The Israel-Gaza Conflict
The conflict between Israel and Gaza exemplifies a deep clash of core beliefs, group dynamics, and unresolved historical grievances.
Core Beliefs and Group Identities
The conflict arises from two groups—Israelis and Palestinians—holding opposing core beliefs about identity, land, security, and survival. These beliefs are deeply entrenched because they serve both self-interested and altruistic functions.
For Israelis, the core beliefs center on the survival of a Jewish homeland, a refuge after centuries of persecution, genocide, and displacement. The establishment of Israel is perceived as essential to ensuring the safety and self-determination of the Jewish people. This belief fulfills self-interest (security and survival) and an altruistic purpose (a cultural and historical legacy).
For Palestinians in Gaza and the broader Palestinian population, the core beliefs center on justice, dignity, and the right to self-determination. The displacement of Palestinians, loss of ancestral land, and ongoing hardships fuel a belief in resisting occupation and reclaiming their autonomy. This belief fulfills self-interest (survival, independence) and an altruistic purpose (preserving identity and ensuring justice for future generations).
Both sets of beliefs are tied to survival and group identity. The resistance to changing these beliefs stems from their dual roles in ensuring security and meaning for their respective groups.
The Dynamics of Bad Groups and Good Groups
The conflict has perpetuated conditions where both groups experience bad group dynamics. In bad groups, leadership exploits followers, often fostering abuse, manipulation, and suppression. This dynamic leads to cycles of violence, mistrust, and dehumanization.
In Gaza, poor living conditions, poverty, and limited autonomy exacerbate resentment and resistance. Leadership groups like Hamas operate in a bad group dynamic, engaging in violent actions that harm both Palestinians and Israelis. These actions reinforce Israel’s security concerns and contribute to collective punishment that disproportionately affects Palestinian civilians.
In Israel, leadership prioritizes security and survival, but the policies of occupation, blockade, and military force create abusive dynamics for Palestinians. The collective trauma of both the Jewish and Palestinian populations contributes to a pattern where leaders exploit fear, reinforcing cycles of retaliation.
Bad group dynamics perpetuate conflict because each leadership group devalues members of the opposing group, creating systems of abuse and mistrust. The result is ongoing violence, humanitarian suffering, and the erosion of pathways to peace.
Addressing the Root Causes of Conflict
The Scientific Humanist Framework reframes the conflict as a systemic issue rooted in competing survival goals, mutual trauma, and dysfunctional group dynamics. Resolving the conflict requires a transformation of both groups through ethical leadership, shared purpose, and proportional responses to harm.
First, the root causes of the conflict must be addressed:
Mutual Trauma and Fear: Both Israelis and Palestinians have experienced generational trauma. For Israelis, this stems from historical persecution and existential threats. For Palestinians, this trauma results from displacement, occupation, and systemic hardship.
Mistrust and Dehumanization: Years of violence have eroded trust between the groups. Bad leadership on both sides perpetuates dehumanization, framing the other group as an existential enemy.
Inequality and Injustice: Disparities in power, resources, and opportunities fuel resentment and despair. Gaza’s blockade, poverty, and restricted autonomy exacerbate these dynamics.
Ethical Conflict Resolution
The Scientific Humanist Framework provides tools for resolving conflicts proportionally and ethically. To transform this conflict, both groups must transition from bad group dynamics—where abuse and dehumanization dominate—to good group dynamics that prioritize mutual respect, cooperation, and shared survival.
The following principles are critical:
Recognizing Shared Humanity: Both Israelis and Palestinians must be viewed as members of a shared human group whose survival depends on cooperation. A good group dynamic cannot exist without mutual respect, where leadership on both sides acknowledges the dignity and rights of all people.
Proportional Responses: Retaliation and violence must be replaced with proportional, targeted actions that hold abusive leadership accountable while minimizing harm to civilians. Responses that indiscriminately punish entire populations perpetuate cycles of trauma and violence.
Addressing Inequality and Injustice: A peaceful resolution requires addressing systemic inequalities. For Palestinians, this means improving living conditions, lifting restrictions, and ensuring pathways to autonomy and prosperity. For Israelis, this means fostering security while acknowledging the legitimate grievances of Palestinians.
Transforming Leadership: Good leadership on both sides is essential for ethical progress. Leaders must reject exploitation and instead act as “superegos” that balance the survival interests of their groups with empathy for the other. Ethical leaders must prioritize solutions that serve the long-term well-being of both peoples.
Reframing Core Beliefs: Both groups must reframe their core beliefs to recognize that survival, dignity, and progress are interconnected. A belief in mutual coexistence, rather than exclusive survival, aligns with the principles of scientific humanism and ensures the advancement of both groups.
A Path to Peace
The transformation of this conflict lies in creating a shared vision for survival and dignity. This requires a multi-level approach:
At the micro level, individuals from both sides must engage in dialogue that fosters understanding and trust. Programs that encourage shared humanity—such as joint education, cultural exchange, and reconciliation initiatives—are vital.
At the meso level, leadership within both communities must adopt policies that reduce inequality, deescalate violence, and promote practical solutions. Leaders must reject rhetoric that dehumanizes the other side.
At the macro level, international actors must facilitate peace by supporting ethical leadership and humanitarian efforts. Solutions such as equitable resource distribution, shared governance models, and pathways to economic stability can address systemic inequalities.
A peaceful resolution prioritizes the survival, dignity, and advancement of both Israelis and Palestinians. It requires leadership that embraces scientific humanist principles—balancing self-interest with empathy and ensuring that core beliefs align with the shared goal of coexistence.
Conclusion
The Israel-Gaza conflict is a clash of core beliefs and dysfunctional group dynamics, perpetuated by trauma, fear, and systems of inequality. Resolving the conflict requires transforming bad group dynamics into good ones, where leadership prioritizes mutual respect, proportional responses, and shared survival.
A peaceful future depends on reframing core beliefs to align with the principles of coexistence and shared humanity. By embracing ethical leadership, addressing systemic inequalities, and recognizing the interconnectedness of all groups, Israelis and Palestinians can build a path toward dignity, security, and progress for all.
