|
My feeling is a bit like Freud's on the eve of WWII: There will be a slide into the abyss and only when, and if, a relative calm emerges on the other side can we hope to propose possible ways forward based on moral rather than utilitarian reasoning.
This conflict, now on both sides, is moral and not strategic, and likely borne out by the fact that neither side has likely planned/thought through the consequences of their actions to a (strategically) reasoned conclusion. We have three sets of directly relevant research findings and a relevant historical observation:
1. We have conducted an experiment with Israelis concluding that if people view violence as morally mandated, they will support it even if all the hostages die (American Psychologist).
2. We have conducted another experiment with Palestinians showing that extreme violence (e.g., suicide attacks) is met with joy when in the service of a perceived (violated) sacred value (published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences).
3. We have interviewed Israeli and Hamas leaders (including Netanyahu and the three major Hamas political leaders still operating today, Haniyeh, Meshaal, Marzouk) showing that only recognition of the moral imperative (sacred value) of the other side would lead to even the possibility of dialogue involving these players (published in Science).
4. The Haram al-Sharif (temple mount) and Al Aqsa has been the moral focus of almost every major outburst of generalized Palestinian violence since 1919, whatever other major and proximate causes may be involved incl 1922, 1936-7 Arab Revolt (thawra), 1947-8 (naqba), 1967, Intifadas one and two, and Gaza now).
Given this information, what options are available to interrupt the spiraling cycle of morally driven extreme violence and seemingly intractable conflict? Apologies, which have proposed, and mutual recognition of each side most sacred value is still a long- run possibility. But what of the medium term?
|
