Responses to the recent crisis show how frequently rationality is purely skin deep

G.P. Gray, 2nd November 2023

Just over three weeks ago, the sudden and wholly unexpected attack by Hamas on October 7th, and the numerous barbaric acts targeting civilians, shocked people with their scale and severity. Almost immediately the Israeli government responded in kind with an attack on the civilian populace of Gaza which, though nominally aimed at Hamas, was equally unprecedented in its violence and scope. The initial deaths of October 7th, estimated to be up to 1400 people, have now been far surpassed by the deaths of more than 9000 people in Gaza, at least 3,400 of them children. In other words, we have seen more Palestinian children killed by indiscriminate bombing in three weeks than the total number of people who died in New York’s 9/11 attacks.

Amidst all the shock and anger, however, a further strange phenomenon arose, wherein the events in Israel seem to have the power to turn people’s political principles on their head. Obviously, this is not the case for all. Netanyahu for instance, is breaking no new ground in declaring, “This is a struggle between the children of light and the children of darkness, between humanity and the law of the jungle.” You might think he would choose his words more carefully while his government is murdering thousands of these “inhuman” children, but it is definitely not particularly surprising rhetoric. 

Nor too, are the numerous bloodthirsty rants of Likud politicians such as Moshe Feiglin who encourages IDF soldiers to “kill anything that moves. Kill. Destroy. Annihilate. This is your mission dear Israeli soldier, nothing else”, a statement fully in keeping with the insane outbursts this particular sociopath has been making for years. Yet, strangely enough there is practically no coverage of his comments in Western media.

We probably also shouldn’t be surprised to see a large group of prominent rabbis sending a letter to the Israeli government endorsing the current carnage, claiming that there is nothing in the Torah that might argue against the bombing of hospitals. Similarly, the bloodthirsty Old Testament-style support for the bombing campaign from American evangelical Christians is in keeping with their views of an Israel-controlled Jerusalem being a vital element of their delusional prophecies of a ‘second coming’. These include the new US House Speaker, Mike Johnson, who claimed that, “As a Christian, we believe the Bible teaches very clearly that we have to stand with Israel.” It takes real efforts in high-level, theological sophistry to take Jesus’ teachings of “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemies” and twist that into justifications for dropping 500kg high explosives on hospital and refugee camps sheltering masses or terrified children.

What’s more surprising though, are the changes we have seen among many who have, until now, followed very different patterns of behavior. These include the Western governments that have spoken for years now on the criminality of Russia’s actions in Ukraine. People such as Boris Johnson who stated that what Putin has done was “evil” and “an appalling act of unwarranted aggression against an innocent population.” Or, Joe Biden declaring that Putin was engaged in genocide and that he would be judged for war crimes. Neither they, nor the vast majority of the other Western politicians and journalists that were extremely vocal in denouncing Russia’s military operations seem to see similar, if not worse crimes, occurring in Israel. Instead both Johnson and Biden have released statements criticizing people for making claims of moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel and calling for support of Israel’s right to ‘defend’ itself.

Of course, these are long-standing hawks, so we can expect them to shift their pro-war bombast to whatever side supports their own political agenda, opportunism rather than consistency being their maxim. Other politicians though, have promoted themselves as being doves, people such as Tulsi Gabbard, who running as a candidate for the US presidency in 2019 presented herself as ‘the peace candidate’. Peace seems to have fallen by the wayside since then, or perhaps she realized it was an impediment to her ambitions for high office. This week she denounced critics of Israel saying, they “support or act as apologists for such jihadists and say that Israel is guilty of human rights abuses and genocide.” Adding regarding those “who are accusing Israel of committing genocide, it is the height of hypocrisy because they’re apologists and supporters of these islamist Hamas terrorists who are calling for a genocide, the extermination of all Jews, not just in Israel, but around the world.” Its interesting to wonder if Gabbard even believes this, whether she is disingenuous or simply ignorant. Its frequently stated that Hamas either wants to kill all Jews, or wants the destruction of all Israeli people, so much so that people tend to take it as a truism. The reality is that Hamas’ Charter, which can be hard to find online in its authentic form, explicitly states (in articles 16, 17 and 20) that its opposition is to Zionism not to Jewish people, that it does not endorse antisemitism, and that it seeks a return to the 1967 borders. 

Equally disappointing have been the indolent and craven statements issued by Democratic former Presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders. During the 2016 campaign he attacked Hillary Clintonfor failing to address Palestinian rights and promoted himself as an ally of the Palestinian cause, something very popular with his electoral base. He stated then that, “if we pursue justice and peace, we are going to have to say that Netanyahu is not right all of the time.” Yet, when it came to the worst violence perpetrated against the Palestinian people since the Nakba, he became suddenly reticent. Instead, he argued that, “Israel has the right to defend itself and destroy Hamas terrorism, but it does not have the right to use US dollars to kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Gaza.” Suggesting that as long as it was done with their own money it was something he would tolerate. Only three weeks after Israel’s indiscriminate bombing began did he finally make a half-hearted call for Israel to “change its strategy” while still failing to make an explicit call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire. Instead, he focuses on the “humanitarian crisis”, not “genocide”, and calls for a stop so that aid can be delivered and the Israeli hostages can be safely returned. Sanders words make it seem that, for him, the violence just needs to be dialed down a little, not kept at a level requiring him to stand by his espoused principles.

Perhaps more troubling though are similar about-faces from those who are not mercurial politicians but rather figures seen as being intellectuals, supposedly people of higher-than-average rational capability. Jordan Peterson, a Canadian professor of psychology who rose to fame during the Western ‘culture wars’ as being a proponent of truth and open discourse, long portrayed himself as someone who sought to reconcile opposing groups through shared understanding of a common truth, writing, “Facts are facts. Opinions about the facts differ. It is therefore the job of the peacemaker to bridge the gap between opinions, and in that manner, bring about reconciliation.” This peacemaker was absent on October 7th when Peterson encouraged Netanyahu to “Give ‘em hell,” in response to the former’s pledge to, “Open the gates of hell.” And, when Hamas announced on October 10th that it was open to peace talks, he expressed preference for continued military violence, tweeting that “We’re waaaay past that.”

Another self-professed champion of truth and “thoughtful discussion”, talk show host Dave Rubin, has spent years decrying left-wing ‘cancel culture’. Yet, when France took the draconian step of banning pro-Palestine rallies, Rubin was quick to cheer them on saying, “Maybe the West has a chance.” He later commented that a ‘Free Palestine’ rally he encountered in London, on the same day as the bombing of the Jabalia refugee camp killed hundreds of civilians, was a “Nazi Rally.”

Rubin was in London for a conference that also featured author Douglas Murray, someone who had claimed that regarding Ukraine, “Putin’s entire war is a war crime. It is not just that his armies have been committing atrocities. His whole war is an atrocity.” In the ongoing bombardment of Gaza his position is somewhat different, decrying the media for paying more attention to the daily massacre of Palestinian civilians rather than staying focused on the weeks old Hamas attack that precipitated the crisis. “All I’ve tried to do since the Hamas massacres of two weeks ago, is to tell the truth and to try to remind people in Britain and the wider West of who the aggressors are here.” He makes no mention of whether he considers the 3000 dead Palestinian children among these aggressors. When questioned on proportionality he ridiculed the idea, stating “as I’ve pointed out in several interviews, a proportionate response, in this case, would be Israel going and decapitating precisely the same number of babies that Hamas decapitated.” The latter claim was, from the beginning, extraordinarily suspicious, and despite its viral spread never had, and still does not have, any evidentiary support. But this is the pattern we are seeing, it is rhetoric, of the most inconsistent sort, rather than logical analysis that is rising to the fore.

Absent from their event was Canadian professor of evolutionary psychology, Gad Saad, though he probably would have found a warm welcome. Another defender of free-speech when convenient, he once stated that he “wouldn’t silence a Holocaust denier”. But then decided to attempt to belittle and humiliate a young student for tearing down Israeli propaganda posters. He was also one of many to make the puerile comment that LGBT supporters advocating for Palestine were akin to “Geese for foie Gras!”, as though it was beyond his comprehension that someone might advocate on humanitarian and compassionate grounds for another group whose beliefs did not align perfectly with your own. In Saad’s mind I imagine the conversation runs, “But Palestinians don’t support LGBT rights!” and the other replying, “Oh you’re right. I guess in that case I don’t mind their children being mercilessly slaughtered.”

The sudden shift is apparent too among left-wing commentators and student groups across the West who for years supported cancel culture while claiming it did not exist. Support for a culture of political polarization and censorship in which mere engagement with opposing views was deemed harmful led to rapid shifts wherein supposedly well-educated young people began to prize censorship of ‘dangerous’ opinions over protection of free speech. Now many on the left are expressing shock that their support for Palestine is encountering similar suppression on the grounds of its ‘harmful’ nature. One can’t help but wonder if their current support for the acceptance of controversial political protest will extend beyond the current crisis or if, when some semblance of stability returns, they will again seek to impose restrictions on views that fall just outside of mainstream acceptance.

The conflict in Israel and Gaza is not unique in generating this kind of abrupt upheaval in which professed principles clash suddenly and violently with deeper emotional biases, or more superficial political incentives. Sam Harris is a fantastic example. He is also one of those currently regretting his opposition to cancel culture,  seeing it now as a reasonable way of dealing with students who support the Palestinian cause, conflating as so many do, opposition to war crimes with explicit endorsement of Hamas’ violence.

Harris though is an old hand at this kind of emotional mania, having given fully into the phenomenon in response to the Trump Presidency. Among other outbursts he once declared, in reference to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, that any corruption the Biden family were involved in was not as important as corruption involving Trump and that, “Hunter Biden literally could have had the corpses of children in his basement. I would not have cared.”

The same mania seemed to overcome Noam Chomsky during the Covid pandemic when his long-standing advocacy of human rights suddenly took a backseat to uncharacteristic and dramatic support for extreme authoritarianism. For him, the correct response to people unwilling to take vaccines would be to “insist that they be isolated” from the rest of society. When asked how those people would be able to get food his response was,“Well, that’s actually their problem.”

Part of the problem is that we too often associate wisdom with high intelligence. The former is more genuinely a product of a well-balanced, unbiased, and rational mindset. The latter can mimic these traits when rationality lends itself to a preferred cause, or where personal advancement does not clash with a rational response. Yet, to  often, the superficially intelligent have not fully explored and tamed their deeper biases, prejudices, and fears. As a result, in the right circumstances the id rises to take control and issue increasingly irrational, rhetorical outbursts. This shouldn’t be surprising and yet there is significant disappointment in seeing people with otherwise powerful minds falter at a level of relatively rudimentary emotional development. 

Perhaps we place too much value on performative eloquence and the ability to debate well; the latter being more an aptitude for trapping your opponent in oratorical weakness, rather than being a good faith effort to find common truth. Perhaps instead, we should value consistency and adherence to more universal principles, things such as agreeing that the indiscriminate bombing of defenseless children is not something that should be tolerated, especially where clear alternatives exist. Either way, the events in Israel have shown that figures such as David Hume, Vilfredo Pareto, and Daniel Kahneman were quite accurate in saying that human thought and action are driven largely by post-hoc rationalization of deeper drives that people feel at an instinctual level. Part of it might be tribalism, part of it rage, part of it fear of mortality, part hatred of the other or perceived ‘lesser’, part of it avaricious greed for status and influence. None of it seems to be driven, however, by the higher emotions: compassion, empathy, mercy, or fraternal love. Possibly this is something we can evolve beyond but if so, it does not seem like it will be anytime soon.