Author’s Note: Before reading I just wanted to let the reader know that these blog pieces are always a compromise between explaining an issue or idea as fully as it deserves, and making it short enough that people can actually read it in a short time. I hope I succeed in striking that balance most of the time, but what you’re about to read was a challenge. Not only is the subject matter extremely complex and a potential minefield, but also for the multiple themes I’m trying to tie in. I hope I juggled all the themes and avoided the minefields enough to make what you’re about to read insightful and informative. Although, I will admit this piece has certainly crossed the boundary from blog post to short essay. What can I say, some things are owed a longer word count than others.
Preface:
Here’s something that’s not controversial in any way. The 21st century news environment is a tidal wave of over-stimulation. That fact isn’t news to anyone. Do I really need to comment on this phenomena, when so many other more qualified people than me have done so? Actually, I’m not, or at least, I hope to approach the issue of news over-stimulation from a different angle. While everyone understands in their bones how chaotic, fickle, and contradictory our current news cycle is, I don’t think people have really sat down and contemplated the implications of how that cycle changes them. Or maybe the question I should be asking is, what is it about human behavior or needs that has birthed this news cycle into existence?
I believe one of those needs is for reality, and by extension current events, to be explainable, simple even. A continuation of this desire is for the news to be presented in a way that agrees with or reinforces whatever preconceived biases a person has. For every person, however, there is a differing stance on an issue. Fortunately or unfortunately for us, with the rise of the digital age there is someone out there willing to reinforce whatever viewpoint a person can think of. A natural result of this is that there are always people or institutions that cater their editorial line to people’s opinions, rather than reporting the facts to the best of their ability. This isn’t new, that sort of bias in reporting events has been around since human communication, but the sheer glut of conflicting information in the 21st is a novelty.
Again I’m not the first person to point this out, but this system has led to a complete communication breakdown in global society. With the sheer variety of perspectives, from honest journalism attempting to convey the facts, to biased sources bending the facts as far as they can to fit their narrative, to misinformation designed to help a cause or hinder it, to misinformation creating chaos for chaos’ sake. It’s impossible to establish common ground when everyone’s construction of reality is based on totally different information and pretenses. Even assuming that people had the desire to find varied news sources with different opinions (which I doubt they do), there simply isn’t enough time in the day for people to consume everything. I don’t know what the solution to this problem is, because I still believe in a free society and a free press, and authoritarian control of information and the media isn’t the answer. All I do know is that our current system of reporting the news, or fabricating the news, and the way people consume media has eroded our ability to debate with civility, and it has obliterated the nuance and complexity that exists everywhere.
As vexing and disappointing as all of this is to witness, I do understand the desire for simplistic news that confirms what we already think. Something I’ve come to appreciate more as I’ve grown older is that paying close attention to global history as it is happening is a luxury most people can’t afford. As a kid studying history I often was left confused when I would find accounts of people not reacting to or caring about monumental events that occurred during their lifetimes, or at least not caring as much as I thought was appropriate to the occasion. Well, for one thing, I was looking on with the benefit of hindsight, we can’t always tell in the present what events will have earth shattering consequences in the future. More importantly, most people in the past didn’t have the energy to care about important historical events, they were much more concerned with their immediate needs of themselves and their families. Two parents living in poverty taking care of their children understandably have to devote most of their time and attention to sustaining and providing for their family. I’m sure many more people would be seasoned and erudite followers of current events, if only they had the time. Even though I live in comparably comfortable circumstances when looking at the extremes of poverty that exist in the world, I still feel a lingering sense of guilt that I can devote so little of my attention to following the news that’s happening all over the world. It makes sense when people do look at what’s happening, they want a narrative that’s easy to understand, and doesn’t take them out of their mental comfort zone. So, they often like to consume media that agrees with their views, but this, I believe, can lead to a pernicious train of thinking that can be hard to arrest once it has begun.
The world doesn’t stop, or slow down, and events of import happen whether we are ready for them or not. As I explained, even keeping up with the present is exhausting, even more so when you react to, consume, and commentate on current events. I think people get so caught up with this constant churn, voicing their opinion and arguing with those who disagree, that they never take the time to ask some simple questions. What is it that I believe and why? Am I prone to simplifying events to fit my preconceptions? Do I wait to pass judgment or form an opinion on something until I have enough information? Or do I jump to conclusions without much consideration or even confirmation that what I’m reacting to actually happened? Do I get sucked into the controversy of one event and then move onto the next one once the news has moved on?
I was initially inspired to write this piece after watching the chaotic and fractious reactions people had after some recent events that are still ongoing as I write these words. These will be some difficult waters we are about to wade into, waters wiser people than me might warn me to avoid altogether. On the other hand, the reason I write is just as much to help myself make sense of reality as I hope it does the same for the readers. The subject I’m about to talk about is controversial, and stirs passions on all sides, but I hope I have just enough sagacity to make it through unscathed.
Introduction: The Minefield
I wanted to talk about the devastating October 2023 Hamas terrorist attacks against Israel, and the equally devastating Israeli reprisals against terrorist groups and Palestinian civilians trapped in the tiny and crowded Gaza Strip. As difficult as the subject is to discuss, I think it perfectly highlights what I’ve been talking about, how people get sucked into the news cycle and venomously criticize anyone they disagree with, before they take any time to think about what they’re saying and why. Furthermore, on a personal level, I was left frustrated by the way people reacted to these terrible events, because I thought they were thinking too narrowly and missing an important point, as I shall explain in just a moment.
Before getting into the discussion, however, I wanted to make some very big and very important disclaimers. Number one, I am a rank amateur when it comes to knowledge about Israel and Palenstine, I am by no means an expert. My only knowledge of recent Israeli history comes from a couple of books on the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur war, and a handful of lectures from The Great Courses series on modern war since the end of WWII and the Middle East in the 20th century. So I’m going to stay vague enough to write about what I know, and if some topics appear to get short shrift that does not mean they are not important or worthy of consideration, it simply means that I do not know them well enough to speak on them. If I am unsure about something I will make it clear, and I hope I avoid any obvious errors. The second disclaimer relates to a question the reader might have, when it comes to the Israel/Palestine conflict, whose side am I on? To be honest, I’m not really sure. I have some bedrock principles on the issue. I believe that Israel and Palestine both have the right to exist as separate and sovereign states, but beyond that I am too confused and unsure to know how I feel about such a messy region with an equally messy history. I hope that doesn’t come across as faux intellectualism, trying to sound smart when I’m actually just being obtuse and difficult. That is not my intention, but I am digressing. The second disclaimer I wanted to stress is that none of what I am about to say is in any way a justification or an excuse for anyone that has committed atrocities or crimes against humanity. I condemn terrorism and indiscriminate violence against civilians equally in this conflict.
The reason I was frustrated by people’s reaction to this conflict is that, as usual, people are quick to assign blame to this group or that person or that institution. As simple as it would be, I can’t ascribe to such a black and white interpretation of events. I’m sure I will repeat this a million times until I die, but there is simply too much complexity and nuance in the world for something to be so simple. More importantly, when people say “This conflict is an all Israel’s fault,” or “If the Palesitnians had done this and not done that other thing none of this would have happened,” or “Western imperial powers need to stop meddling in the region,” I think they are missing a broader point. All the behavior we are witnessing, from the fear, anger, violence, mutual atrocities and bloodletting, creating propaganda and counter-propaganda, none of these things are exclusively Israeli or Palestinian problems, these behaviors are fundamental to who we are as a species. There are two things I want the reader to consider before moving on: the first is how quickly in human events the oppressed can become the oppressor. You’d think being victimized or brutalized would teach people to be more compassionate, but most of the time you’d be wrong. The second thing to consider, and this is closely related to the first, is that people can be simultaneously victimized and victimizers, they are not mutually exclusive. It would certainly make things easier, but life isn’t easy. There are rarely clear cut good guys and bad guys in the world. Hopefully the reader won’t mind, but I think a quote from my own book is relevant here. I was discussing attitudes individuals or groups might have when dealing with conflict, and how they might develop the attitude of “everything is justified when we do it to you, nothing is justified when it is done to us,” (at least I think that’s an exact quote, it’s been a while since I read my own book).
Perspectives: A Prelude
When people support an unflinching and immovable view of a conflict, say for example, someone who is extremely pro-Palestine, they will often point to the atrocities and unjust practices of the Israelis against Palestinians as a reason to condemn Israel, and Israelis in general. I’m not denying that Israel has committed atrocities and injustices, there are so many of them that they require no exaggeration to be alarming. However, and as I have said before, I think people miss a broader point when they deconstruct nuance in favor of a simple view of a complicated issue. To try and inject some nuance back into the Israel-Palestine conflict, I wanted to examine different perspectives on this issue. I will start in no particular order with Israel, second Palestine, third a brief look at Israel’s Arab neighbors, and finally western powers like the US that support Israel. To reiterate, I’m an amateur and none of this is a justification for anything.
After the brutal October 7th, 2023 terrorist attacks against Israel in which more than a thousand people were killed, many people were shocked by what they viewed as inexplicable brutality on the part of Israel against Palestinians in Gaza in an attempt to defeat Hamas militarily, who carried out the attack. It took no time at all for Israel to exact their vengeance in blood for the deaths of their own civilians when they began their attacks against the Gaza strip. I for one, however, do not find their behavior inexplicable. That’s not because I support Israel’s indiscriminate reprisals, I categorically do not, I’m just extremely cynical. I think if you put any demographic group under the same pressures and circumstances as the Israelis found themselves in October 2023, I would not expect them to behave any better. It’s human nature to lash out with indiscriminate and desperate violence when wounded and threatened. I think a lot of Americans specifically angry at Israel’s response to a brutal terrorist attack were either too young to remember 9/11, weren’t even born yet, or if they were old enough they seem to have forgotten how the US reacted. On 9/11, before the towers had even fallen, there were already Americans baying for blood. It’s shocking to watch some of the footage of people in New York as the attacks are happening calling for reprisals before they even know for sure who is responsible. Shortly after 9/11, the US began an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan that lasted for 20 years before it ended in ignominious retreat and failure. One can make the case that this was justified, at least initially, that in the heat of anger and fear America wanted to find the people responsible for the attacks and do whatever it took to punish them. However, in the spring of 2003, the US also invaded Iraq, which was justified on completely bogus claims that Saddam Hussein supported terrorist organizations, and that the Iraqi regime was building weapons of mass destruction. That isn’t hindsight talking, there were people pointing out these bogus claims at the time. This isn’t to say that Saddam Hussein and his regime was guiltless, it was a brutal and repressive dictatorship, but it also doesn’t justify an invasion based on lies. But such was America’s fear and paranoia that even more than a year after 9/11 the invasion of Iraq had widespread support, and only became unpopular after it, like Afghanistan and other US invasions before, became a long and difficult quagmire. The point being, how different was the Israeli response in 2023 to terrorism from the US response in 2001 and 2003? Let’s also remember hundreds of thousands of people ultimately died as a result of the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and neither country is better off for it by any metric.
Also, there is something else worth remembering. Most of the victims of the October 2023 attacks in Israel were killed at extremely close range, and often after horrifying atrocities were committed against them and anyone around them. What I’m about to say will be graphic, but it needs to be said. Parents were killed in front of their children, children were killed in front of their parents. Bodies were mutilated, women were gang-raped before being murdered. In at least one instance a Hamas terrorist called his own family to brag about how many people he had killed so far using the phone of the person he had just killed. That’s barely scratching the surface, the atrocities are so numerous and so depraved it literally compels people to disbelief, even when there is mountains of video evidence. Why is there mountains of video evidence you might ask? The terrorists filmed themselves committing these atrocities and posted them online. Human history is littered with this sort of brutality, but from what I’ve studied the October 2023 attacks in Israel remind me of the Rape of Nanking in 1937 and many of the testimonies that truth commissions gathered in the late 1990s after the Guatemalan Civil War. I’ll leave this vague enough for the reader to infer the rest, but let’s just say that in all three of the cases I just mentioned the worst horrors were visited upon pregnant women.
When something so horrible happens to a nation, can you really expect people to behave rationally? Would you respond with level headed thoughtfulness if someone you knew or cared about was murdered and their body set on fire afterwards as their killers filmed the whole thing and then posted it online for bragging rights? Can you imagine a version of ourselves that didn’t respond with violent anger to such a provocation? Of course, as many readers might already be aware, this is the paradoxical pattern humanity is trapped in. An atrocity happens, people feel justified in committing a different atrocity to avenge the first one. That in turn leads the victims of the second atrocity to commit another to avenge the second one, and on it goes. A never-ending cycle of violence that we cannot escape.
One other thing before moving on, politicians. I’m by no means an expert on the Israeli government and security services that had to respond in the wake of the October 7th attacks, but I think I can make some broad points. When there is widespread public support for violent action in response to a terror attack, is it realistic to expect politicians and military leaders to urge caution and restraint? Politicians are people too, and they might be just as swept up in the mood of national anger as ordinary citizens. Even more importantly, could a politician survive politically or physically, if they denied the reprisals their constituents demanded? There is also a self-serving and selfish component to this question. Whether or not it is justified, people might blame their leadership for letting a terrorist attack happen in the first place. The most basic social contract between a people and their government is some reasonable guarantees of physical safety from outside threats, and a devastating terrorist attack can be seen as a failure on the government’s part to uphold their part of the bargain. So, politicians might be eager to shift the conversation away from their potential missteps, and toward what they are doing to avenge the victims of terror. It’s a depressingly cynical calculation, but do you honestly expect most politicians anywhere on Earth to behave differently? Usually, the only type of person to make it into the highest rungs of political power were egocentric and self-serving anyway, and they are quick to conflate their own political survival with the interests of the government they represent. Which again, just to repeat the point in case you missed it, that’s not an Israeli problem, or a Palestinian problem, that’s a human problem.
Perspectives
I thought all of that was worth pointing out, but let’s return to a summary of the historical perspective a hypothetical Israeli might have about their country and its place in the world. The events that led to the creation of Israel are extremely complicated and way above my pay-grade. Suffice it to say, while the Zionist movement of creating a Jewish state starting gaining traction at the end of the 19th century, and important steps towards nationhood like the Balfour Declaration were made by the British foreign office during WWI, the horror and trauma of the Holocaust in the Second World War helped tip the scales to creating Israel. From the moment of its inception, Israel has been menaced by hostile neighbors. The first war in Israel’s history saw them attacked on all sides by their Arab neighbors, who denied the existence of Israel for decades afterward. Since that first war in the late 1940s, there have been other full scale wars between formal militaries, and in each of those wars Israel found itself fighting on more than one front to maintain its territory. On top of the conventional wars, Israel has also been dealing with terrorist violence for decades as well. One might be able to argue that Israel is in part doing itself no favors, and helping to create the conditions that lead people to react violently against Israel. A view that certainly has its merits, and I will be discussing this more in a moment when I get to Palestine. However, to suggest that Israel is entirely to blame for the state of the region is foolish. You may have heard the expression: “It takes two to tango.” Well in this case it’s more like: “It takes multiple regional powers, international superpowers, state sponsored terror organizations, independent terror organizations, continuing local civil wars, refugee crises, and a helluva lot more to tango.”
Israel is a small country with a small population surrounded by icy or openly hostile neighbors, with their backs to the Mediterranean. In the short history of their country they have had to fight off multiple existential threats to their existence, however that’s only the beginning. You can’t understand the history of Israel without understanding the horrors of the Holocaust. Much of the population of Israel in the late 1940s were refugees fleeing Europe after the Second World War. In the early 21st century that means much of the population is the children or grandchildren of Holocaust survivors. Can you see how the Holocaust, and the subsequent threats Israel has faced in its history might stamp a feeling of paranoia and constant threat on the psyche of a nation? I’ll never forget the countless photos of Holocaust survivors decades after WWII showing the tattoos they were branded with in concentration camps, a constant reminder of the attempt to exterminate the Jews. While the Nazis were the instigators of the Holocaust, obviously, I think in the popular understanding we forget how many people in multiple European countries were culpable in the crime of genocide as well. Anti-antisemitism is not a problem that was exclusive to the Nazis, it’s a phenomenon that’s literally millennia old, and it has never gone away. More importantly, anti-antisemitism has been resurgent in the 21st century, and October 2023 saw a huge spike in anti-Semitic violence worldwide after Israel’s attacks in Gaza. I’m certain that the people who carried these attacks were already virulent anti-Semites to begin with, and the attacks in Gaza just provided a convenient justification for their own brutality. This is just speculation, but that may have been part of Hamas’ goal in the first place, to provoke Israel into a violent reaction that helped isolate it diplomatically and increase anti-Semitic views all over the globe (Al-Qaeda may have had a similar goal with the 9/11 attacks, to provoke the US). With all that being said, can one see how Israel, and perhaps Jews all over the world, might feel as if they are a people under siege?
Here’s the thing though, Palestinians could be justified in feeling the exact same way. Sometimes Palestinians are literally being besieged, and the Israelis are usually the ones doing the besieging (remember what I said earlier about being both victimized and victimizer)? One might ask, how can Israelis treat Palestinians the way they do? Aren’t they intimately familiar with the persecution of Jews throughout history? Haven’t they heard the golden rule so oft repeated in US schools, treat others the way you want to be treated? What’s going on? Once again, this is speculation on my part, but I think two impulses are key drivers of Israeli behavior towards Palestinians. The first is a fear of Palestinian terrorist organizations, and this combined with all their other fears, leads to over policing that can be counterproductive. The second impulse is a chauvinistic righteousness stemming from Israelis’ own sense of persecution and confidence from past military victories.
With that said, let’s move onto the subject of Palestine. From my perspective the plight of the Palestinian people looks similar to that of the Jews before the creation of Israel, a displaced and often marginalized people without a nation that they can point to as their homeland. The influx of Jews after WWII immediately led to the displacement of Palestinians, forcing them to become refugees, and leading them to have a confused and uncertain status in the region ever since. I know far less about the history of Palestine than I do about ancient Judea, but they have a long relationship to the land as well, one with no less validity than the Israelis. To put it politely, the conditions that Palestinians under Israeli authority live in are difficult, and relations with their Israeli wards are strained at the best of times.
I can absolutely understand many Palestinian grievances. Israel being created in territory they were living without so much as a consultation reeks of the worst excesses of European colonialism. In a sense, after the Holocaust one people was provided a state at the expense of another. Some commentators after the events of October 2023 pointed to the so-called “clash of civilizations,” the competing interests and ideologies of Western democracies and the Islamic world, as a crucial explanation for current events. I don’t know nearly enough to weigh in on the religious and political clashes of the region, but I have a theory about what might drive many Palestinians, especially in the Gaza strip, to violence. The situation in Gaza reminds me of the poor, densely packed districts of cities all over the world. Often, people in these inner cities are born into extreme poverty, they have few options to find valuable work, they are usually seen as a potential public menace, and subsequently find themselves the target of repression by security services. The justification for this repression follows a pattern of public moralizing that sounds something like: “these people are criminals, you have to contain them with a heavy hand to keep that criminality from spreading.” This moralizing follows an old pattern of thought, that some people are inherently criminal and it’s their own failings that leads them to crime. While I don’t deny individual agency, I believe that behavior is shaped by the circumstances into which we grow up. If someone is born into extreme poverty in a densely packed area, where they are marginalized and oppressed, and have few if any options of leaving, is it really a surprise that some people in those circumstances become radicalized and turn to crime or violence? One of the things that surprised me in late 2023 reading about Hamas fighters that had been killed in Gaza was how young so many of them were, many were 19 or 20 year old kids. It reminds me of an expression I read or heard, that one of the most dangerous forces in the world is a group of young men with nothing constructive to do. When you add the religious and political components of the region to the story, the potential for violence and misunderstandings is hard to avoid. Perhaps much of this violence could have been avoided if a Palestinian state had been created at the same time as Israel (I have no idea how plausible that was in the late 1940s). After learning about the destructive chaos that followed the partition of India and Pakistan (and what would eventually be Bangladesh), I’m not so sure. Much of the violence of partition came from people of different religious faiths turning on each other, and the fallout of that violence continues into the present day, with India and Pakistan also fighting several wars over the decades. In India there are extreme Hindu nationalists who want to bend over backwards to distort history and erase any traces of Islam in India. Who’s to say something similar couldn’t have happened between Israel and Palestine?
Very briefly, I wanted to look at what might be driving opinions of Israel among their Arab neighbors, at least one narrow aspect of that opinion. I know next to nothing about the Arab world and frankly there are enough ignorant people weighing in on this conflict with no understanding of what they’re talking about for me to add to the pile of uninformed, but very vociferous debate. There are the obvious religious tensions, and realpolitik concerns for territory, but there’s one thing I wanted to comment on. I thought the reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine at the start of 2022 in what’s being called “the global south” was an interesting one. The fact that western countries are taking more notice of the concerns of the global south is a good sign to me, it shows that many developing countries of the world are finally being treated with some of the respect and consideration they have always deserved, but were not always granted by former colonial powers (I consider the US among those colonial powers). While most western countries were quick to denounce the unprovoked aggression by Russia and provide Ukraine with aid (a position I agreed with), many countries of the global south were either lukewarm in their denunciations of Russia, were pointedly neutral, or actively sided with Russia in conflict. Some of those reasons were also strictly cynical and due to realpolitik concerns, if a country receives resources, weapons, or aid from Russia they are unlikely to bite the hand that feeds them. Beyond those obvious considerations, I also believe that many of these countries have an almost instinctive dislike of Western Europe and the US, because of their histories of colonial domination. Even though Russia’s invasion of Ukraine looks exactly like 19th century European colonialism, many people in the global south either didn’t notice the similarity, or simply didn’t care. I think that attitude is one thread in the massive tapestry of Arab hostility towards Israel, they see the existence of Israel as an extension of Western European and American domination in the region. Even if that isn’t strictly true, or if the reality is actually far more complicated, it hardly matters. We should all know by now that what people believe to be true shapes current events just as much as what is actually true.
Finally before concluding, I wanted to spend a little time looking at the United States’ continued support for Israel, and the reasons why it supports Israel. Once again, this area is not my strong suit so this will mostly be conjecture based off of what little I do know. As with many issues in geopolitics, and a lot of human decisions in general, the US’ motivations are a contradictory mix of greedy self interest and irrational emotions. Partly, the US has always been looking for as much stability in the region as possible so it can safely get oil exports and keep terrorism from spreading to US shores. On the other hand, the pro-Israel lobby in the US is powerful, has been around a long time, and it has rooted its ideals in a sizable portion of the US populace. For governmental leaders, that kind of popular pressure creates its own momentum that can affect policy. Even if cynical self interest would steer the US away from Israel as a partner in the region, the often very real sympathy for Israel’s situation cannot be dismissed lightly. After Israel’s reprisals in Gaza in 2023 I think support for Palestine grew in the US, but loyalties to Israel did not disappear. I don’t think supporters for either Israel or Palestine are entirely wrong, but on the flip side I don’t think either are entirely right.
Conclusion: Solutions?
The discussion and themes of this piece leaves us with two important questions. The first being, is there anything that can be done to quell the violence between Israel and Palestine, and leave enough people satisfied in both groups to lead them to the conclusion that peace is the better option? The second question deals with our own behavior. Can we consume news in a way that leads to more thoughtful judgment, and can we demand unbiased and thoughtful journalism from the news sources we do consume?
Starting with Israel and Palestine, I’m not sure there is some magic formula or idea that can solve this conflict quickly and peacefully. There is simply too much bad blood, too many real and imagined atrocities committed by all sides for anyone to forgive and forget easily. I think like most conflicts in human history, resentments will bubble and sometimes boil over, until enough time passes for passions to cool and a new part of the world becomes a new source of never-ending trouble. It would be a mistake to use history as a point by point roadmap for the present or future, but if you look at general trends one of humanity’s favorite activities throughout time is killing each other over our differences. To demonstrate the sameness with which atrocities and oppression can create a cycle of violence, I have a quote for the reader: “The Palestinians, yet again, had risen in revolt. For years, it turned out, they had been stockpiling weapons, preparing strongholds, excavating underground refuges and tunnels.” This quote sounds a little odd, but clearly it’s describing Hamas before their terror attack in Israel in 2023, right? Actually, it isn’t. That quote is from Pax War and Peace in Rome’s Golden Age by Tom Holland (the historian not the actor). All I did was change the word “Judeans” to “Palestinians.” The quote is describing a revolt by the Judeans that occurred during the reign of the Roman Emperor Hadrian in the second century CE. I was reading Pax in October 2023 and I was shocked at how people in similar circumstances can react in similar ways, even when separated by thousands of years and a huge leap forward in technology. Perhaps someday in the future Israel and Palestine will become relatively calm and safe places to live, but that doesn’t mean the larger problem of humanity being violent toward one another will be fixed.
Earlier, I said in situations such as the one in Israel in October 2023, politicians might be caught up in the atmosphere of anger and fear. They might also be equally motivated to embrace violent reprisals to deflect criticism away from themselves. For political leaders in Israel and Palestine, there is another reason why war is the easier, and for them personally, the safer option. Anwar Sadat, the third president of Egypt was assassinated in 1981. The assassin was an extremist Egyptian, motivated to kill Sadat because of Sadat’s negotiations with Israel in the late 1970s. In 1995, the Israeli Prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, was also assassinated. His assassin was an extremist Israeli, angered by Rabin’s negotiations with the PLO and the signing of the Oslo accords. Why take the risk of trying to make peace when there is a chance that you might be murdered by one of your own people? It would be far easier to continue the cycle of violence and let less important people die in your place. The extremists on both sides of this unending conflict have erected so many roadblocks on the way to peace it’s impossible to see past them from our vantage point.
To end this piece, it’s time to circle back to the beginning, how we consume news, how the news is presented to us, and how this codependent relationship feeds off of and strengthens itself. People want simple narratives to explain history and current events. We all have difficult and busy lives, and paying careful attention to world events takes time and energy that many of us don’t have. It makes sense that some people gravitate towards a perception of reality that is easy to understand, one with clearly established good guys and bad guys, leaving no room for complications or complexity. It would be nice if that were true, but reality isn’t simple. Reality is messy and difficult, with shades of responsibility, complicity, and blame shared by everyone. When people desire a simplified version of what’s happening, and news sources cater to that desire, it begins a destructive cycle. People only want to hear what reinforces their assumptions (assumptions that were often made in haste initially), and the sources providing the news can’t risk losing their audience to someone who will reinforce their assumptions. Refusing to see nuance and complexity makes the possibility of constructive dialogue remote.
This dynamic has always been around, even when the only communication medium was the spoken word, but the digital age has absolutely accelerated it. Not only is there a news source to cater to every bias, people expect you to have a strong opinion about every issue immediately. Once someone voices a strong opinion about something publicly, they might feel foolish changing their mind, or altering their views. Rather than admitting they might have spoken in haste, they could ignore any contradictory news and double down on what they already said. My advice to the reader is this; it’s okay to withhold judgment until you have time to process what’s going on. You don’t need to form a strong and instant opinion on everything, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with changing your mind when you get new or better information. It does not make you less intelligent, in fact, I think changing our views based on new information or changing circumstances shows maturity, not weakness or foolishness. Additionally, there is nothing wrong with being so confused or conflicted that you don’t know what to think. It would benefit the reader to ask a few questions as they are consuming news before they respond to it. The first should always be, is what I’m reacting to even real? It is getting harder and harder to differentiate between actual events being reported and misinformation, and at least some diligence is required of all of us. Another question to ask is: How biased is the news source I am consuming, and in what ways am I biased? Finally, I think it would be wise for the reader to ask themselves: do I believe in a position because I have thought critically about the issue, or am I jumping on a popular bandwagon?
I have just a few final pieces of advice and food for thought before concluding for good. There were a lot of people critical of Israel’s violent reprisals in Gaza after the October 7th terrorist attacks. They were indeed violent, and thousands of innocent civilians were killed, thousands more wounded and hundreds of thousands more were displaced or made homeless. I’m not discounting or downplaying those facts. I do have a question, though. How sure are you that if you were put in the same situation as Israel, or in any country that faced a massive terror attack, that you would not react with a desire for vengeance? Do not underestimate the power fear and outrage can have on a group of people, especially when they work together. I know the simplicity of a narrative with good guys and bad guys, evil vs. good is alluring, but remember this: the universe doesn’t owe you anything, least of all a simple narrative to explain why people behave the way they do. Finally, don’t make the mistake of demonizing a group of people, that is a road that can lead to some very dark places, and it ignores the violence we are all capable of. Just as importantly, don’t romanticize a group of people either. They’ll eventually end up disappointing you, or you will forever be left ignoring or excusing awful things so you can cling to your romantic fantasy.