Finding New Ways to Communicate

I will admit that my first reaction to the attack on Israel by Hamas was to “unleash hell” in retaliation. Revenge is a difficult emotion to control. At times like this I get that sense of psychological surety as if I could somehow sweep Hamas away by flicking them off me like so many annoyances that can be easily disposed of. Military action lends itself well to this sort of thinking as it is usually associated with gaining ground or killing soldiers from the other side.

But, alas, this is not how foreign policy works. And there are clear operational and procedural steps that must be confronted if we want to truly solve the problem. Responding too aggressively will put the hostages in jeopardy, escalate the intensity of the potential outcomes, and increase the polarization that already exists between the two sides.

But trying to “solve the problem” is now just the problem. It has become apparent to me that the typical attempts at conflict management and resolution, whatever you want to call it, have failed.

The political arena is filled with seminars, discussion groups, training, and various forms of control mechanisms designed to discourage aggressiveness or change attitudes about the other group. And I have been a part of plenty of them. These groups typically draw on social science theory in an effort to change the reality of the conflicting groups. For example, members of conflicting groups (e.g. Israelis-Palestinians, Blacks-Whites, Muslims-Jews) might meet on a regular basis and engage in some joint project. This, according to theory, stimulates collaboration and teaches the participants to learn the habits of cooperation.

Israelis have been lectured to and chided more than a recalcitrant child and even so they woke up one morning and saw the genocidal monster called Hamas in the backyard. Things are not going well here. Still, how do you deal with a stubborn monster. The monster is not rational to the extent that there is not some justifiable relationship between the monsters’ behavior and a desirable outcome. In Hamas’s. Statement of Principles the destruction of the state of Israel and reclaiming the land are foundational goals that guide Hamas’s behavior. Hamas believes that the entire Zionist project is illegitimate including the historical documents that established the state of Israel. The land is indivisible and sacred. This leaves no room for the State of Israel. It means that nothing is negotiable, nothing can be shared, and neither side can tolerate the other’s presence.

It is clear that Israelis were caught flat-footed, and the charge that Netanyahu took his eye off the ball as he spent his time trying to save his political life, is defensible. Netanyahu speaks to the matter of leadership during a time of crisis and its role in setting the conditions of the conflict to the best of his ability. But Netanyahu will not be ousted so easily. He has the respect of many Israelis and they believe he can protect them during a time of war. As Einstein observed, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We must find new ways to communicate. But what kind of communication understands killing babies and children? How do we learn new ways to communicate when mass killing is the norm? How do we learn new ways to communicate when both   are labeled morally unacceptable by the other? Recently, an Israeli Defense Forces specialist observed that Israel will have to take steps that are wider and typically considered unacceptable by the United States. If so, we will have circled around to the beginning where, once again, we will have done the same thing with the same results, and we will have to find new we ways to communicate.