Can Jews and Palestinians stop killing each other?

The right answer to the wrong questions posed by Professor Saad

Professor Gad Saad’s questions matter because he specializes in human behavior. He claims to be “a leading public intellectual who often writes and speaks about idea pathogens that are destroying logic, science, reason, and common sense.” Idea pathogens are a fancy term for well-sounding infectious falsehoods that poison our minds. Also, Professor Saad has 856,000 followers on X. Recently, he interviewed Elon Musk, which practically translates to X’s promoting his views.

His recent book tells us “The Saad Truth about Happiness.” His questions posted on X are about the current Israeli-Palestinian war. However, the happiness of Palestinians is not Professor Saad’s objective. It is the opposite; he challenges “the folks who state that Israel has retaliated in a too forceful manner.” He asks us to “agree that Israel has a right to retaliate in order to eradicate all of Hamas.” Then, he asks, “How should they have gone about it differently?” He adds a professorial hubris: “Be specific and share as many details as possible.”

So, let us look at the idea pathogens that have destroyed “logic, science, reason, and common sense” in Professor Saad’s take on this war.

Professor Saad avoids the most obvious questions

First, we need to ask why the massacre of October 7 happened.

Professor Saad makes a silent assumption that happy Palestinians got out of their beds on the wrong side one day and decided to hate Jews. A reasonable person would ask if there are any sensible causes for that hatred. Is there anything Jews could have done differently since their return to the land of their ancient ancestors?

In my earlier article “When genocide seems to be the only rational option,” I pointed out the original sin of modern Israel. It used money and political maneuverings to grab real estate from Arabs living in the territory of today’s Israel. Today, still about a third of the population controlled by Israel are Palestinians, mostly deprived of the real estate of their ancestors and denied basic human rights. So, they have reasons for grievances.

There is just one step from mistreatment of grievances to hate. Interestingly, Palestinians living in the West Bank try to find peaceful ways of cooperating with Israelis. Still, they claim discrimination. But violence breaks out only sporadically. Until the war started, Palestinians in Gaza were formally self-ruling. With Israel fully controlling the borders, they were a ghetto at the mercy of Israel. They support Hamas, which stands for a military fight with Israel.

In their forceful retaliation, the Israeli leaders stress that Hamas has the overwhelming support of most Gaza residents. It is impossible to distinguish a militant from any other resident of Gaza. Professor Saad does not ask why most Gaza residents want to kill Israelis. If he did, he would see a cry of despair.

If he sought an understanding of this conflict, he would notice that Israelis lost their case in Gaza not only because they turned it into a ghetto. Palestinians in Gaza see their hopelessness in the misery of their compatriots living in the West Bank. Had Palestinians in the West Bank been treated fairly, the prosperity of each of them would be an argument for Gazans to work with Israel, not to fight it. Now, the situation of about two million Palestinians in the West Bank gives Gazans two million reasons to hate Israel.

If Professor Saad cared about the truth, he could easily find out that Palestinians claim that they suffer genocidal injustice under Israeli rule. If he wanted to stay for “logic, science, reason, and common sense,” he would need to acknowledge that there is merit in those accusations. If he were a man of personal integrity, he would at least recognize that Palestinians have a right to struggle to better their situation.

Our professor has been blind, deaf, and silent on these matters.

Professor Saad has been ignoring reality

When facts do not fit Professor Saad’s narrative, he does not mention them.

As a behavioral scientist, Professor Saad likely knows that the more powerful party decides how conflicts play out in adversarial situations. In this quarrel, Israel has more bullets and more money. So, if Israel endures suffering, the first question one should ask is: What did they screw up in handling this conflict?

There are no saints on either side. Older people might remember, but the young also should know that terrorist acts by Jewish organizations, like Irgun, were essential in helping Israel gain independence in 1948. Would what has worked for Israelis not work for Palestinians? One cannot find those facts and logic in Professor Saad’s reasoning.

The problem with militant Palestinians is that some of them come from radical Islamic backgrounds where the level of cruelty and disrespect for human life is far above the tolerance of the Western audience. Interestingly, the first Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, gradually shifted from terrorism to diplomacy. His successor, Mahmoud Abbas, who leads Palestinians in the West Bank, also prefers diplomacy.

Here, the facts are getting interesting. A few clicks on Google can get us into the interplay in Israeli politics.

Establishing new Israeli settlements in the West Bank violates Palestinian rights and international peace agreements. So, persistent Palestinian diplomatic pressure does not work well for Israel, or at least these Israeli leaders who hope that new Jewish settlements and discriminatory policies toward Arabs will gradually push Palestinians out of these territories for good.

As one can read in Israeli newspapers, the extreme nationalists in Israel prefer to deal with radical Islamists because, as irrational extremists, they cannot be trusted and do not deserve any freedom or respect. Ergo, civilized Jews can settle in all of the West Bank and Gaza.

There is plenty of evidence that radical Jewish nationalists do a lot of clandestine politics to divide Palestinians. In particular, they support the radical Islamic Hamas to discredit the more peacefully minded Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

Older readers might remember, but the younger ones also should know that, in 2005, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided to dismantle Jewish settlements in Gaza and some illegal settlements in the West Bank. It was a surprising reverse for a very nationalistic Sharon. Yet, it exemplified the pragmatism of a seasoned statesman. Benjamin Netanyahu, who was the minister of finance at that moment, chose to resign in protest.

Looking at the destruction of the entire Gaza, one can see that Netanyahu is persistent. He wants to rebuild Gaza for Jews. He wants to reverse what he could not stop almost two decades ago.

The Western press reported that Israeli intelligence warned about an incoming attack from Gaza, but there was a political decision at the top to dismiss it. We need to add that Netanyahu was facing prosaic charges for corruption. The timing of the Hamas attack was impeccably good for Netanyahu. A reasonable person can suspect that he and the people in his close circle most likely knew that it was coming. Taking back Gaza was their response plan. One can only agree that, in his haughty arrogance, Netanyahu underestimated the resilience of Hamas.

It means that whatever suffering Israelis endured on October 7, 2023, was due to the failures of their leaders. There was no urgency in starting military action. The primary objective should have been to free the hostages. It still has not been achieved.

Had Israelis scrutinized the circumstances before acting, there would have been no war, and most likely, Netanyahu would have been in jail charged with treason.

Assuming that I am wrong and Professor Saad is right

Professor Saad can flatly deny my reasoning. I doubt that history will prove me wrong. However, for the sake of argument, let us assume that Professor Saad is right. His point of view is that Palestinians in Gaza, under the influence of Hamas, became barbarous savages devoid of any human feelings.

Let us follow Professor Saad and assume that Netanyahu and his government are noble people who tried to help Gazans from the goodness of their hearts. Let us assume for a moment that the Palestinians returned the favor with treacherous hatred.

What would be the best response? There was no urgency. The chances of freeing hostages were slim. It is likely that Hamas scattered them, and assuming the cruelty of Palestinians, they would likely kill the hostages if they realized a rescue was possible.

Netanyahu claimed the need for the annihilation of Hamas. If the Israelis were sincere, they would act in a twofold manner. They would go after the top leaders, and at the same time, they would take political actions to sway the general population of Gaza toward peaceful cooperation with Israel. Almost seven months later, Gaza is in ruins; more than 30,000 Palestinians have been killed, but Hamas still stands.

Morally, Israelis have lost in three ways.

First, they did not reach their objectives.

Second, they proved that Hamas was right when claiming the genocide of Palestinians is Israel’s true objective. For several months, Israelis have been doing precisely the same as Hamas was doing for several hours on October 7.

From that comes the third: They strengthened Hamas’ political standing among all Palestinians. They proved that Hamas was right when claiming that if Hamas did not kill Jews, the Jews would kill the Palestinians. They elevated Hamas to the position of realistic and effective defender of Palestinians.

If any Gazans trusted Israel’s good intentions, there are none now. Some years from now, the surviving children in Gaza will be old enough to use firearms. Seeing the atrocities in Gaza, they will be compelled to respond. Consequently, if we follow the logic of Professor Saad, preserving the security of Israel requires Israel to kill these children now.

I read somewhere that since the war started, 50,000 women in Gaza became pregnant. If Israel stays on the course supported by Professor Saad, these children of the war will be raised hating Israel and eager to repeat the atrocities of October 7, 2023. So, if Israel wants the elimination of Hamas, as Professor Saad advocates, it needs to kill these pregnant women as well. It is a simple consequence of applying “logic, science, reason, and common sense” to the set of values promoted by Professor Saad.

What could Israel have done differently, and can it still do that now?

Palestinian opponents often point out that until Israel’s independence in 1948, Palestine did not exist as a nation. It is true: Israelis created the Palestinian nation. Those are people who, about three generations ago, found themselves as undesirable foreigners in their homeland.

A century ago, the national identities in the region were not as firm as today. When settling in Palestine, Jews had an opportunity to help Arabs living there to resettle outside of territories of the biblical promised land. It would have been costly but would have created friendly neighbors. That ship has sailed.

Today, we have two hostile nations on a tiny piece of land. With the history of hostilities and mutual distrust, it will be hard to find a working formula for those two nations living together, regardless of what concept we might try.

In utilizing the land, Jews gained much experience turning a desert into a livable space. So, one of their chances for peace is to see this conflict as a business opportunity from which everyone in the region would benefit.

Let us assume that Israeli experts would identify an unoccupied desert terrain in Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia that, with artificial hydration, could be turned into farming land. Let us hope that Israel will get permission from the proper governments to utilize this land, opening an opportunity for a few hundred farmers to settle and prosper.

Then this land would be offered on attractive financial terms to Palestinians who claim their real estate was taken by Israel. In this way, some dissatisfied Palestinians could find prosperity in the same region but away from the conflict area.

It would benefit the host country as well, easing tensions between Israelis and Palestinians. There would be many doubts, but money talks. If the first few thousand Palestinians lured by this offer are satisfied with the change, many more will be interested. With this approach, money and energy now invested in killing each other would be allocated to mutually beneficial cooperation. The Israeli investment would initially be significant, but if fair rules apply, the concept will soon become commercially viable.

If anyone has a better idea, please speak up.