Sympathy for the Devil?

Reading over this article from Jewcy while I was looking for updates on the recent Israeli elections about the proported rise in anti-semitism in Venezuela under Hugo Chavez and Chavez’s support for groups like Hamas, I was struck by a question: is it intellectually and morally acceptable to attempt to understand where groups like Hamas are coming from and cultivate a certain degree of sympathy/empathy for the circumstances that have given rise to them?

This question is distinct from the notion of supporting a group like Hamas, which, by my lights, is a pretty difficult move given that one of its core principles is the complete annihilation of another state and its people. I believe pretty firmly that I would feel the same if that state weren’t Israel, so let us jettison both the “blind love of Israel” and “ignorant romanticizing of Hamas” arguments alike. I should also clarify that I am talking about finding sympathy and empathy in one’s heart for Hamas, as distinct from doing the same for Palestinians in Gaza generally — I don’t want to overstate my suggestion here, but neither do I want to falsey sugar-coat it.

The more I’ve thought about the question, the more I’ve come to the conclusion that finding such sympathy/empathy is a key component in understanding and successfully seeking a resolution to the generations long conflict in the region. For all my recent talk about cultivating a better interventionism, I continue to believe that there is no real military solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, there is only a human solution (call it a political solution if you like, but what I’m pointing to is human beings figuring out a way and cultivating an openness to living together). That there will by necessity, given the players in this conflict, be a military component to the lead up to such a resolution, as has already been abundantly demonstrated, is a sad fact, but I don’t think it detracts from the reality that at the end of the day the military elements of this conflict will eventually have to become exhausted and some kind of human solution will have to emerge if there is ever going to be a “just and lasting peace”. To perhaps assuage some of my interlocutors on interventionism, I don’t take that to be an isolated incident in the Israel-Palestine conflict. I think it is true broadly that there are no real military solutions to what generally in geo and regional politics boil down to human conflicts, but I’m also aware that there are times when use of force becomes sadly necessary (so my whole track on interventionism is trying to formulate a better version thereof).

I would argue further that the human solutioning to the conflict does indeed require a degree of sympathy/empathy for why a group like Hamas comes into existence and rises to power amongst Palestinians in Gaza. In his summary of the potential political future for Iraq, Chris Dierkes provides a fairly compelling case for why the state of mind and life for the average Iraqi is fairly badly bruised and represents and not inconsiderable hurdle to the hypothetical future I proposed. Chris writes,

I’m 29 years old; I was born in 1979.  If I had been born in Iraq in 1979 and lived my life there I would have (if I lived which is percentage-wise not particularly likely) seen the following in my life:

From birth to age 8.  The horrific Iran-Iraq war.
(approx. age 12) The First Gulf War and the horrors that launched.
1992-2003: the ungodly sanctions regime and the furthering consolidation of the demonic Hussein regime.
2003-Present. The US occupation, another war, Civil Bloodshed, the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad, and now a period of only relative craziness, death, and poverty.

In other words, I would be pretty f-ed up as a human being.

I took Chris’ point around Iraq and I would suggest that the same logic, though different events, would apply to the average Palestinian in Gaza. If one puts one’s mind to actually trying to conceptualize what it would be like to live in the midst of a bloody, asymmetrical conflict that has now spanned the lives of most Gazans, one might come to the unhappy conclusion that it wouldn’t be nearly so difficult as we comfortable westerners might initially think to become radicalized and supportive of a group like Hamas. Which is, again, not to condone the goals of Hamas in seeking to eradicate the state of Israel, nor is it to call off the exhortations for Hamas to assume a less radical, less violent, more ethical stance on the conflict, nor is it, perhaps most importantly, to paint all Gazans with one brush.

Now, I might be due for some name calling from certain corners for suggesting such sympathy/empathy, as is the case when one writes about a topic that many feel very strongly about. All I can say to those who would take umbrage with my suggestion is that what I take myself to be doing is not condoning or supporting the destructive goals of Hamas, but rather attempting to the best of my ability to address and deal with the complex dynamics that exist in this conflict. If you refuse to find it in your heart to understand how it is that a group like Hamas might arise given the situation, I wish you well, but I don’t think you’ll ever really grips the complexity of the conflict — and by extension, I don’t think you’ll ever really grasp the conflict itself.

The point in all of this is to do the leg work in cultivating an ability to relate to radicalized Gazans in a meaningful fashion. It seems evident that, as much as somne would prefer otherwise, that relating to and interacting with radicalized Gazans is going to be as important as cultivating the same ability with non-radicalized Gazans. And to be honest, I’m not entirely sure how one goes about the business of separating the two cleanly — I’m not even entirely sure that said business is profitable.

To return to the business of military interventionism, I don’t take that cultivation to be necessary just squarely in the realm of soft power. While I take the use of hard power/military force to be necessary in some instances, I also think that said power is best applied with a strong sense of sympathy/empathy for one’s enemies. Which might seem counter-intuitive when talking about the use of military force, but at least some of the recent military blunders on record are, by my lights, at least partially due to the increased dehumanization of military affairs. It is much easier to make bad (both strategically and morally) decisions when one takes a dehumanized or subhuman view of those one is fighting. Actively cultivating a level of sympathy/empathy for one’s enemies helps to reintroduce a degree of humanity back into what has largely become a sterile affair. Let me say this clearly: the necessity of using military force is regrettable and part of my desire to suggest that actively cultivating a sympathy/empathy for one’s enemies is to avoid the cavalier use that arises out of a mob-like, “let’s get ‘em” mentality. Going into conflict shouldn’t be like a high school pep rally, it should be a determined yet incredibly heavy-hearted affair in which one recognizes the need for use of force but agonizes over the loss of life that will ensue. While such a mentality might not be feasible for the actual soldiers, it is at home where I think such wariness is best applied.

So too, by reverse, do I understand the stigma that has come to be associated with any kind of softening towards a radicalized group like Hamas. After the events of 9-11 and the near constant rocket fire that Israel has endured, it is equally easy to understand the antipathy that has developed towards Hamas and its sister organizations (for an extremely helpful outline of the differences between Islamic groups that we have a tendency to gloss over see Chris’ recent C11 piece). But I think that if we in the West want to find effective ways of grappling with this apparent clash of civilizations we need to actively break down those stigmas and seek to better understand the dynamics that are driving the clash.

Part of that understanding includes some sympathy for those people we’re happy to call devils, right now.

Related posts...

• Policy and Dissent
• Israel, Alone
• The Light of Day Shines Even Behind the Scenes