mandate. The outcome was complex: Israel expanded its territory beyond the boundaries envisaged by the UN plan, while approximately 700,000 Palestinians were forced to leave their homes in an event known as the Nakba (“Catastrophe”), becoming refugees in neighbouring Arab states and in the unoccupied areas of Palestine (Khalidi, 2007). These events established a pattern of enduring conflict: irreconcilable territorial claims, refugees without the possibility of return, and ongoing political and military tensions between Israel and its Arab neighbours—dynamics that remain evident to this day. What follows are the consequences of these multiple diplomatic hesitations and failures.
The Palestinian Refugee Issue and Major Human Losses
The conflict has generated a massive wave of refugees. Since the 1948 Nakba, millions of Palestinians have been forced to leave their homes and continue to live in refugee camps in neighbouring Arab states, as well as in the West Bank and Gaza. The question of the right of return remains unresolved, perpetuating political and social tensions in the region (Khalidi, 2007). Repeated wars and episodes of violence—including the conflicts of 1948, 1967, and 1973, as well as the two Intifadas—have caused hundreds of thousands of civilian and military casualties. These losses have profoundly affected the social structure and cohesion of the communities involved, leaving enduring trauma in the collective memory of both sides (Morris, 2001).
Ongoing Political and Military Tensions
Rivalries between Israel and neighbouring Arab states, along with internal conflicts among Palestinian factions (Fatah vs. Hamas), have perpetuated regional instability. This persistent
state of tension continues to hinder the development of a stable political framework conducive to a lasting peace agreement (Sayegh, 1997).
The Jerusalem Question and the Failure of Peace Processes
The status of Jerusalem remains highly contentious. The city is sacred to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, and control over its holy sites constitutes a central point of dispute. Any proposal to resolve Jerusalem’s status is immediately contested, making the city a focal point of the conflict. Numerous international efforts, including the Oslo Accords (1993–1995), Camp David (2000), and the Road Map for Peace (2003), have failed to produce a durable solution. Fundamental issues—territory, refugees, and the status of Jerusalem—remain unresolved, keeping the conflict both active and tense (Finkelstein, 2003). The conflict has polarised the Arab world and consistently drawn in major powers. It has become a symbol of the tensions between nationalism, religion, and geopolitics in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, shaping international politics and diplomatic relations on a global scale (Smith, 2010).
The Intractability of the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict
Owing to the complexity of historical, religious, and national claims, as well as demographic
and geopolitical challenges, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict offers no simple or viable solutions. Proposals for the withdrawal of a state or the cession of territory are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement, as they would require relinquishing fundamental rights perceived as essential by both parties. This structural rigidity renders the conflict essentially long-lasting, with compromises difficult to achieve and tensions enduring indefinitely (Morris, 2001; Khalidi, 2007).
The tragedy of this continuum
In the end, the tragedy of this land lies not in a single mandate, conference, or declaration, but in the relentless succession of empires that have treated it as a bargaining chip rather than a home. Ottoman reforms displaced peasants long before British colonial policy or Zionist immigration. British and French diplomats carved up the region with indifference to its people, while later powers have continued to instrumentalize the conflict for their own agendas. To reduce today’s impasse to a convenient narrative of blame—whether on Britain, the Zionists, or anyone else—is to ignore this deeper, layered history of dispossession and exploitation. What endures across centuries is not the righteousness of one empire or another, but the suffering of ordinary people who have carried the cost of imperial ambition. That is the uncomfortable truth: behind every new “protector” stands a long history of power, profit, and manipulation, while the voices of those most affected are once again drowned out.
Recommended Academic Sources
United Nations General Assembly. (1947). Resolution 181 (II): Future Government of Palestine.
Bauer, Y. (2001). Rethinking the Holocaust. Yale University Press.
Fischbach, M. R. (2000). Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab–Israeli Conflict. Columbia University Press.
Friedländer, S. (2007). Nazi Germany and the Jews: The Years of Extermination, 1939–1945. Harper Collins.
Herzl, T. (1988). The Jewish State (1896). Dover Publications.
Khalidi, R. (1997). Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness. Columbia University Press.
Khalidi, R. (2006). The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood. Beacon Press.
Laqueur, W. (2003). A History of Zionism. Tauris.
Morris, B. (2001). Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist–Arab Conflict, 1881–2001. Vintage Books.
Morris, B. (2008). 1948: A History of the First Arab–Israeli War. Yale University Press.
Pappé, I. (2006). The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oneworld Publications.
Porath, Y. (1974). The Emergence of the Palestinian-Arab National Movement, 1918–1929. Frank Cass.
Sayegh, F. A.: The Arab-Israeli Conflict. Permanent Tensions, 1922–1980. Yale University Press, 1997.
Segev, T. (2000). One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate. Holt Paperbacks.
Shapira, A. (2012). Israel: A History. Brandeis University Press.
Shlaim, A. (2001). The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World. Norton.
Some good points. On the Jewish side it misses persecution of Jews throughout the Arab world and treatment as second class citizens historically, combined with expulsions and property confiscations of hundreds of thousands across the Muslim world resulting in even more migration to israel.