NOTE: This is not a thread to debate right/wrong nor about which side is more evil. The focus is on the emotions involved and psychological realities and how they combine to cause the horror that is the Middle-East today. As the article points out, even starting down a path to peace requires leaders who sincerely want peace and will ackknowledge that the other side has suffered as well. That today is not the case but sooner-or-later the misery and suffering will get to a point when anything seems better than more horror and more suffering.
...
Here are key psychological concepts that have been studied in the Israeli–Palestinian context and what they mean for conflict resolution.
Parochial altruism: with us or against us
Humans have well-established in-group and out-group biases. These general tendencies still allow for us to be an extremely cooperative species, but the problem arises when these biases begin to polarize. Humans find trouble when they go to the extreme of altruism (by showing favoritism to one’s own group) while simultaneously going to the extreme of parochialism (by displaying hostility toward those outside it). When strong forms of parochial altruism arise on all sides of a conflict, intractability sets in.
...
Sacred values: never compromise
Of course, most Israelis and Palestinians don’t think like this. But there are myriad factors that make someone take on this hostile mode of thinking. Chief among those factors is a dogmatic ideology that makes compromise with the other side seem like a morally abhorrent notion.
This kind of ideology is infused with what are called “sacred values.” These are values of such moral importance that they transcend the material concerns of everyday life; people would be willing to give their lives for them. Israelis and Palestinians hold values that come into direct conflict with each other such as claims over land.
Trauma and victimhood: The past is never past
Collective trauma only makes resolving this conflict more difficult. For both sides, the current violence brings back traumatic memories. For Israelis, the attacks on October 7th — and events afterwards such as the storming of an airport in the Russian Republic of Dagestan, where a mob searched for Jewish passengers, or the October firebombing attack on a Berlin synagogue — reminds them of the pogroms Jews faced at the hands of the Nazis and others.
For Palestinians, the war driving people out of their homes and into the streets and refugee settlements harkens back to the Nakba in 1948, when Palestinians were left as a stateless people during the creation of Israel. Collective traumas become part of the story each group tells about itself. They can also be a barrier to resolution by causing some to resist compromise, in order to not let the past repeat itself.
The way forward: Thankfully, the tools exist
Depressing as the last three months have been, the psychological literature makes clear that tools do exist to make peace more possible. Symbolic concessions decrease barriers to resolution, even among absolutists. Acknowledging each other’s traumas reduces competitive victimhood and increases willingness to compromise on contentious issues. Those elements of dialogue are important for opening the door to discussion of any particular peace plan.
These tools can only be used if leaders on both sides agree to a cessation of violence and sincerely want peace. Such is not the case when war rages on and a group like Hamas identifies itself with the destruction of Israel, and a leader like Netanyahu indicates (as he did in 2019) that a strong Hamas is good for Israel as it provides justification for avoiding peace.
The research all points in one direction: the need to publicly and unequivocally accept each other’s realities and thereby dignify each other’s humanity. Once that happens, pragmatic negotiations related to material disputes can be undertaken. But until then, strong psychological levers will continue to work against peace.
Psychology explains why the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is so intractable
The answer goes beyond geopolitics and speaks to the underlying psychology of what it is to be human and why we fight. Thankfully, the research on this psychology also points to potential pathways to resolution....
Here are key psychological concepts that have been studied in the Israeli–Palestinian context and what they mean for conflict resolution.
Parochial altruism: with us or against us
Humans have well-established in-group and out-group biases. These general tendencies still allow for us to be an extremely cooperative species, but the problem arises when these biases begin to polarize. Humans find trouble when they go to the extreme of altruism (by showing favoritism to one’s own group) while simultaneously going to the extreme of parochialism (by displaying hostility toward those outside it). When strong forms of parochial altruism arise on all sides of a conflict, intractability sets in.
...
Sacred values: never compromise
Of course, most Israelis and Palestinians don’t think like this. But there are myriad factors that make someone take on this hostile mode of thinking. Chief among those factors is a dogmatic ideology that makes compromise with the other side seem like a morally abhorrent notion.
This kind of ideology is infused with what are called “sacred values.” These are values of such moral importance that they transcend the material concerns of everyday life; people would be willing to give their lives for them. Israelis and Palestinians hold values that come into direct conflict with each other such as claims over land.
Trauma and victimhood: The past is never past
Collective trauma only makes resolving this conflict more difficult. For both sides, the current violence brings back traumatic memories. For Israelis, the attacks on October 7th — and events afterwards such as the storming of an airport in the Russian Republic of Dagestan, where a mob searched for Jewish passengers, or the October firebombing attack on a Berlin synagogue — reminds them of the pogroms Jews faced at the hands of the Nazis and others.
For Palestinians, the war driving people out of their homes and into the streets and refugee settlements harkens back to the Nakba in 1948, when Palestinians were left as a stateless people during the creation of Israel. Collective traumas become part of the story each group tells about itself. They can also be a barrier to resolution by causing some to resist compromise, in order to not let the past repeat itself.
The way forward: Thankfully, the tools exist
Depressing as the last three months have been, the psychological literature makes clear that tools do exist to make peace more possible. Symbolic concessions decrease barriers to resolution, even among absolutists. Acknowledging each other’s traumas reduces competitive victimhood and increases willingness to compromise on contentious issues. Those elements of dialogue are important for opening the door to discussion of any particular peace plan.
These tools can only be used if leaders on both sides agree to a cessation of violence and sincerely want peace. Such is not the case when war rages on and a group like Hamas identifies itself with the destruction of Israel, and a leader like Netanyahu indicates (as he did in 2019) that a strong Hamas is good for Israel as it provides justification for avoiding peace.
The research all points in one direction: the need to publicly and unequivocally accept each other’s realities and thereby dignify each other’s humanity. Once that happens, pragmatic negotiations related to material disputes can be undertaken. But until then, strong psychological levers will continue to work against peace.
