The Contagion of Violence

Here is a very perceptive analysis of the civil strife in the Palestinian territories (written a few weeks before the coup in Gaza):

...the most dangerous thing about this ... is that the all-against-all infighting and its basic code have become the mental and psychological makeup of the Palestinian people, as a natural result of the predominant discourse of hostility and incitement. [This discourse] has been adopted by Palestinians of all persuasions and in all the factions - religious, pan-Arab revolutionary, and leftist. It is a discourse whose aim was sowing hatred, having recourse to violence, and enjoying spilling blood....

The culture and psychology of violence has been able to take possession of the Palestinian people for two reasons. The first is that the discourse of violence had already managed to be the only one on the scene, which was emptied of any counter-discourse when the rational thinkers fled or were forced to keep out of sight - [either] out of desperation or in order to preserve the wellbeing of themselves and their families amidst the vast flood of feelings of violence that began to sweep away everything in its path.

The second reason is that the predominant discourse of violence, most of which was formed by the religious discourse, was not the discourse of a means that attempts to achieve a goal - for instance, the liberation of the homeland - but rather was a discourse of violence and sacred killing in the name of jihad, which the literature of violence considered to be a duty that had been neglected and which needed to be carried out by every believer. [This was written,] for instance, in 'Abd Al-Salam Farag's book The Neglected Duty, which has been an authoritative source for the jurisprudence of jihad since the 1970s....

Perhaps no one has noticed - for where are we to find someone to notice, in the absence of reason and rationality? - that when you take an individual or a group away from the culture of using reason and peaceful dialogue, and replace it with the culture of violence and of killing those who are different, you cannot then afterwards control it and direct it to be used against one single side....

The natural consequence of the rule of the culture and psychology of violence and its expansion is the fraternal violence we see [today], which has defied and will [continue to] defy all attempts to contain it - [violence among brothers] whom we all agree are miserable by any standard....

Violence naturally exists at all times and in every place. But we are in the midst of a striking growth in violence, not to say an increase at a catastrophic rate. In my estimation, this is the fruit that we are harvesting because we sowed thorns for over half a century.

Thus, the crisis in the region is not the amount of disagreements in points of view or differences in interests [between ourselves] and our neighbors or the world. In both of these [cases], reason and dialogue can find solutions, whether comprehensive or partial, that are completely satisfactory, acceptable, or at least can be borne.

Rather, the true crisis in the region is that the peoples of the region need psychological and cultural reeducation - which must necessarily be preceded by halting the discourse of violence, incitement, and hatred, in all its colors and classifications.

But can this come about when the fires of hatred have already broken out [everywhere]?

—Kamal Gabriel, We Are Sowing Thorns (words in brackets from translator) (via)

I think Gabriel's most important point is that hatred and violence will inevitably escape the control of reason and rationality. Though Islam makes Muslims particularly susceptible to violence, we wouldn't need the Geneva Conventions if humanity as a whole did not have a long history of going overboard once wars and revolutions have begun. Modern people often look with disgust on the ancient biblical "lex talionis"—an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth—not realizing that this is an improvement over the primal human tendency to retaliate out of proportion to the original offense. Even Islamic teachings regulating war, plunder, and the treatment of prisoners of war and conquered peoples can be seen as an improvement over the previous condition of unbridled brutality among the Arabian tribes in the early centuries C.E. However Gabriel's words, and current events, should make us doubt whether any amount of violence, no matter how codified and regulated, can really be controlled.

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile." [Matthew 5:38-41]

Comments

[Balkan]

You have two great blogs! Wish you all the best!

[brd]

This study doesn't attempt to explain the violence perpetrated on the Palestinian people by Israel. If we counted up the violences experienced by Palestinians in their daily lives, I think that their response falls well within the bounds of eye for eye. I do not think that violence in response to violence is the answer, but if we look at the big picture, the lion's share comes from the Israeli side of the walls.

[Sylvia]

I think it does explain it. The Palestinian culture of violence leads to acts of aggression against Israel, which Israel then has to defend against. Recall that every Arab-Israeli war was started by the Arabs, never Israel. Israeli violence is always in direct response to Palestinian violence, not the other way around. That doesn't necessarily make it right, but it is certainly more defensible than Palestinian or Arab aggression.