A friend in Saudi Arabia sent a note with the subject line above, about Bahrain, and asked that we protect his/her identity.
I have to tell you that the situation in Bahrain and the reaction of my fellow Sunni Saudi friends and relatives here to the unfolding events across the causeway has actually made me more pessimistic than ever regarding a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. How are they related? you may ask. Well... while the Israeli state and military's treatment of the Palestinians is definitely far worse than the treatment of the Bahraini state and military of their Shi'ite citizens so far, it is the reaction of the majority of Bahraini and Saudi Sunnis that I have found most alarming and depressing.
While I can't excuse it, I now better understand how and why 90% of Israelis are so terrified by the presence of a dirt-poor half starved Palestinian populace on their doorstep in Gaza that they wholeheartedly supported Operation Cast Lead and the resulting murder of over 1000 mainly unarmed civilian Palestinians. In a similar manner, ordinary putatively educated Sunni Saudis lined up behind the Bahrain government's violent suppression of Bahraini Shite demonstrators. While a few of my fellow Sunnis initially sympathized with the poor and jobless Shi'ite demonstrators, it did not take a lot of propaganda effort for the ruling elite or the "haves" in Bahrain to turn an economic struggle between haves and have-nots into a phantom Iranian inspired sectarian conspiracy to dominate all the Sunnis in the Gulf area. It seems that wherever you go, people subconsciously pick and choose the information they absorb into their minds, based on their preconceived belief systems.
Sunnis in Saudi Arabia who cheered on the Tunisian, Egyptian and Yemeni revolutions suddenly changed their minds when it came to their Shi'ite neighbors clamoring for equal rights. In that way, they are not different from Liberal American Jews who support South American leftist guerrilla movements and Black Liberation movements at home, but go silent or hostile when it comes to the Palestinian armed or even unarmed struggle.
Therefore, I am more pessimistic than ever that the Israelis will ever feel remorse or guilt for whatever cruelty the extremists among them mete out to the Palestinians. People will only change their minds when they are forced to. That means that the only way the Israelis will change their attitude toward the Palestinians is if they have absolutely no other choice.
This is a very accurate sounding psychological reading of th Sunnis in Bahrain/Saudi and the Jews in Israel/USA. Powerful privileged people everywhere want to keep that power and that privilege — thus the difficulty in the USA for “democracy” to unseat the ruling oligarchy. I’d add that, to the extent the power and privilege were ill-gained (the normal) course, so that the powerless people have been victimized, the powerful group will have played the psychological games which transform THEM into the (potential) victims of their own victims.
“It seems that wherever you go, people subconsciously pick and choose the information they absorb into their minds, based on their preconceived belief systems.”
I like to refer to this widespread phenomenon as the logic of irrationality. Something is logical if it is consistent with relevant assumptions. Something is rational if it is consistent with observable reality. Assumptions which are not rational lead to irrational conclusions which are nonetheless completely logical within the framework of the initial assumptions. In other words, ideological assumptions have logical consequences even if these assumptions are irrational. That is, ideology tends to define reality even when irrational so that behavior is governed by the logic of the ideology, not by rational thought. Most people are followers governed by the logic of group cohesiveness and solidarity. Perceived outside threats tend to magnify the phenomenon as the group members tend to circle the wagons to defend the group. It recurs so frequently as to appear as a human trait.
The fact that most humans willingly adapt their cognitive interpretations to be consistent with group ideology/mythology is very significant. The tendency for individuals in a group to evaluate situations from the perspective of a shared ideology creates a de facto internalized behavioral guidance system consistent with group objectives. It should be noted that group ideology and group objectives do not reflect the input of the various members of the group, rather they reflect the biases and objectives of the group elites, who basically control the overall thrust of group activity, and who are generally more concerned with personal ambition than group welfare.
The implications of all of this are somewhat staggering. Discussions, debates and arguments influenced by ideology are not so much an attempt at evaluating the rational truth, but a defense of personal/group ideology. My irrational beliefs versus your irrational beliefs. The notion of a rational economic man or a rational political man are absurd. Most people are a bundle of bias and emotion waiting to be exploited. Faithful followers. Leaders are a bundle of bias and emotion waiting to exploit. Power seekers. Society may be thought of as individuals united in defensive solidarity whose actions are guided by the power seeking proclivities of the elite. Furthermore, the natural inclination of elites to engage in deception to achieve their goals means that society is, to a significant degree, a group of individuals united by fealty to fraudulent misrepresentations of realty.
Thank you Keith for an excellent comment.
Should be included in every Political Science undergraduate course (unless it is already?).
If I could put this from another angle: our belief system is overwhelmingly anchored by our emotions, just as our behaviour is. Spinoza noted: the emotion can only be unseated by GREATER emotion.
Most people only changed their mind about Palestinian/Israel conflict when they became revulsed and angered to the point that that emotion was stronger than fear of rejection from their family/professional/pear group.
And fear of rejection is the primal fear – probably the first to be imprinted on the virgin neural network of a newborn.
This is why Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions are such a powerful weapon, and one can pity Richard Goldstone.
EVA- Thanks for the kind words! However, I disagree that one counters emotion with greater emotion. First of all, I think that the notion that people fall on some sort of continuum from “logical” at one end to “emotional” at the other is false, and part of the problem. My sense is that most people are basically quite logical, which is why mythology and propaganda are so effective. I am employing terms in non-standard fashion to differentiate between logical and rational. A key point is that individual well-being has heretofore depended much more upon being a valued member of a supportive, powerful group than on individual, rational problem solving, at least in those areas where group solidarity come into play.
In discussing group ideology/mythology, we must keep in mind that in navigating the real world, humans rely much less on instinct and much more on cognitive interpretation than other animals. In order to cope with this higher level of complexity, it is necessary for humans to organize cognitive inputs through the use of simplifying paradigms and normal bias to identify patterns and provide a framework of order. This is done at the individual level and at the group level. For all or most of human history, being a member of a supportive group/tribe was an essential component of survival, hence, the majority of people willingly adapted their individual biases and simplifying paradigms to be consistent with the established group ideology/mythology so as to fit in and promote harmony/solidarity.
For those groups that are primarily non-ideological, such as single interest groups, hobby groups, etc., internal cohesiveness and tribal solidarity are minimal. For groups united by a common ideology, however, a key point is that most people simply accept the assumptions of group ideology without rational verification, and that these assumptions form the basis of their logical interpretation of reality, and that this interpretation is usually not swayed by rational argument. The tendency for individuals in a group to evaluate situations from the perspective of a shared ideology creates a de facto internalized behavioral guidance system consistent with group objectives. These objectives are established by the group elites, and are always favorable to their goals and objectives. In the example provided by anonymous, a group objective would appear to be maintaining the power and privilege of the group, hence, the group ideology would support attacking any perceived threat to that privilege.
Countering the irrationality of group mythology is very difficult in a highly cohesive group. I think it requires both an emphasis on the irrationality of the mythology alongside a more rational alternative. This needs to be accompanied by evidence that the group mythology is no longer serviceable and may be counterproductive to the well-being of the membership. No easy task. As for teaching, or even discussing any of this in a political science course, the nature of the system is such that the odds of that happening are effectively zero. Most university course work involving political economy (or scholarship for that matter), is designed to defend and promulgate official mythology, not debunk it.
“Therefore, I am more pessimistic than ever that the Israelis will ever feel remorse or guilt for whatever cruelty the extremists among them mete out to the Palestinians. People will only change their minds when they are forced to. That means that the only way the Israelis will change their attitude toward the Palestinians is if they have absolutely no other choice.”
Depressing, but quite probably, true…
um, yeah
the israeli settlers* will only change their minds when they’re forced to?
so?
*every jewish israeli except for those who support justice for palestine
On the contrary, it is thanks to the kind of revolt that is sweeping the Arab world, AND thanks to the kind of reaction that it solicits AND thanks to the way this reaction clarifies what has been confused for so long that the future of the Middle East is getting brighter.
What we are seeing is the emergence of CLASS as a determinant cleavage, cutting across both nationality and religion. Wealthy Sunnis in Bahrain are in crucial respects, including their susceptibility to propaganda and their willingness to turn a blind eye to extreme violence, closer to wealthy Israeli Jews from Tel Aviv than to their poorer Shia neighbors.
In the deepening of this understanding lies the future of the region.
oh, evild., i so hope you are correct! i think so too.
Better be careful Evildoer, mentioning that is a no-no around here. Than again, maybe not for you – I see you are in the club by a reference to your web site under BlogRoll.
VR, you overestimate how different your views are from a lot of people around here. I read your comments and often agree with much (not all), but don’t bother to respond because you seem so fixated on your role as the prophet who everyone ignores.
I do agree with you, Evildoer.
The popular revolts in Egypt and in Tunisia did have a distinct element of trade union involvement.
Kieth, thanks for the excellent post.
“violent suppression of Bahraini Shite demonstrators”
Are you stating that the Shite Bahraini are launching missiles into the Sunni population centers? Or that Shite Bahraini are donning suicide vests and murdering peaceful Sunni Arabs while they are eating a slice of pizza?
If not, then there is no comparison between Sunni Arab governments murdering their own citizens just because of a few protests, and the situation in Israel regarding the Arabs living in the Palestinian territories.
Is the Bahraini government running people over with bulldozers? Did they round up literally hundreds of people from a Shi’ite village, beat them and take DNA samples under threat of force without consent? Have any Shi’ite babies died from being burned beyond recognition with white phosphorous mortars?
Huh. You have a point apparently.
The Sunni/Shia divide is not equal nor similar to that between Palestinians and Israeli Jews. Israel occupies Palestinian land. It’s a territorial conflict, not a religious one.
But, if the author’s underlying thesis is that a divide between the Haves and Have-Nots can never be bridged, then the author might consider Germany, for example.
While its true that after the reunification between east and west, East Germans have yet to obtain the economic and financial capital that which their West German counterparts have, economic policies and subsidies have certainly narrowed the gap in recent years.
Not quite. Generally speaking, the ills of most nations have at one point or another been blamed by their respective governments on minority groups. It’s not so much a belief system or ideology as much as it is related to group dynamics.
For example, illegal immigrants are an oft-used scapegoat in the US; “They’re taking our jobs”. People are always looking to blame others, instead of looking within. And these dynamics have been going on since the dawn of time.
Attempting to interpret certain events or conflicts through that over-simplistic lens does not explain the underlying causes.
This Haves/ Have-Nots paradigm is the same paradigm that various US universities and colleges sought to advance after 9/11. The attack was explained away as a result of a conflict between those who have (the US) and those who do not (Arabs in caves).
Ironically, however, the group that which the US government has claimed to have hijacked the airplanes, were mostly middle class men with college education. But, I digress.
The high support among Israelis for the attack on Gaza had nothing to do with economics. It was motivated by purely political and religious reasons.
If Anonymous is looking for a simple dichotomy then perhaps the process of Othering is the one he is after — Us vs. Them. “Haves vs. Have-Nots” implies that the division stems from economic policies, yet in the Israeli-Palestinians case, those economics are a negligible factor.
In short, the argument needs some work.
Thank you for this post, Anonymous.
I’ve even heard some Saudis say they would rather ‘ally with Israelis than with Shiites’….tiring.
Saudi needs a herculean effort to fix….brains are mush from all the indoctrination and supremacist ideas.
to never feel remorse or guilt for whatever cruelty the extremists among them/us mete out to the hated othe?
yes, it describes israel
europe and euroamerica too
most anywhere cruelty pays off for the elite few who invariably are in charge
the answer being?
all for one and one for all
as per those miraculous eighteen days in tahrir (iliberation) square?
with adjustments, pren, based on, circumstances and local conditions
and the people who feel nothing, when extremists, in their name do inflict cruelty on some designated to be hated other?
international court of justice for the the mass murderers
and everyone else?
little or no time to look back
too busy with all the change
depending
south of the border
thankfully (except in colombia and honduras
oops, meant to delete the last three lines and the little or no time to look back line. got to it but, alas, too late, time had expired.
Bad news and good news. Bad news because anonymous is exactly correct. Good news because it links tyrannical Arab monarchies with the the Israeli Zionist regime. This linkage will slowly percolate into the American political conscious and will result in our realization that it is not in our interest to support one despotic regime over another, rather it will be in our interest to simply withdraw from a war whose outcome is not in our interest one way or the other.
As much as I despair for the Palestinian people, the most that we (meaning the US) can do for them is simply disengage. Let the two warring parties work it out for themselves. This might sound harsh but what the US now contributes are such things as military supplies (cluster and phosphorus bombs, endless explosives and whatever Israel demands) , and diplomatic support for Israel’s wars of aggression.
Imagine how quickly a solution could be found if the US with its terrible might was not always sitting at the table providing Israel with its support.
I would like to comment of “rational” versus “irrational” theme that Keith wrote about. People make decisions in part on the basis of the belief about the future. And as predictions are not certain, we can insert a bias into the predictive process, and it may be hard to tell what predictions are, and what are not rational.
It happen about 10 years ago that in Poland the program for issuing train tickets crashed at the end of the year. An even happened that was not foreseen: a train was scheduled to arrive BEFORE the departure. More precisely, a train scheduled to depart just before the end of the year was scheduled to arrive just after the beginning of the year. You may notice that the writers of the program made two reasonable assumptions: first, since a train runs for a small fraction of a year, it is not necessary to incorporate the year number in the description of a ticket. Second, we can assume that a train arrives after it departs.
Supposed that such two assumptions were incorporated into a political program, and formed a basis for government policies. Naysayers would complain about contradictions in the policies. Commentators loyal to the government would pursue two tracks: first, cui bono? Why such sudden worry? It would be observed that naysayer are disproportionally Leftist (with a spattering of not so-leftist Islamists), and particularly frequent among EXTREME Left. Other would concentrate on the merits of the criticism, and offer their realistic rebuttal. Month after month we observe that each subsequent day has a higher number than the previous day, and in rare situations when it does not, the month has a higher number. Criticism is based on sheer speculation that January, contrary to all observations we managed to collect, may follow December. Which makes one wonder how one could even conceive such a ridiculous idea without being naturally inclined to treason.
It would be also observed that the criticism often emanates from the ivory towers of the Academia. Upon a thorough investigation, it would also be observed that these institutions are highly unrepresentative of the society at large, in particular, Leftists being represented there with an alarming frequency. The “January fallacy” is peddled by the believers in global warming, evolution etc.
I think you have to put this under religious intolerance folder unfortunately there are more and more Sunnis who talk about the dirty Rafida (pejorative term for Shia), blame it on the venom of Saudi religious propaganda.
1. “While a few of my fellow Sunnis initially sympathized with the poor and jobless Shi’ite demonstrators …”
There is definitely an elemental thread (heck silk road) of class struggle in Middle East politics, I don’t want to say more for fear of giving away too much but I definitely see it in numerous angles.
2. “People will only change their minds when they are forced to … Israelis will change their attitude toward the Palestinians is if they have absolutely no other choice.”
I totally agree to get a large number of people to change you need a crisis, “Never Allow a Crisis to Go to Waste” -Rahm Emmanuel school of thought.
Hopefully the crisis that will wake people up will be BDS and not more bloody wars. I don’t think the bloody wars will have any effect given that it feeds the apocalyptic views of Jewish, Christian and Muslim extremists, they’ll all just think that’s how God wants the whole thing to go down anyhow.
*sigh*
Sunni vs Shia is like Catholic vs Protestant but Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is the Indian caste system