Prior to the establishment of the state of Israel and their quest to reclaim their land, there was already tension tracing back to the 19th Century: one that is characterized by territorial, religious, and sovereign conflict in the Middle East. As a result of the Bar Kokhba Revolt—a rebellion that sought to liberate Jews under the rule of the Roman Empire yet was unsuccessful in attaining its objective, Jews migrated to Palestine and were subsequently part of the Ottoman Empire.
The latter part of the 1800s marked the emergence of the Zionist movement, equipped with the objective of designating Palestine—or, to Zionists, the land of Israel—as a Jewish homeland. This move was validated, and all the more fortified, by the Balfour Declaration in 1917: an instrumental document issued by the British government in “favor [of] the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” Albeit forwarded more than a century ago, it continues to bear immensely undeniable gravity on the current circumstances faced by Palestine and Israel; after all, the issuance is considered as the latter’s claim to their land.
Upon the conclusion of World War 1 and the establishment of the League of Nations, the aforementioned intergovernmental organization (IGO) enabled Britain to administer territories through a mandate, and Palestine was one of them. However, contradicting promises made to Arabs and Jews through the issuance—with both populations known to reside in the aforementioned territory—intensified their already-strained relationship. Rather than working towards the promise of independence for Arabs through the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence and the fulfillment of the Zionist movement through the Balfour Declaration, the Sykes-Picot Agreement between France and Britain entailed the separation of Palestine into regions under the aforementioned states’ rule. The more that Jewish immigrants occupied Palestine, the more the tensions between Jews and Arabs increased.
Art by Joseph Alicna
In order to reconcile the interests between Jews and Arabs, the United Nations proposed the Partition Plan of 1947. The document details Palestine being separated into two states that shall be home to both Jews and Arabs, asserting both its statehood and sovereignty. While Jewish leaders were accepting of the proposition, Arab leaders were not. Thus, the first Arab-Israeli War of 1948 was launched, thereby dispossessing numerous Palestinians and marking the beginning of the Nakba—literally, “catastrophe,” entailing the loss of lives, properties, and widespread displacement of Palestinians due to large-scale violence and coercion. With the presence of exponentially growing territorial frictions between both states, they engaged in the Six-Day War of 1967 and the Yom Kippur War of 1973. The former underscores the significance of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, while the latter is integral in the Palestinian Question of self-determination. Throughout the past years, there have already been numerous attempts to mobilize the Arab-Israeli peace process, with one of the most notable ones being the Oslo Accords of 1990. However, such efforts were met to no avail; territorial disputes continued to emerge through forms of violence, while the Palestinian question is left unanswered. Amidst the strained relations between Arabs and Jews, Palestinians are unable to return to their homeland; worse, they are being forcibly exiled through means of systemic marginalization; and worst, genocide.
Since the occupation of Israel in Palestine in 1948, numerous forms of oppression have been administered by the former unto Palestinians, especially those who reside in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The process of seizing the aforementioned lands during the Six-Day War entailed brutish ruthlessness by militaristic Israel. Their use of violent means to claim their territory led to more than 300,000 Palestinians forcibly fleeing from their homes. As war continues to wage between Israel and Palestine, the latter’s refugee population only continues to grow in number.
The Palestinian Bureau of Statistics found that, in 2023, the number of Palestinian lives slaughtered by Israel was the greatest since the Nakba. Among the 22,404 recorded deaths of Palestinians the previous year, 22,141 of them were committed since the launch of the Hamas shock attack on October 7, 2023, and 98% along the Gaza Strip. More Palestinian civilians fall victim and become collateral damage to Israel’s atrocities as the oppressive occupant launches multiple airstrikes. constraining citizens’ free movement, thus resulting in shortages in food, water, and electricity; and bombs their residences with toxic chemicals like white phosphorus that warrant life-threatening consequences once inhaled, among many others.
It is clear that, in the so-called war, Israel’s target is not just Hamas; they are conducting an ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people, including civilian women and children. As such, it is inappropriate to characterize the nature of Israeli-Palestinian relations as a mere conflict. Utilizing such a term ignores the evident power dynamic, where the former is clearly in a more powerful position than the latter—rather, it must be referred to as apartheid.
All individuals, regardless of their respective backgrounds and identities, have the right to life; it should not be forcibly taken away from them, especially through the means of war. It must be continuously emphasized that the death toll does not only measure recorded killings; it demonstrates the apathetic character of Israel, showing no consideration for the lives that civilians once lived and the aspirations they wished to reach. Parents with the will to provide and protect their kids from the dangers of war; women who are mothers, partners, and daughters; and, children who are unable to play in the streets and receive the promise of education—all are completely disregarded and undermined by Israel, blinded by their Zionist motivations and backed up by Western imperialist states such as the United States and European Union.
The involvement of the international community in the Israeli apartheid is politically motivated. It must be acknowledged that the Gulf states, located in the Arab region, are a significant source of oil and natural gas; such is necessary for maintaining stability in the US. The EU finds greater importance in Arab countries because they also ensure that their members’ economies are well-sustained and secure. Furthermore, their relations are all the more strengthened through the promise of allyship and collaboration in the face of external threats and humanitarian crises.
Unfazed spectator, dangerous enabler, or humanitarian advocate: the Philippine position
Perturbed by the violence in Gaza, the United Nations immediately convened to call for an “immediate humanitarian truce” between Israel and Palestine in October. This necessitates the provision of needed aid for Palestinians by the UN and other humanitarian agencies by enabling them unimpeded access to affected territories. With 120 of its member states favoring the course of action and 14 expressing that they are against it, the Philippines is among the 45 countries that abstained from the proposed resolution.
Ambassador Antonio Lagdameo, Sr., the Permanent Representative of the Philippines to the UN, tells the assembly that the country is concerned about the growing number of deaths and is, in fact, supportive of the initiative to provide humanitarian relief. However, the delegation’s abstention is mainly rooted in the lack of condemnation towards Hamas’ October 7 shock attack: an event that led to the death of Filipinos. This was quickly reconciled as the country reversed its previous position on the ceasefire in Gaza, and voted in favor of it in December 2023.
The Philippine delegation, however, still does not meet eye-to-eye with the Marcos administration in their sentiments on the so-called Israel-Hamas war. While the former sympathizes with civilians who are blatantly used as collateral damage, President Bongbong Marcos is fervent in his proclamation that the Philippines “will always stand with Israel” regardless of the circumstances. The same pro-Israel sentiments are reinforced through mass media, where Palestinians are painted as murderers to helpless Israelis.
The Philippines’ pro-Israel stance goes way back to the 40s when the country was one of the 33 member states that voted for the passage of the resolution on Palestine’s partition. Their support was fortified when the Philippines and Israel signed a treaty of friendship in 1958, making their diplomatic ties flourish all the more.
Two countries, one common history
Marcos’ and media stances on Israel’s occupation in Palestine were met with immense clamor and uproar from the Filipino community, whether it be on social media or in the streets through protests and rallies. It is clear that the government's position does not necessarily align with the calls of the people, particularly of human rights advocates.
Our sympathies must lie first and foremost with Palestine in respect of our long-standing imperialist history. Time and time again the Filipino people have been oppressed by global superpowers through the means of outright violence and occupation, as seen evidently in how the Philippines was colonized by Spain for 333 years. Through the Treaty of Paris, possession of the country was then passed over to the United States—an eerily similar scenario with the Balfour Declaration.
The aforementioned event would then lead to the Philippine Insurrection: a war that broke out as a result of excluding Filipino leaders in the discussions of the country’s future, ultimately fighting for independence after centuries of Spanish rule. Similarly, Palestinians are fueled by their desire for self-determination; their resistance against Israel’s violent advances is proof enough.
The shared notion of resistance is a common feat both Filipinos and Palestinians share. We, of all people, must be able to understand their circumstances—where civilian collateral damage is risked at the cost of settlement, pieces of history are erased and overlooked to push the oppressor’s ideological interests, and the people collectively push for an end to violence.
Determining one’s right to territory
The main premise of Israel's occupation of Palestine lies in a singular document stating that they are to establish their state in the aforementioned location. The Balfour Declaration in 1917 forwards Zionist determinism by giving them a specific territory, to which they shall be administered by the British government. They are motivated by the formalities that were created and honored by IGOs, even in the presence of conflicting sentiments with the involved parties.
As a means to get rid of tensions—ones that cannot be solved by mere peace processes, arms were picked up; the Hamas resistance is a byproduct of decades worth of violence in Palestine. Israel was quick to respond through mass murder, bombings, and border restrictions, among others. By undertaking the said actions, they are effectively depriving Palestinian citizens of their right to free movement. Given such, their basic needs to live, such as food, water, and electricity, among others, are not sufficiently met, thus showing that Israel’s motive is not to wage war on Hamas alone. Their indirect yet deliberate effort to make civilians suffer as a consequence of incompliance with their wants reflects Israel’s intent to wage war on innocent individuals as well.
The Philippines experiences a similar plight, although it must be noted that it is not to the same degree as what Palestine is going through. What the Balfour Declaration is to Israel is what the nine-dash line is to China; in the same way, what the West Philippine Sea is to Filipinos is what Palestine is to Palestinians. Both issues revolve around the oppressor’s claim to the historic right of a certain location, with the former agreement stating that Palestine is Israel’s, whereas the latter claims that the West Philippine Sea is Chinese territory.
What sets the Balfour Declaration and the nine-dash line apart from each other, though, is the context in which they were formed. In the case of Palestinians, the former was created by foreign superpowers; the latter is derived from Sinocentric historical accounts. Because the ideal of a nine-dash line has survived the test of time, its traditional nature is deemed acceptable and thus adopted by China. Nevertheless, it must be noted that the first-ever crafted map of the Philippines includes the territories that they claim as theirs.
China continues to be persistent over their argument on territory. From building their own military base camps to firing water cannons against Philippine vessels, they show no signs of surrendering. Even with peace talks taking place between the aforementioned state and the Philippines as a means to reduce friction, tension continues to escalate through China’s militaristic and violent advances.
On the future
There are numerous implications for the country’s pro-Israel stance. More than it is a reflection of where their true loyalties lie amidst humanitarian crises, it displays their character as a government: one that turns a blind eye to injustice even when innocent lives are lost and left helpless. The state will be perceived as a nation that enables and legitimizes violence and war crimes—an image that will paint them negatively and make them all the more notorious, especially with another Marcos being the most powerful leader in the land.
Furthermore, the country’s position on the West Philippine Sea all the more weakens as they continue to support Israel’s occupation. Given the similarities between the territorial disputes, albeit the aforementioned’s marginally different degrees, it displays how they are inconsistent in their principles. They are only in support of oppressed communities when they are on the receiving end of direct violence and outright harassment; for others, such as Palestine’s context, they stand with the oppressors and show full, public support for their wrongdoings.
It is no secret that the Philippines’ stance is politically motivated. But beyond the treaties and diplomatic ties they have formed with Israel, it is undeniable that the influence of the United States has greatly affected the decision of the government to stand in solidarity with the settlers. The aforementioned superpower has been vocal about their support for the settler colony, and turning against their decision to do so could only taint our country’s ties with them—something that the state cannot afford after years of history.
Nevertheless, the Philippine government and media’s stance should not hinder the people from pushing for a free Palestine. This circumstance enables all of us to be more critical in the way that we approach and think of things, especially in the way that we consider socio-political and historical forces while formulating our positions. This must push us to hold the government accountable and be one that truly articulates the interests of the people that they claim to represent and serve.
As our nation is caught in the crossfire, we are not mere bystanders. Rather than holding such a passive character during a significant period, we must be more firm and assertive in our support for Palestine. This goes beyond the commonalities that our nation and theirs share; rather, it is about being humane and just. The Philippines must continue to fight for what is right and stand in solidarity with Palestine and its people, knowing that from the river to the sea, the people will indeed be free.
Comentários