Monday, November 06, 2017
Elder of Ziyon
Over the years, I’ve talked about some of the psychological factors
that might explain the behavior the of BDS advocates. These include a ruthlessness
that drives them to drag third-parties into their battles, regardless of the
cost to others, and fantasy
politics which leads them to engage in activities for the sole purpose of
making themselves feel more important than they are.
Some of these factors are actually detrimental to the BDS cause
(witness the nearly universal
revulsion that greets their fantasy-driven public temper tantrums). But some of them are a major source of the
boycotter’s power, especially when faced with opponents who labor under the
illusion that BDS is a genuine, “normal” political project.
For example, the BDSers ability to ignore any facts
or arguments that do not suit their purpose or fit their world view means they
can never actually lose an argument since, in reality, they refuse to engage in
one (even if they pretend their diatribes to be dialog). But there is another
psychological element that fuels not just BDS but the entire anti-Israel
project that relates to the dynamics of blame.
This is something most of us can relate to since we all are involved in
blame dynamics (healthy and unhealthy) at various points in our lives. To take a simple example, imagine a couple
that drives to the beach where one person places the car keys on a beach
blanket. As the day winds to a close,
the other person folds and packs up the same beach blanket, but does not notice
the keys which tumble into the sand and get lost.
Under such circumstances, the couple could see this chain of events as
an unlucky accident, a pair of reasonable actions that, when linked together,
led to negative consequences neither party could have foreseen. But since it was a pair of individual actions
that led to the loss, each person could choose to blame the other for one of
the two steps that led to the problem (leaving the keys on the blanket rather
than in a bag or pocket vs. not noticing them when packing up), claiming - in
effect - that just one person bore primary responsibility for the problem they
both face.
On some occasions, the circumstances lend themselves to assigning
primary responsibility to one person or another. But blame is rarely driven by such analytical
calculations. Instead, the first person
to accuse the other tends to gain the initiative, putting the blamed person on the
defensive (often in an attempt to absolve the blamer of responsibility). And in this dynamic, someone willing to
accept some responsibility tends to be at a disadvantage vs. someone willing to
accept none.
Over time, the roles of blamer and blamee can become engrained in
personal relationships, causing the person who is “faster on the draw” to
automatically zero in on something the other person did that is blameworthy,
with the other person taking a default position of either accepting
responsibility or, eventually, avoiding confrontational situations that may be
driven by an uncomfortable blame dynamic.
If this dynamic is common among individuals where the stakes are fairly
low, it is a cornerstone of international politics where the nation assigned
blame can face serious consequences (from being targeted for economic punishment,
to justifying war waged against it).
Which is why nations routinely tap the aforementioned blame dynamic,
making sure to point an accusing finger outwards immediately and never
acknowledging responsibility for anything (regardless of their actual
culpability). And within the
Arab-Israeli conflict, this politics of blame has reached near pathological
levels.
This is why every negative action that can be assigned to Israel (real
or imaginary) is the subject of not just accusation by this or that Arab
country, but must become top priority for every international organization –
combining the blame dynamic with Israel’s foes willingness to corrupt any
institution in order to achieve their own ends.
This is also why the Arab states and the Palestinians will never accept
responsibility under any circumstances for anything they are unquestionably
responsible for (from supporting every one of the 20th century’s
totalitarian movements, to rejecting peace offers over and over again, to
resorting to violence and triggering wars in which their own people suffer the
consequences).
This dynamic plays itself out amongst the Palestinians “friends” in the
BDS movement who, if cornered, will manage a choke out a cough of concern
regarding Hamas rocket fire into Israeli schoolyards. But once Israel returns fire, they rise
together as a single great pointing finger and shouting voice screaming
“J’accuse” at Israel (and its supporters), insisting that the boycotters alone
represent the voice of human rights and justice (regardless of how little they
have to say on either subject when Israel is not the target of their abuse).
In the case of the BDSers, the blame dynamic fits perfectly with their
fantasy of being the only voices of courage and virtue in a Manichean world
where evil and all-powerful opponents endlessly conspire against them.
Getting back to the original dynamic described in the earlier lost-keys
story, the endless repetition of one party’s readiness to blame and
unwillingness to accept responsibility creates a situation whereby the party
trying to avoid the blame game who is willing to accept some responsibility is
punished for not immediately and unquestionably accepting all of it.
This is the unhealthy dynamic Israel faces vis-à-vis its
finger-pointing, responsibility-avoiding foes, and it is not entirely clear how
she can get out of it short of becoming as ruthless, cynical and insensitive as
her accusers.
