The Intellectual Fundamentalism and Instinctual Drift
Science has unequivocally proven that unbridled instincts without conscious controls are a recipe for descending into an inescapable vortex of human chaos, whether at the personal level or as widespread behavioral patterns in human groups. The inevitable outcome of these instinct-driven behaviors, governed by unchecked impulses, is catastrophic failure—not just at the behavioral level or in isolated aspects of life but as a decisive reflection on the entirety of individual or collective human existence.
It is impossible to claim that indulging in unchecked instincts in one domain is unrelated to other impulses. Scientific evidence conclusively shows that clear instinctual drift in one direction—whether in an individual or a group—necessarily implies a complex interplay of instinctual flows in many directions. Though these may not always be measurable or clearly defined, they exacerbate the challenges faced by individuals and human groups in advancing toward progress and development.
Psychologists have debated distinctions between emotions and instincts, often reserving instincts for animals and emotions for humans as more evolved beings. Regardless of the terminology, however, this differentiation holds little relevance to the subject at hand: the impact of instinctual or emotional drift on human societies, particularly those in the eastern hemisphere. These societies are heavily influenced by inherited traditions, sanctities, and metaphysical beliefs, which dominate the orientations of individuals and groups and often sharply clash with scientific advancements.
This clash has created a deep chasm between the requirements of the modern age—grounded in scientific reasoning—and outdated ideas from bygone eras. For example, it is hardly surprising in the 21st century, an age of the information revolution, to encounter someone holding a PhD in an advanced scientific discipline who still believes in magic and the ability of sorcerers to manipulate their life entirely.
Human beings are inherently shaped by their environments from early childhood, and despite the immense knowledge revolution accessible to broad segments of society, intellectual and ideological fundamentalism still wields the sword of denigration and ridicule. Worse, it has escalated to excommunication and accusations of treason for anyone daring to challenge pre-established taboos. These ideologies have mastered using the tools of the knowledge and information revolution to cement their dogmatic narratives, creating massive barriers of superstition and distancing individuals and societies from logical analysis and truth-seeking.
The ongoing wars in the Middle East, including the latest chapter of conflict between Iran (as a state and head of an axis stretching from Palestine to Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq) and Israel—with its Western-backed alliances—exemplify this instinctual drift at its peak. The axis of resistance seeks to extend its reach into Jordan and Egypt, attempting to forge new proxies in these regions. Meanwhile, Israel, internationally recognized as an occupying state, continues to deny international law in resolving these conflicts.
This conflict demonstrates the height of instinctual drift, differing fundamentally from the national liberation struggle led by the PLO against Israel up until the early 1990s, which culminated in the Oslo Accords. The earlier conflict was grounded in a national cause of reclaiming rights, contrasting sharply with the current ideological and existential zero-sum conflict.
Existential conflicts, driven by ideological fundamentalism, stem from a foundational premise: the negation of the other and the illegitimacy of their existence. When slogans advocating the annihilation of the other are raised, they emerge from a sacred narrative that underpins this ideological axis. This stands in stark opposition to the Zionist ideology underpinning Israel, which itself derives legitimacy from its own sacred narratives. However, as a functioning state, Israel possesses a degree of pragmatic flexibility, allowing it to retreat or advance within the bounds of its sacred taboos, depending on prevailing political structures and power balances.
For example, the Oslo Accords represented a political compromise understood by both sides as the art of the possible, determined by power and capabilities under international law and legitimacy.
The Current Instinctual Drift of Hamas
When a Palestinian faction like Hamas—a fundamentally ideological movement—decides to open a conflict of this magnitude with Israel on October 7, relying on alliances within the axis of resistance against a nuclear-armed state ranked among the top ten global militaries and backed by the world's dominant superpower and its Western allies, it exemplifies blinding instinctual drift, manifesting in several ways:
Misjudging the adversary’s strength: This drift relied more on metaphysical beliefs than on science or the laws of warfare, which cannot be governed by unmeasurable factors. This approach veered dangerously close to collective suicide.
Misjudging the strength of alliances: The overreliance on Hezbollah, which opened a secondary front called "support and distraction" but remained cautious, exemplifies flawed strategy. Iran’s measured responses, prioritizing its direct interests, further highlight the weakness of these alliances.
Overestimating leverage: The current reliance on Israeli civilian and military hostages, assuming Israel’s extreme sensitivity to such situations, backfired, escalating the conflict rather than containing it.
Misjudging Arab responses: The assumption that Arab states would intervene or mediate to quell the fire—as in past conflicts—proved inaccurate, given the unique dynamics of this confrontation.
Ideological rigidity: The inability to formulate pragmatic or logical responses to retreat or adapt, instead framing such actions as a breach of sacred taboos, reflects this drift.
Underestimating the adversary’s perspective: The Israeli perception of this round of conflict as existential diminished the importance of hostages, casualties, and economic damage, prioritizing the state's survival above all else.
Israel’s Parallel Instinctual Drift
On the other side, Israel's response also reveals its own drift toward reckless decisions, including ambitions for a new Middle Eastern order, annexing the West Bank, resettling Gaza, and disarming Hezbollah. These ambitions disregard past lessons:
Gaza’s occupation from 1967 until its 2005 withdrawal was a nightmare for Israeli leadership, prompting Rabin to wish for Gaza’s disappearance. Repeating this failed experiment would be disastrous.
Israel’s previous occupation of southern Lebanon and its reliance on the South Lebanon Army collapsed due to heavy losses, raising doubts about repeating such policies.
Annexing the West Bank without considering its consequences would ignite endless resistance and conflict.
The historical significance of the land and its sacred sites fuels persistent disputes, making lasting solutions elusive.
It is implausible for six million Jews to suppress six million Palestinians in a shared territory indefinitely. While military dominance can secure temporary control, it cannot erase a child’s dream of reclaiming their rights.
Conclusion
The ongoing conflict reveals a mutual inability to escape the vortex of instinctual drift. Neither side can redefine the nature of the conflict, assess the adversary's strength accurately, or move beyond sacred taboos. Instead, both remain trapped by ideological rigidity, perpetuating cycles of devastation.
Germany and Japan only rose as global economic powers after abandoning notions of racial and cultural superiority, engaging in profound societal self-reflection. Their industrial superiority replaced outdated supremacist ideals, leading to lasting progress.
The question remains: Can Palestinian and Israeli societies, after this prolonged destruction, produce brave leaders capable of saying "enough" to senseless death and suffering? Can they create the conditions for rational discourse and a return to the path of peace envisioned by Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin?
تعليقات
إرسال تعليق