Another Article On The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

 I am in the midst of a medical break from blogging. But the current situation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires another article to be posted here. My regular blogging will return some time after the New Year.

There are two traps that many people fall into when looking at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The first trap is the binary thinking trap. That trap divides people in the conflict into two fixed and disjoint groups: innocent victims and oppressors. Because the groups are fixed, innocent victims can never become oppressors while at the same time, oppressors were never innocent victims. And because the groups are disjoint, the people involved can never be both innocent victims and oppressors at the same time. 

When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the term 'oppressor' could easily be replaced by the word 'terrorist.' A word of thanks goes to a pamphlet written by Jeff Harper from ICAHD.

However, using the word 'terrorist' can become problematic for Americans. That is because our war on terror pits people in the right uniforms who salute the right flag and serve in one of the several branches of our military against terrorists who are non-state actors who tend to dress informally. Such a perception ignores the definition of terrorism. The definition of terrorism is the threat or use of force on civilians to achieve political ends. We Americans might not want to recognize that definition especially when our nation threatened to unleash, and eventually did, 'Shock and Awe' on Iraq unless they replace their then leader Saddam Hussein. For when we did that, we were practicing terrorism. And it wasn't the first time that we practiced it.

Now what we see with the binary thinking trap when working in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that one side are always made up of innocent victims while the other side are always terrorists. Those spectators who favor Israel will see Israel as the eternal innocent victim and the Palestinians as the persistent terrorists while those who favor the Palestinians will see the roles reversed.

And that leads us into the second trap when viewing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the tribalism trap. Tribalism occurs when loyalty to a group, regardless of what the group is based on, goes too far. As a result a person's moral vision becomes compromised so that what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. That kind of moral vision or sense of morality is called moral relativity. So for example, suppose Palestinians attack Israeli civilians after Israeli had just attacked some Palestinian civilians. Those who are too loyal to the Palestinian cause will rationalize the Palestinian attack on Israeli civilians while passionately condemning the Israeli attack. And those who are too loyal to Israel will see it the other way around.

The binary thinking trap is an overly simplistic view of people by putting them in black-white categories.  In fact, that is its attraction. It gives us an easy analysis of the conflict so that we can focus on other things in life. And because it is an easy way to interpret the conflict, it provides a comfortable way of looking at the situation. 

But the hazard in the binary thinking trap is that, in reality, its charm is really the rocks that shipwreck our ability to think. For rigidly dividing groups in a conflict into two disjoint groups is an example of a black-white thinking. And so falling into the binary thinking trap limits one's ability to think deeply and see the complexity involved in the conflict. For the complexity of the conflict reveals that both Israel nor the Palestinians are both victims and terrorists. And so overly simplistic thinking  renders one unable to see the conflict for what it is.

The tribalism trap comes with its siren call and rocks too. What is attractive with tribalism is the appeal to loyalty. That is because loyalty is often portrayed as an important virtue to have. And so when we demonstrate loyalty in the face of adversity, we feel a growing sense of righteousness. And that makes us feel more important. 

But the hidden hazard of tribalism is that the virtue hides how tribalism damages, or even destroys, our ability to be fair to all sides. That is because with tribalism one embraces moral relativity. Such a state may not be apparent to those who are tribal because of how loyalty is seen as a virtue and necessary for survival. But too much loyalty both is counterproductive to maintaining moral standards because one becomes blind to one's own immorality and puts the survival of one's own tribe at risk by creating unnecessary enemies.

What both traps have in common is that they are signs of a growing authoritarianism. We should note here is that authoritarianism is the other pandemic. Also, it is important to note that a black-white worldview is a characteristic an authoritarian personality type. On the other hand, one way to partially describe tribalism is to say that it promotes group authoritarianism. For in tribalism, one is demanding that those from other groups should automatically submit in various ways to one's own group without resistance. And what we should note about authoritarianism is its karma. That is the authoritarian ways in which one's own group acts toward others is the authoritarianism the group will visit on its own members.

Another point that should be noted about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the reliance on the threat or use of force. Such a reliance is called the rule of force. And though at this time the force is with Israel, Hamas and other Palestinians are practicing terrorism in ways that attempt to change the balance of power. For example, the Hamas atrocities of October 7th were partially designed to instigate the kind of Israeli response that would cause others to join the fray. Both fortunately and unfortunately, that has yet to come about. It is fortunate that others have yet to join the fray because the world has seen enough violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is unfortunate because, just perhaps, if the forces were equal, there would be more incentive for both to negotiate.

The reliance on the use of force is authoritarian in nature. And such a  reliance logically follows the authoritarianism that involves the binary thinking and tribalism traps. In addition, the rule of force invites a seemingly forever king-of-the-hill battle that results in each side succumbing to military defeat and/or moral suicide. And the moral suicide that is experienced in how a side attacks its enemies can be similar to the moral suicide in how a side eventually treats its own members.

What is a common theme in all that has been discussed thus far is authoritarianism. And though it would be overly simplistic to reduce the cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to that of being authoritarianism, authoritarianism looms large in how the conflict is both perceived by both insiders and outsiders and reacted to. That is because with authoritarianism comes the expectation of hierarchical relationships between those who are in conflict. Those who are on the upper side of the hierarchical relationship will view their position as being merited and those who are on the lower side of the hierarchical relationship can feel morally outraged at the injustices that are visited on them.

Regardless of the self-declarations made by either side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the path that has been rejected by both sides is the rule of law. The rule of law views all sides as equals, as having the same rights. The rule of law holds all sides accountable to the same laws and standards, laws and standards that are based on all sides being equal and having the same rights.And the rule of law allows outsiders to hold the warring sides accountable to those laws and standards that are based on equal rights for all groups.

With both Israel and the Palestinian terrorists using the atrocities of the other side as an excuse for their own atrocities, it is apparent that neither group, nor their allies, are promoting the rule of law. And so here will be a modest proposal for the beginning of a just and peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That the the U.S., Israel, and the Palestinians submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC would use the same international law in judging the actions of the U.S., Israel, and the Palestinians that it has used to judge others who have been charged with committing crimes against humanity. And whatever actions that the ICC finds as violating international law will be corrected by the guilty party without the threat or use of force.

'You may say I'm a dreamer.' Maybe so. But the above proposal will allow the world to identify those who favor the rule of law from those who merely claim to follow it. Distinguishing those who favor the rule of law from those who prefer the rule of force will perhaps allow us to identify the warring sides of the global conflict that mankind has forever been battling. That war pits those who favor equality and democracy against inequality and authoritarianism. And in an age when WMDs are inevitable, because technology is a whore, at least the above proposal will distinguish those whose first priority is the survival of mankind from those who are all too willing to sacrifice the world because they refuse to share power and wealth. And perhaps the ability to make such a distinction will temper our own desires for any kind of tribalistic conquest. 

One final point to be made is that for as long as Israel's Occupation against the Palestinians is in place, talk of a two-state solution is disingenuous. For with Israel's Occupation of the land comes the continuing ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the land followed by an annexation of the land. And atrocities are being committed to achieve that ethnic cleansing. With the West Bank, where settlements along with how Palestinian communities are divided by those settlements and their highways, a viable Palestinian state has become not just a mirage or even dream; it has become an impossible dream. After all, if Israel  dismantled the settlements in Gaza because of the expense of protecting them, what could possibly motivate Israel to even consider dismantling the settlements in the West Bank? 

Talk of the Two-State Solution is merely camouflage for land theft for as long as the Occupation continues. And that goes back to the form of Modern Zionism that has taken. That form says that the Jewish people are to have ownership the land from the river to the sea. That doesn't necessarily exclude the allowance for there to be Arab citizens in Israel. Zionism, for them, provides a formal equality only with their fellow Jewish citizens of Israel. It is an equality declared by Israel's constitution but not an equality that is actually practiced. And it never could be for as long as Israel is defined as being a Jewish state. For that definition means that Israel must take official measures that will keep the Arab population in check in order to preserve a vast Jewish majority. 

Both the Jews and the Palestinians deserved a homeland in order to be protected from past abuses. That is true even though European Jews have historically suffered more than Palestinian Arabs. The choice for a homeland that both parties could have selected is a binational, democratic state. But by defining Israel as a Jewish state while there exists Palestinians in the land, both as citizens of Israel and noncitizens who are living in the land that Israel seeks to annex, results in Israel being disqualified as being a democratic state. For the state of Israel does not equally belong to all of its citizens. This is a point that Jeff Halper makes when he distinguishes a democracy from an ethnocracy. 

The same would be true if Hamas's goal of creating an Islamic republic in the land from the river to the sea became reality. And though the Israel's Zionism is more palatable than Hamas, it becomes more and more comparable to Hamas and its efforts to create an Islamic republic, as Israel continues to both slaughter innocent civilians in Gaza and forcibly, including the use of deadly violence, annex land in the West Bank. 

Using Zootopia To Understand The Middle East

The movie Zootopia is a movie about an imaginary city where all kinds of animals, both predators and prey, live together in peace. However, a few of the prey hatched a plot where they secretly injected  individual predators with a chemical that reverted them to their savage form and had that savagery blamed on nature. The intended result of the plot was that those animals involved in the plot could sieze greater power for both themselves and others like them by causing the animal society there to be afraid of all predators based on the actions of a few.

What makes the plot plausbile for the American audience is that the savage behavior forced onto the targeted predators was caused by a drug injection. This is an important point because many Americans would not consider abusive treatment to be a plausible cause of savagery. There is something about our rugged individualism that says abuse does not cause one to be vicious to others. That regardless of how we have been treated, we alone are guilty if we partially or fully do unto others what others have done unto us.

Perhaps, this is why we have the current situation that we have in the Middle East. We look at Palestinian militants and Islamic extremists as being savage and rightly so. But we attribute that savagery solely to their nature or religion or whatever other factor that distinguishes them from us so that the actions of some cause us to be afraid of all. Thus, when it comes to Palestinian terrorism, we do not consider the conditions in which they are forced to live to be a significant factor in their behavior. And so we blame them, and correctly so to a degree, for their actions. 

The same goes with Al-Qaeda and ISIS, though the difference in the reasn for the forming of the two groups is significant. Those who formed the core of Al-Qaeda were not first attacked by us. In fact, we once supported the then future Al-Qaeda members when they were practicing their terrorism on the people of Afghanistan in an effort to overthrow the Soviet backed government there. That occurred during the 1980s. ISIS however formed in the aftermath of our invasion of Iraq. In fact, the leader of ISIS was once a prisoner in an American detention center.

But this practice of blaming groups for their atrocities without reference to the atrocities they had suffered has a limit. That limit is when the blame could be shifted to us. For many of us rationalize the terrorist actions of the IDF and Israel's brutal occupation on Palestinian terrorism while not allowing the Palestinians to return the favor. Likewise, many of us have justified our invasion and past occupation of Iraq on the atrocities visited on us on the 9-11 atrocities while not allowing groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS to blame their actions on our past and present foreign policies.

The end effect is this, while we give ourselves permission to wantonly strike back out of fear, we become judge, jury, and executioner to those who would do the same to us. And such an approach, both in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and our war in the Middle  can only guarantee at least one of two results: an endless war and/or moral suicide being committed by those who seek to win with overwhelming violence.

Certainly, some conservatives would cite me for committing moral equvilancy here. For how could anyone compare the violence committed by our side, whether that be Israel's use of force against the Palestinians or us as we attack in the Middle East with the violence committed by our enemies? Here, the use of labels is important. Because to not judge ourselves by the same standard we use to judge others indicates a moral relavity to which we are blinded by a sense of entitlement. Thus, Israel is permitted to defend themselves from Palestinian terrorism as they see fit, but Palestinians are not recognized as having the same right. In addition, we are allowed to attack and commit acts of terrorism to defend ourselves, but Islamic extremists are not permitted to the same. 

A sense of entitlement that sustains our double standards and moral relativity is based on an assumption of moral supremacy and/or past sufferings. America's sense of entitlement for its own actions is based on the assumption that we are morally superior to our enemies. America's sense of entitlement for Israeli actions are understandably based on 2 millenia of anti-Semitism and extreme suffering. 

Now we could debate the morality of that sense of entitlement if we want, but we should note that while debating that, our current responses in the Middle East and that of Israel's to the Palestinians are only intensifying the cycle of violence.

So from here, we should note the following. Just as the Israeli Occupation and its consequential violence understandably creates a savagery in some of the Palestinian people causing Israelis to fear all Palestinians, so Palestinian terrorism inspires further Palestinian terrorism as Israel brutally responds to that Palestinian attacks. Likewise, as we use a 'sledghammer' approach, as described by Noam Chomsky, in the Middle East by invading, bombing and assassinating, attempting to overthrow governments, and supporting brutal dictators we stoke the fires of anger in enough people in the Middle East so that they strike back. And as they strike back, their atrocities, such as was conducted in the 9-11 attacks, cause us to give into fear of the rest of those from the Middle East and/or Muslims thus we give ourselves permission to strike back without accountability. 

In the end, those who benefit the most from these induced attacks are politicians who can use fear to garner and consolidate more power and arms dealers and manufacturers. They are the only ones who have a stake maintaining the status quo. And we allow them to continue to do so at our own peril.

Equality And Inequality For Israel-Palestine

For as long as so many have divided themselves into camps for either side, there is no way that a peaceful settlement can be found between the Israelis and the Palestinians . Such is the price we pay for tribalism. Tribalism can make us feel good especially when it causes us to feel proud of belonging to our groups, but divisions, envy, and enmity are soon to follow. And sometimes, as has occurred with the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, tribalism irrevocably leads down an irrational path to moral suicide and even physical destruction.

If we are going to search for a peaceful settlement that relies on justice, we must abhor the abduction and killing of the 3 Israeli teenagers as much as we abhor the Occupation and Israel's detention, torture, and killing of Palestinians by Israeli security forces and settlers. And if we want a peace by justice settlement, we must oppose Hamas' rockets fired at Israel as much as we oppose Israel's current coldhearted attack on Gaza. For if one has the right to attack civilians in the name of self-defense, so does the other. If Israel claims the right to attack Gaza because no country would tolerate being attacked by missiles, realize that the Palestinians have the right to attack Israel because no people should have to tolerate being permanently occupied--which includes having resources destroyed and land stolen--by a foreign power. Of course, allowing both to attack each other the way they do is to do nothing but let others be attacked because they are not us. If we continue with that philosophy, who will be left to protect us when we are attacked?

We should note that there is an argument against equating the attacks of one's enemies with own attacks on others. The argument against calls such a comparison 'moral equivalency.' Those who use this term do so to denounce the equating of one's own actions with that of one's enemies. But what those who oppose moral equivalency seem to not notice is that their rejection of moral equivalency is due to their embracing of moral relativity. And moral relativity, from a Christian perspective is nothing short of a denial of God's Word as well as His character because He is not a respecter of persons.

The above is the equality aspect in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Where the inequality exists is in the strength and oppression one side has exercised over the other. This was the witness of Rachel Corrie when she stayed in Gaza. It is also testified by the statistics gathered by B'Tselem (click here), an Israeli human rights group. Israel has one of the strongest militaries in the world. Israel continues to rob the Palestinians of their means to live. Israel continues to steal land from the Palestinians. And Israel continues to treat the Palestinians like dogs and while feigning that some Palestinians would act like animals.

In the meantime, the world watches the World Cup or whatever follows it. Such is a denial of both our inter-connectivity and the humanity of all the victims, Israeli and Palestinian, of this conflict. Here, the greatest sins are being committed by both those with the most power and those who use a claim to having the moral high ground to take sides rather than work for justice for all.