David Brooks wrote a thoughtful column about the situation
in Palestine
but I believe he is missing something. It is that his point of view is
incomplete and needs refining. The column came under the title: “The Gaza
Violence: How Extremism Corrupts,” published on May 18, 2018 in the New York
Times.
The way I see things, Brooks has a limited understanding of
the concept he calls extremism. He speaks of it as if it was a one-of-a-kind
thing which pops up spontaneously out of nowhere and does not evolve or
devolve.
I can see why Brooks developed this view: he saw extremism
come about in America
spontaneously in the way that a breakaway faction came into being inside the
Republican Party. This caused the rise of another faction, and so on down the
line. In turn, the Democratic Party underwent a similar transformation as if
the Republican disease was contagious and the Democrats caught it.
It can be said that extremism inside a political party is
akin to sibling rivalry, which means that the gulf between the rivals cannot be
very wide, making it possible for contagion to take place. As to the
competition between two parties inside the same system of governance – such as
the Republicans and the Democrats – it can be thought of as a feud between
members of an extended family. Here too, contagion can take place, but at a
slower pace.
When it comes to strangers, however, extremism does not come
about as a result of contagion. What happens instead is that extremism begins
to develop as a result of suspicion rising between two adjacent tribes.
Extremism could also happen as a result of economic conditions souring, such as
drought (or the modern equivalent) making it harder to feed everyone in the
neighborhood. A fight may erupt between the tribes, causing each side to
respond to the aggression of the other, and escalating the fight to extremes.
Thus, it is the need to respond to aggression rather than contagion which
transmits extremism from one tribe to another.
When you think of extremism in these terms, you can see why
David Brooks started his argument on the right footing but froze for a moment,
and then veered into a direction that led him astray. He started correctly when
he said: “My narrative starts with the idea that the creation of Israel involved
a historic wrong … In the 1990s extremism grew on the Israeli side, exemplified
by the ultranationalist who murdered Rabin”.
At this point, Brooks stopped for a moment to observe that,
“extremism exploded on the Palestinian side,” even if his use of the word
“explode” is an exaggeration. He then went astray when he offered this
interpretation: “Palestinian extremism took on many of the shapes recognizable
in extremism everywhere”.
What he said from that point on was irrelevant, and the
conclusion he reached was meaningless. See for yourself. Here is what he said:
“First, the question shifted from 'What to do?' to 'Whom to blame?' The debates
were less about how to take steps toward a livable future and more about who is
responsible for the sins of the past.” Brooks did not say whose debate that
was. The Palestinians certainly did not participate. As to the Jews of Israel
and America ,
they lived well and could not care less about the “livable future” of the
Palestinians. So then, who carried on with the debate? Nobody; because there
was no such debate.
And here is the David Brooks conclusion: “To fight
extremism, you have to answer the angry shout with the respectful offer.”
Again, he did not say who is supposed to make what offer to whom. Did he mean
the Palestinians could offer something to the Jews? But that would be
impossible since the Palestinians had everything taken from them and were left
with nothing to give away even if they wanted to.
Did he mean the Israelis could offer something to the
Palestinians? But that will never happen since the Jews, who took everything
already, still want the Palestinians to swear they'll love the Jews to eternity
for what they did to them. What kind of logic is this?
Did David Brooks mean to say that the Americans could offer
to do the right thing by ending their financing of Israel 's crimes? But it became
clear in 2007 that this will never happen when a deal that was reached at Annapolis was torpedoed
by the Americans on command from the Jews.
Consequently, it can be seen that America
will most likely never come from under the Jewish yoke and do the right in the Middle East . This is why the region is better left to
those who know how to fix it, when to fix it.