The Arab-Israeli Conflict Revisited: Power, Memory, and Moral Fracture

This paper revisits the Arab–Israeli conflict as a moral and ethical problem shaped not only by territory or security, but by competing historical memories, asymmetric power, and the selective application of international law. Rather than reducing the conflict to moral binaries or contemporary flashpoints, the analysis situates present-day violence within longer histories of colonial governance, displacement, and trauma, examining how the Holocaust and the Nakba have been mobilized as competing moral reference points that structure political legitimacy and ethical recognition. Drawing on international humanitarian law, political philosophy, and global ethical discourse, the paper argues that historical suffering, while demanding acknowledgment, cannot function as a permanent exemption from accountability. It examines how legal frameworks, security narratives, and media representations have contributed to the normalization of civilian harm—particularly in Gaza—while fragmenting international ethical consensus. By treating memory as a form of power rather than solely as inheritance, the paper contends that moral fracture persists when history is invoked to justify asymmetry rather than constrain it. The analysis concludes that peace cannot be grounded in selective ethics or narrative dominance; without accountability, recognition, and restraint, memory itself becomes a source of continued injustice rather than reconciliation.