Historically, nation-states have often been created following disasters. The State of Israel, for example, emerged not only from Zionism’s internal motivation but also from the international response to the greatest crime committed in the twentieth century, and possibly in history: the Holocaust. Nazi Germany’s mass killing of European and North African Jews shifted global awareness, leading to the 1947 UN Partition Plan and ultimately Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948. This sequence of events raises a compelling question: could the deliberate attempt to suppress a people or movement paradoxically boost their political legitimacy and perhaps hasten the establishment of a sovereign state?
This reflection argues that Israel, with its military campaign in Gaza since October 2023, might unintentionally generate political and symbolic momentum towards the creation of a Palestinian State. Additionally, it examines the possibility that Hamas, the Islamist movement governing Gaza, may be actively shaping this outcome to turn collective suffering into political gain and establish itself as the leading force in a future Palestinian state. This thesis is supported by a comparison to the structural conditions that led to Israel’s founding, an empirical analysis of the current conflict, and an unprecedented shift in international recognition, most notably France’s July 2025 announcement that it will officially recognise Palestine: the first G7 country to do so.
How the Holocaust Helped Forge Israel
Modern political Zionism arose in the late nineteenth century as a response to European antisemitism and pogroms. Theodor Herzl’s Der Judenstaat (1896) outlined a vision for a Jewish nation, sparking waves of Jewish migration. However, the idea of an autonomous Jewish state remained controversial and did not gain firm international backing until the Holocaust.
From 1941 to 1945, Nazi Germany ruthlessly slaughtered six million Jews, eliminating centuries-old communities across Europe. The enormity of the horror had a profound impact on global sentiment. Jewish survivors remained stateless and destitute in displaced persons camps. British prohibitions on immigration to Palestine resulted in illegal migration and confrontations, increasing pressure on the British Mandate authority. The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan proposed the establishment of separate Jewish and Arab states. Many members of the world community saw Jewish sovereignty as morally and politically necessary because of the Holocaust.
Thus, Israel’s creation was both the result of decades of Zionist political efforts and the unintended consequence of Nazi atrocities. The reasoning was simple: the world had failed the Jews, and that failure needed remedy. Trauma, rather than aspiration, justified the existence of a Jewish homeland.
Gaza and the Current War: Empirical Facts (2023–2025)
Fast forward to 7 October 2023: Hamas launched a massive surprise attack on southern Israel, killing over 1,100 people and kidnapping more than 200. Israel’s response was swift and substantial: a complete blockade of Gaza, continued bombings, and ground invasions. By mid-2025, around 60,000 Palestinians had been killed, many of whom were civilians, and over 1.5 million had been displaced. Hospitals, schools, and water infrastructure have all collapsed, destroying entire neighbourhoods.
Gaza is experiencing severe starvation conditions. International aid convoys are often obstructed or delayed. Malnutrition among children is widespread. The United Nations and numerous humanitarian organisations have accused Israel of war crimes and collective punishment. The humanitarian situation has deteriorated to levels not seen in decades.
Simultaneously, Israel confirms that its objective is purely military: to weaken Hamas’ capabilities and protect national security. Yet, the visible consequences of its actions—mass civilian casualties, famine, and the disruption of everyday life—have shifted global perception. Herein lies the paradox: just as the Holocaust galvanised worldwide sympathy for the Jewish people, Gaza’s destruction might be influencing the international stance on the Palestinian cause.
France, Its Diplomatic Shift, and the Snowball Effect
Diplomatic recognition stands as one of the clearest signs of this transition. Before the current conflict, 147 of the UN’s 193 member states officially recognised Palestine as a sovereign nation. On 24 July 2025, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that France would formally recognise Palestine at the upcoming UN General Assembly in September. This move is historically significant because France is the first G7 nation to take such an action.
Macron’s approach could trigger a diplomatic chain reaction. In the United Kingdom, over 200 Members of Parliament have signed a petition urging the government to follow France’s example. Discussions are also taking place in Germany, Italy, and Canada. If more G7 nations recognise Palestine, it will gain unprecedented diplomatic status, not only symbolically but also legally in international courts and institutions. Just as I am writing this, US President Donald Trump stated that there is “real starvation” in Gaza, defying Israeli denials and echoing UN and humanitarian agency worries. This “unexpected” declaration by Mr. Trump may put additional pressure on Western governments to respond diplomatically, potentially speeding up recognition efforts or legal actions in international venues.
Thus, Palestine’s growing diplomatic legitimacy is matching, if not surpassing, Israel’s military dominance. And that legitimacy arises not from negotiations or Palestinian political change, but from the rubble of Gaza.
The Logic of Unintended Consequences
From a structural perspective, Israel’s actions seem to be producing the opposite of the intended outcome. The campaign’s declared aim is to destroy Hamas and hinder the prospect of a Palestinian state. However, the destruction caused may reinforce the narrative that supports the creation of the state.
This exemplifies a case of unintended consequences: when power is exercised beyond its limits, it often backfires. The international community responds not to strategic objectives but to visible outcomes such as mass casualties, civilian suffering, and moral outrage. The more severe the campaign, the more moral legitimacy Palestine seems to gain.
But there’s another layer: What if this is exactly Hamas’ strategy?
Hamas and the Politics of Suffering
Hamas may understand this dynamic. Militarily, the organisation cannot defeat Israel. But symbolically, it may endure, and perhaps even “win”, by provoking Israel into excessive, unjustified violence. By positioning itself in civilian neighbourhoods, refusing ceasefires, and making the conflict as costly and unpleasant as possible, Hamas may be deliberately sacrificing Gaza to gain international credibility for Palestine, and for itself as the future leadership.
This is not unprecedented. Throughout history, revolutionary movements have used pain to achieve their political aims. According to this view, Hamas is not only resisting occupation; it is also creating conditions in which global sympathy shifts into diplomatic recognition, establishing itself as the rightful successor to a future Palestinian state.
While many observers see this as morally wrong, the logic remains cold and strategic: the more Israel appears as the aggressor, the more recognition Palestine gains. If Hamas manages to survive politically, even if not militarily, it can claim to have ‘delivered’ statehood through struggle and martyrdom.
Structural Conditions for Statehood
The increasing recognition of Palestine raises the question: is the world merely recognising a symbol, or is a genuine state taking shape?
There are significant challenges, including internal divisions between Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, a lack of territorial unity, damaged infrastructure, and the absence of functioning institutions. However, acknowledgement generates momentum, legally, diplomatically, and financially. It enables Palestine to sign treaties, file charges with the International Criminal Court, and assert sovereignty under international law.
Statehood is not only built from within; it is also bestowed from outside. With Macron’s announcement, which the UK and others may follow, Palestine gains external support, even as its internal foundations remain fragile.
A Historical Reversal
History is not cyclical, but it often repeats itself. Israel was established from the ashes of genocide. Today, images of death, hunger, and exile in Gaza are provoking a global response that could lead to the formal recognition of the Palestinian state. The state that Israel has long refused to recognise may now emerge because of its military actions. Unintended consequences.
But the irony deepens. Israel might be unintentionally creating the conditions for Palestinian statehood while also enabling Hamas to assert political authority within it. This would represent not only a policy reversal but also a strategic and symbolic failure.
This argument is not a moral judgment, but rather a structural observation. States often manufacture their adversaries. Power, when wielded with overwhelming force, frequently engenders resistance, and sometimes legitimacy, among the very players it aims to destroy.
In this sense, the dilemma is settled. Just as Nazi Germany’s extermination campaign sped up the creation of Israel, Israel’s war in Gaza might accelerate the emergence of Palestine. The logic is ruthless, sardonic, and consistent with history.
