I quoted at the beginning of September Financial Timescolumnist Janan Ganesh, who noted that the Israel-Palestine conflict, once an inescapable topic of conversation, was now barely discussed. As he said this, Hamas was already preparing a horrific action that would bring the conflict back to everyone’s minds.
The images and stories of last Saturday are difficult to bear. They make an emotional appeal to the viewer: you cannot look at piles of corpses, or listen to stories about decapitated babies and kidnapped elderly people, without being overcome by anger, disgust, sadness and bewilderment. Where should those emotions go? You aim them at the perpetrator, normally. On the enemy.
But then the images and stories come from the other side, the side of ‘the enemy’. Images of knocked down apartment buildings. Stories about the 70 percent of Gazans who were already depressed before the new war. Reports of drinking water shortages and 1.1 million people having to move to southern Gaza within 24 hours.
Those images and stories also make you angry and sick. My colleague Carola Houtekamer tweeted on Thursday: “Last night I ended up in bed in a pointless argument, while my husband and I are in total agreement. So many intense feelings, of annoyance, hatred, sadness, anger.”
In recent days I have been following the ‘debate’ about the conflict: on social media, in international newspapers, on TV. What struck me was the straight leg with which many entered the discussion. The doggedness with which they threw themselves into, let’s be honest, medium-important matters such as which flag was raised when and what some football commentator had said. It seemed as if they were searching for moral certainty – if not about the entire conflict, then at least about this person or this action.
This need for an opponent can explain why many discussions immediately fail. Many people do not want to understand the other person – otherwise they would not be able to release their anger.
For example, I often read a variation on this interaction:
A: “The attacks are horrible, but they do not come from nowhere. The Palestinians have been violently oppressed for years.”
B: “Oh, and you think that is a justification for mass murder?”
This is not what A said. An explanation or context is different from a justification.
Another:
A: “This is not the time for a ‘yes, but’.”
B: “So you think the suffering of the Palestinians is less important?”
No, the ruling was about timing and tact, not about which suffering is greatest.
A: “It is terrible for the victims on both sides.”
B: “So according to you, Hamas and Israel are morally equivalent?”
Again: this was not said. A was talking about the victims, not the perpetrators.
A: “The settlers have made themselves hated by driving away and humiliating Palestinians.”
B: “So you are saying that anti-Semitism does not play a role among the Palestinians?”
No, A didn’t say that at all. That is precisely the complicated part: that in addition to understandable anger about oppression, there can also be deep-rooted hatred of Jews.
I thought the strangest interaction was this, which dominated the debate on Wednesday:
A: “It has not been confirmed that any babies have been decapitated.”
B: “So you don’t mind babies being murdered, as long as they are not beheaded?”
There is a name for this kind of miscommunication: tactical misunderstandings. You know what the other person means, but you’re just looking for a fight. (Sometimes people simply can’t listen, which is another problem.)
It is crazy what has been happening in Israel and Palestine since last Saturday. It is an insane tragedy in which millions of people are entangled, and for which a solution becomes further elusive with each cycle of violence. It is logical that this leaves spectators around the world powerless and angry. But does it help to look for enemies closer to home? I don’t think that takes away the anger. And it doesn’t benefit the people who are being murdered now.
Floor Rusman ([email protected]) is editor of NRC
A version of this article also appeared in the October 14, 2023 newspaper.