Racism and Palestine

by Michael Brenner / December 2nd, 2024

Racism is at the core of Western societies complicity in Israeli’s genocide against the Arab Palestinians. That is self-evident. The United States and Britain are more than accomplices; they are co-belligerents. The behavior of all has been constant over 14 months of graphic depiction day-by-day of atrocities of the most heinous kinds.

Racism, though, is a multifaceted phenomenon. It encompasses a wide range of attitudes and actions. They should be parsed as a precondition for analyzing which have been operative in this case, how they shaped policies and interventions, how reconciled with the values of liberal democracies, and how sustained in the face of such glaring criminal abuses of humanity.

Nazi extermination of Jews is at one extreme of racism. The negative weighing of ethnic identity in vetting candidates for a position of town supervisor also is racism. Using disparaging terms about a particular ascriptive group in casual conversation is racism. Apartheid is racism – whether in the form of ghettoes, Bantustans, or the Gaza concentration camps. Thoughts can be racist, words can be racist, actions can be racist. There are connections among these three expressions of racism – but to varying degrees and not always.

Let us take a look at these ambiguities and discontinuities with a view to getting a better fix on the ways that racism has driven Western countries’ involvement in the Palestine genocide.

1. It is normal for social groupings to differentiate themselves. This is an affirmation of solidarity. It need not be accompanied by an ascription of the other’s intrinsic inferiority. Nor be hostile and aggressive.)
2. The diversity among larger, more organized societies changes things in two respects: variations in race, color, language, ethnicity are frequently encountered; the capacity for stereotyping grows along with interactions that can lead to contention and rivalry.
3. Competition and conflict generate a need for justification of ‘winners’ exploiting/subordinating/abusing losers. Prejudice serves this person.
4. That experience once institutionalized, as it was historically in Western societies’ domination of non-Western peoples, leaves an enduring residue of prejudicial feelings among both parties in the relationship.
5. Those feelings can fade over time while remaining dormant with the latent potential to resurface.
6. A dramatic event instigated by a formerly subordinate/inferior that inflicts pain is the surest catalyst for that recrudescence – for it is acutely humiliating as well as painful. The intensity of the reaction (emotional, physical) to such an offense can be commensurate with the sublimated guilt one feels about past abuse of the perpetrator.

Back to the contemporary situation. The facilitating, background factors that help explain Western elites’ willing embrace of the Palestinian genocide are easy to identify. The long history of colonial domination of ‘inferior’ peoples; their systematic exploitation; a widespread sense of diminishing status relative to emerging new centers of strength and influence – as punctuated by the 1973 oil crisis and ensuing dependency on the ‘hajjis’; a reflexive disposition to perform penance for historical sins committed against Jews in Europe by turning a blind eye to the sins of the previously sinned against; 75 years of painting the Arabs as the ‘black hats’ in their struggle against the Israeli settler state; revulsion at earlier acts of terror abroad by PLO and PFLP.

Stunning events over the past two decades have stirred a potent mix of negative emotions about Arabs. 9/11 punctuated the opening of the Terrorism Era. Reciprocation of violent acts on Western soil and the brutal, indiscriminate retaliation of the so-called War on Terror drew a line of blood not only between the Westerners on the one side, and terrorist groups along with their perceived state ‘sponsors’, on the other. It also imprinted powerful images of Arabs/Muslims as fanatics, as a menace to their comfortable social order, as people ‘beyond the pale’ – to coin a phrase – who can be dealt with only through strength and a readiness to follow the admonition of “an eye for an eye.”

This depiction of the ingredients that have formed the psyche of our political class in regard to Arabs, and the Palestinians in particular, goes aways toward explaining the West’s current abhorrent behavior. The extremity of their actions and inactions could be seen as the outcome of a dynamic wherein enmity turns into hatred (albeit expressed in the quiet tones of normality) and dehumanization of the ‘other.’ A paradoxical feature of this dynamic is that as past shameful abuses of the ‘other’ are aggravated by new ones, there is a compulsion to continue farther down that path. For doing provides a perverse form of reassurance that somehow they must have deserved such extreme ill treatment. This relentless punishment of our victims becomes a displacement of suppressed self-hatred – among a few.

Suppose that the analysis offered above makes sense. That still leaves us with an inadequate understanding of what is happening. We should bear in mind the unprecedented features of the present situation. One, Western governments have no strategic interest in supporting Jerusalem’s project of creating a Greater Israel by eliminating the Palestinians. No security or economic stakes encourage that. On the contrary, Western interests in the region, and in the wider world, manifestly have been seriously damaged by their close association with all parts of the Israeli campaign. Two, there is no uncertainly about the gross crimes against humanity being committed before our eyes daily or the genocidal intent of the Israeli government. Indeed, cabinet ministers advertise what their plans are. Three, the means to prevent the bloody onslaught existed at the outset, and have been available throughout. Without abundant provision of arms and money from the United States and allies, Israel could not have prosecuted its diabolical strategy. Sanctions are also an available option, although unnecessary. Four, Western societies – particularly the European – are timorous, complacent and risk averse; therefore, to act in a manner that erodes their legitimizing foundations is incongruous, and needs explanation.

Conclusion: the behavior of Western societies is pathological – that is to say, abnormal. It is perverse. We all share the natural instinct to protect the young of the species, and – to a somewhat lesser extent – the vulnerable aged and infirmed. This instinct, in fact, can be observed in the behavior of all mammals. Our supposedly enlightened societies go well beyond instinct to proclaim our dedication to those humane values, and to stipulate them in laws and conventions. This instinct/principle normally overrides prejudice when confronted, in the mortified flesh, with the realities of atrocity. Yet, we are acting in the diametrically opposite manner. And we ruthlessly repress those among us who point out that contradiction because their witness to our perfidy is intolerable.

Therein lies a great puzzle. No conventional political or sociological analysis can solve it. Filling that void is the compelling challenge – and precondition for restoring a collective ethical sense that abhors rather than embraces evil. There is no scarcity of anthropologists, psychiatrists and psychologists. With luck, a few talented and motivated persons among them might step forward.FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Michael Brenner is Professor Emeritus of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh and a Fellow of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at SAIS/Johns Hopkins. He was the Director of the International Relations & Global Studies Program at the University of Texas. Brenner is the author of numerous books, and over 80 articles and published papers. His most recent works are: Democracy Promotion and Islam; Fear and Dread In The Middle East; Toward A More Independent Europe ; Narcissistic Public Personalities & Our Times. Read other articles by Michael.