There’s an old absurdist question that asks a chicken: “Why did you cross the road?”
The clichéd answer is delivered with a smirk: “To get to the other side.”
But when this question is transferred to the Israeli context, it transforms from a joke into a political and ideological project, rooted in layers of philosophy, theology, and historical revisionism. In the Israeli mindset, there is no crossing by accident, nor is there a “clear other side.” Instead, the map is ever-changing, re-engineered by force, political discourse, and the moral claim of entitlement.
The road, in this context, is not a physical path. It’s a symbol of hegemony, sovereignty, and the continual reshaping of reality following a Zionist vision deeply anchored in claims of historical and security-based legitimacy.
This article unpacks the deeper meanings of this “crossing,” tracing its political motivations, military and settlement implications, and the resulting erasure of the Palestinian, reduced to an obstacle in Israel’s ideological project.
1. The Philosophy of the Road: Crossing as a Blueprint for Domination
At its core, Israel is not a state that seeks stability within fixed borders. It is a political project in perpetual motion, feeding off the idea of reshaping geography and rewriting symbolic reality.
Israeli thinking, as revealed in political rhetoric and Hebrew-language texts, does not regard permanence as a virtue. Instead, expansion and dominance are framed as strategic necessities. The “road” here isn’t just territory—it’s a stage for imposing control through settlement, preemptive military operations, and narrative manipulation.
This is embedded in the language of Israeli politics, where terms like “expansion” (הרחבה) and “sovereignty” (ריבונות) are used to justify every action.
Crossing, therefore, is not a random act—it is a deliberate plan to reengineer history and geography, claiming exclusive ownership of the road itself. This drive is not just ontological; it is political—an insistence on establishing new realities by any means necessary.
2. Israeli Politics: Crossing Because It Can
In Israeli political practice, the law is not a restraint—it’s a flexible tool shaped to serve strategic goals.
From the annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967, to the Nation-State Law of 2018 that defines Israel as a state for Jews only, to the clear abandonment of the two-state solution—Israel’s political crossing is not a response to emergencies but a calculated methodology.
As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared at AIPAC in 2017:
“What you don’t impose on the ground doesn’t count in history.”
In this worldview, legitimacy doesn’t come from the UN or international consensus—it comes from power and control.
Israel crosses boundaries because it can. Global objections, however loud, often amount to little more than ink on paper.
This mindset explains Israel’s continued imposition of facts on the ground, whether through the annexation of the Golan Heights or support for the “Deal of the Century” that sought to redraw borders according to its vision.
3. Military Doctrine: Crossing Because There Is No Deterrent
Israeli military doctrine extends beyond traditional defense. It embraces preemptive aggression as a strategy. Former Chief of Staff Aviv Kochavi made this clear in a 2020 Haaretz interview:
“We will not wait for our sovereignty to be violated. We will redefine it when it serves us.”
This doctrine has been evident in repeated assaults—from Gaza’s “Iron Grip” campaigns to airstrikes in Syria and Lebanon—justified under the label of “preemptive defense.”
Military crossing, in this context, is not merely a ground invasion. It’s about redrawing the rules of engagement. Israel ignores red lines set by others and interprets global silence as a green light.
In the absence of deterrence, the road becomes Israel’s alone.
4. Settlement Strategy: Crossing as a Theological Mandate
In Zionist religious discourse, crossing becomes a theological mission. Far-right figures like Bezalel Smotrich frame every Palestinian hill as a “biblical promise” to be reclaimed.
In a 2023 interview on Army Radio, Smotrich declared:
“Whoever prevents us from building in Judea and Samaria is blocking the return of history.”
Here, settlements are not just geographic expansion—they are a reshaping of historical and religious narratives. The “road” is not asphalt; it is a symbolic map of the Promised Land, paved with settlement outposts as markers of permanent sovereignty.
5. Security Doctrine: Crossing to Eliminate Shadows
Security is not just policy in Israel—it is a foundational identity. Former general Amos Yadlin summarized this obsession at a 2019 Institute for National Security Studies conference:
“We don’t have the luxury of waiting. In this neighborhood, if you don’t strike first, you get buried.”
Under this logic, security crossing needs no concrete threat. Assassinations in Beirut, bombings of civilian targets in Gaza, or revoking work permits for Palestinian doctors—all are framed as necessary purges of potential threats.
This mentality sees danger in every shadow, and every act is justified as existential defense.
6. Media Control: Crossing to Occupy the Narrative
Israeli media does not merely report events—it reconstructs them to serve the official narrative. In a 2024 media security conference, IDF spokesperson Daniel Hagari said:
“Part of the battle is about who writes the story first—and who convinces the world our crossing is necessary.”
This strategy was evident in the coverage of the killing of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in 2022. Israeli and Western outlets circulated misleading accounts attempting to blame Palestinians, until independent investigations confirmed Israeli culpability.
We’ve also seen images of Syrian children used to manipulate coverage of Gaza attacks and reinforce Israel’s victim narrative.
Here, the media becomes an instrument of crossing—a tool for occupying public opinion, where the aggressor is painted as the victim, and the victim as a threat.
Moral Discourse: Crossing as a Noble Mission
In its moral framing, Israel doesn’t speak of revenge—it speaks of a “moral obligation.” Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak stated at Tel Aviv University in 2018:
“Sometimes, you need to take painful actions to prevent a greater evil. That’s how we understand ethics.”
Under this logic, bombardments become “enlightenment missions,” and military incursions are framed as value-driven interventions.
But the question remains: Whose values? And who decides?
The Palestinian: An Obstacle on the Road
In the Israeli narrative, the Palestinian has no place as a partner on the road. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir made this clear in 2023, saying:
“If the Palestinian wants to cross—the roads of the West Bank, for example—he must first recognize that the road belongs to us.”
Here, the Palestinian is not a citizen or resident but a suspicious presence, a hindrance to the crossing. He is not asked to assimilate but to abandon his identity, his land, and his historical narrative, in exchange for a temporary permit to move through a road that was never his.
He is denied mobility, denied dreams, and denied the right to a story—reduced to a permanent threat to be erased from the scene.
Conclusion: The Road Does Not Belong to Them Alone
Ultimately, the road belongs to no one alone.
Israeli crossings—however frequent—do not create lasting legitimacy, nor do they entitle the occupier to write the final chapter.
For over 75 years, Israel has attempted to make the road exclusively its own, rejecting any vision of coexistence or shared destiny. The Zionist mindset, in its current form, sees the other only as a threat to be removed.
But history teaches that true roads are built not through force, but through justice.
And in an age where even the chicken is killed for “crossing the road,” what remains for those who never had one to begin with?
The road to the future can only be rebuilt through fairness—not through domination and exclusion.
As long as Israel refuses to recognize the other’s right to exist, its crossing will remain incomplete—trapped in an endless cycle of conflict that can only end by redefining the path itself.
