A Moral Vacuum

Since the Hamas attacks on October 7th, the whole world, or at least it certainly feels like that, has been scrambling to make sense of what happened on that day, what happened in 1948, what happened in 70 A.D. and whatever had happened before then. Everyone has rushed to learn the history of the region, the people, the conflict. And the problem with learning about Israel-Palestine and all that comes with it is that one is dealing with a region so historically dense, so politically fraught, and featuring key stakeholders who are so impeccably masterful at the art of propaganda. 

It is astonishing to see both sides in the current conflict have such disregard for the basic morals and ethics that have guided most of the modern world. On the Israeli, Zionist side, having exclusive ownership of this land is their innate birth-right. That is their guiding principle. Having been exiled in the Babylonian Captivity in the 6th century BCE and in the Jewish-Roman wars recorded somewhat one-sidedly by Josephus in the first century AD, it has been the overwhelming historic sentiment that the Israelites, the Jewish people, deserved to return to their homeland. 

They are a people somewhat unparalleled in being granted their wish, even if it were done somewhat retroactively and with something of a loaded gun to the heads of the decision-makers. One could argue that such decision-makers also exhibited the hubris and ahistoricity that has come to define much of this debate. The plight of the exiled Jews could be viewed to some measure analogously to the plight of Catholics in Northern Ireland, of Native Americans in their homeland, of Armenians and Greeks in Istanbul. The drive for a Zionist homeland, and the decision to deliver on said desire, is not one with which I wholeheartedly disagree. There is an element of fairness in "returning home", a very human element. There is also the aspect of it being a retrospective apology to the Jewish people from the rest of mankind for the horrors suffered in World War II.

The only problem is that the Jewish people are not alone in their suffering, in spite of the fact that most modern Israeli politicians and Israel-supporting Westerners would talk as if they were. One might have been able to predict that, when Mark Sykes* literally drew a line on a map in Downing Street, from the 'E' in Acre (Israel) to the last 'K' in Kirkuk (Iraq), that something would go wrong further down the line. Straight borders on maps are always a most questionable thing. But that is beside the point. There is a very moral argument to be made in favour of Jewish repatriation to the homeland on account of their historic suffering. However, such an argument ignores the very existence of the Palestinian people. Not exactly a new Zionist tactic.

Arguments and points made against the Israeli government and its modern war, occupation and resettlement are understood to be vitriolic diatribes against the Jewish people. It is this exact misconception that has led to such venomous political discourse for the past 4 months. Misconception may be the wrong word, however, as that implies the actions are somewhat unconscious. I do not think the words and actions of prominent Israelis and prominent people of Jewish heritage portraying themselves as the victims in this particular scenario is done unconsciously. The classic tactic of the propagandist is to claim that they are the oppressed, not the oppressor. 

It is seen time and again in Israeli media and further afield on social media sites. One recent example that is particularly prominent on my timelines comes from a football match featuring the Israeli and Irish u17s women's football teams. Irish football teams traditionally turn and face our flag when our national anthem is played, and they did so for this match. However, the flag was located 180 degrees behind them, and thus they had to turn around completely away from their opposition. The optics, admittedly, aren't great. Social media erupted with pro-Israel commentators further condemning the Irish people and pro-Palestine advocates further aligning their plight with our historic plight. The video itself was doctored and shared to play the Israeli anthem as the girls turned, further enraging just about everyone and feeding the beast of misinformation that torments the online world. The Israeli journalists eventually retracted their unsubstantiated claims and everyone carried on, but it shows how dangerous any speech is either in favour of or against the Israeli machine. Its work is almost nonpareil. The propaganda machine rages on.

I have thought often about this quote from Hannah Arendt and her work Origins of Totalitarianism:

"The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism."

While I am not drawing a comparison between the modern Israeli government and 1930s Germany, that is a narrative that lots of left-leaning media and commentators are more than happy to take. Unfortunately. It is ethically dubious and historically wrong to compare the modern Israeli regime to Nazism. It is just wrong. In Western, liberal societies, such comparisons are erroneously and tastelessly drawn. They are drawn without an understanding of history and suffering, and are a most crude example of Godwin's Law. The ardently pro-Palestine media are more than happy to draw such comparisons because it believes that their moral relativism will trump anything else. The assumption of ethical and moral superiority creates a position from which they cannot move. It is like dealing with the religious right - because they believe they are right on account of some intangible force, they will forever believe they are right. The horseshoe theory in action, if ever I had seen it.

Those in the West who are ardently pro-Hamas don't understand history and believe that what has come before us has no bearing on the present day. This ahistorical understanding of modernity rages on creating more and more problems for those who do, truly, seek peace. Is peaceful living now too much to ask for in the world that we have for ourselves constructed? 

Those in the West who are pro-Israel are so entrenched in their historical assumptions that they cannot be moved by any amount of infant mortality, blown-up hospitals and razed towns. Any attack upon the Israeli state, the modern Zionist juggernaut, or Bibi's despotic rule over this country, and prominent people of Jewish faith are up in arms, claiming the persecution of the Jewish people is the single greatest affliction that has faced mankind for the last two millennia. The vehicle for ahistorical assumptions rages on. The unstoppable force meets the immovable object. So I'm left wondering: where do we go from here? What's next?

The truth is, I don't know. We will never know until it happens. Any predictions, unless they come from the very few esteemed individuals who speak with clarity on this situation, are bound to be wide of the mark. Those arguing for a total Palestinian state need to understand the history of the establishment of the modern Israeli state. Those arguing for a total Israeli state need to understand that the consequences of such actions will lead to continued wars in the region with each bordering Arab nation bound to be on-guard because, given recent history, why would Israeli territorial expansion stop at the current international borders? Those who argue for the two-state solution, the solution I see as the best fit, need to tread softly. It makes both sides irate whenever it is suggested, but it is the clearest solution to this problem. Though, unfortunately, no solution seems to offer less loss of life. The moral vacuum continues to expand, unabated.

* For more on Mark Sykes, I recommend two great works of historical writing. The first is linked here and is a journal article by F.S. Naiden about the very reckless nature of Sykes' work. The second is the book 'A Line in the Sand' by James Barr, a most authoritative and engaging book about the various struggles that shaped the Middle East between the two world wars.