The conflict in this Arab and Islamic region is not the result of a fleeting miscalculation or a temporary political failure, but rather an expression of a structural logic that is reproduced whenever a real opportunity for stability arises.
To understand Israeli behavior towards its Arab and regional surroundings, it is not enough to rely on traditional security or ideological explanations.
Despite their importance, these approaches fail to explain the continuity of the conflict and its structural nature, even during periods when international pressure for a settlement intensifies.
The concept of «functional entities» provides a deeper analytical framework, by viewing Israel not as a natural state that emerged within its historical and geographical context, but as an entity created to perform a specific strategic function within a broader international and regional system.
In this model, the legitimacy and continuity of the Israeli entity are measured by its ability to perform its functional role, not by the extent of its natural integration into its surroundings.
A functional entity is one in which the function precedes the state, and the role is more important than stability.
According to this perspective, the emergence of Israel can be read as part of post-colonial arrangements, where it was established in the heart of a culturally homogeneous but politically fragmented Arab-Islamic region, to play a role that limits the formation of a cohesive Arab regional power, and keeps the geopolitical sphere in a state of permanent fluidity.
Within this context, Israeli military superiority is not merely a security option or a political tool, but an existential condition.
Strategic balance, or even approaching it, threatens the function itself, and raises fundamental questions about the justifications for the continued existence of this entity and its role.
Therefore, Israel opposes any regional arrangements based on a balance of power or collective security, and seeks to keep the region in a state of attrition and open conflict, with varying degrees of intensity.
The Palestinian issue lies at the heart of this logic.... For recognizing the existence of the Palestinian people and their inalienable rights, foremost among them the right of return and self-determination, practically means stripping Israel of its functional character and transforming it into a normal state subject to the rules of international law.
Hence, the denial of the Palestinian narrative continues, as do attempts to empty the issue of its political content, and reduce it to humanitarian or livelihood dimensions, in line with managing the conflict rather than resolving it.
A clear structural contradiction emerges here: while the international system, theoretically, seeks stability and conflict resolution, this Israeli entity relies on managing conflict rather than ending it. A just and comprehensive peace undermines the logic of superiority and exceptionalism, and re-presents Israel as an ordinary state in its surroundings, which contradicts its functional structure and regional role.
In conclusion:
Israel, within the framework of its functional logic, lives in a structural contradiction with the idea of a just peace, with regional stability, and with the full recognition of established and inalienable Palestinian rights.
Without addressing this contradiction at its roots, conflict will remain the rule, not the exception, and stability and peace will remain postponed, not absent by chance but hindered by the special role and function of the replacementist and racist Zionist entity.
שתף את דעתך
Israel... and the Logic of Permanent Conflict