Beyond Binaries: The Profiteers and Perpetuators of the Israeli-Palestinian Forever War
It's Not Binary: Exposing the Hidden Interests Behind Endless Conflict in the Middle East
By: Gerry Nolan
When considering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I emphatically propose – and it's worth stating this with a sense of urgency and frustration – it’s not binary. It’s a radical concept that might evoke challenges, shock, and anger, but it’s a reality we must confront. The true antagonists are neither the Jews nor the Palestinians, but rather, the industrialists who are manipulating both sides to their advantage. In this piece, we will unravel the layers of this conflict, exposing the systemic forces and hidden agendas that perpetuate it.
The role of trauma in this conflict is pivotal. Gabor Maté, a Holocaust survivor, provides deep insights into how historical and collective trauma shapes the actions and reactions of both Israelis and Palestinians. This trauma, often unacknowledged and unaddressed, becomes a potent tool in the hands of the odious few who benefit from the conflict. It is used to stir emotions, deepen divides, and maintain a status quo that serves the interests of a few while the masses suffer.
In exploring who profits from this ongoing strife, we uncover that at the highest level, it is the system itself that reaps rewards, a system in which many of us are unwittingly entangled. We will delve into the intricate web of the military-industrial complex, the complicity of media narratives, and the unrecognized trauma that fuels this enduring conflict. By challenging this binary narrative, we aim to shed light on the broader dynamics at play, offering a more comprehensive understanding of not only this conflict but of how similar narratives shape our world.
This exploration is not just an academic exercise; it's a crucial step towards unmasking the forces that shape our perceptions and drive global conflicts. The media, supercharged with algorithms, creates bubbles and echo chambers around any issue, keeping users glued to platforms and narratives that serve these interests. The more intense the conflict, the more engagement on social media, leading to increased ad revenue. Similarly, heightened conflict results in greater arms sales.
However, the problem runs deeper than mere engagement. The majority who take sides in this conflict, often fueled by oversimplified, binary narratives, unwittingly become cogs in this vast machinery. This binary trap not only skews our understanding of the conflict but also harms our mental health. It's crucial to understand that social media itself isn't the issue; it's a powerful tool that, in this context, is being misused to perpetuate an insidious binary narrative that suits the interests of those advocating for perpetual wars. Many are unknowingly complicit, with their investments and pensions tied to the very media and tech companies, and the arms manufacturers that fuel this conflict.
This system, devoid of specific villains, creates ideal conditions for perpetual conflict. It allows the most corrupt elements within societies to rise to prominence, leading their people into a proverbial hell. The absurdity lies in the fact that profits are made from arms, a detail of the system that inevitably leads to widespread violence.
As we engage with mainstream media and social media, choosing sides in this conflict, we must recognize our role in perpetuating this war through what Noam Chomsky aptly describes as manufactured consent. By succumbing to this binary view, we not only finance the war but also become instruments in a larger game, one that perpetuates endless cycles of conflict and trauma.
Unpacking the Military-Industrial Complex
In dissecting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one cannot overlook the shadowy yet dominant role of the military-industrial complex (MIC). This behemoth, a fusion of defence contractors, government agencies, and armed forces, thrives on the perpetuation of conflict. It’s a grim dance of profit and war, where the misery of one is the fortune of another.
Flashback to January 1961: US President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the nation in his farewell address of what he foresaw as its gravest threat: the MIC, a monster of sorts that would lead to perpetual, forever wars. He spoke of “…An immense military establishment and a large arms industry” emerging as a hidden force in US politics and cautioned Americans to “...comprehend its grave implications.” His words have proved courageously prophetic in the decades since. 62 years later, Americans, and indeed the world, are caught in a tragic quagmire of ‘forever wars’.
In a brazen revelation of war profiteering, defence contractors like Raytheon and General Dynamics have grotesquely viewed the Israeli war on Gaza as a lucrative opportunity. As highlighted in a Jacobin article, these merchants of death predict a surge in demand for their destructive wares. The grim reality unfolds as these companies witness their stocks soaring, riding on the waves of human misery and conflict. The escalation is not just a byproduct but a driving force for their profit margins, as exemplified by General Dynamics' staggering increase in artillery production, a sinister response to the demand fuelled by relentless warfare.
This cynical exploitation of conflict for profit is starkly illustrated by the candid admissions from these corporations' executives. General Dynamics foresees the need to ramp up artillery production far beyond current levels, while Raytheon's CEO coldly anticipates a boost in missile orders, essential components of Israel's Iron Dome. These statements, devoid of human empathy, lay bare the odious nature of the military-industrial complex. It's a grotesque cycle where war is not just a tragedy but a business strategy, blatantly pursued by these corporations, turning the horrors of conflict into a profit-generating spectacle.
Thus, at the heart of this complex lies the arms trade — a lucrative and often under-scrutinized industry. The cycle is vicious and straightforward: as tensions in the region escalate, so does the demand for advanced weaponry. Arms manufacturers, ever eager to capitalize, find a fertile market in the fear and animosity that pervades the conflict. It's a booming business, fueled by the thunder of bombs and the whispers of impending threats.
Under the Bush era, the new and larger complex was justified by a conveniently ambiguous and unseen enemy: the terrorist. Former President George W. Bush and his aides insisted on calling counter-terrorism efforts a “war”. This concerted effort by leaders like former Vice President Dick Cheney (himself the former CEO of defense contractor Halliburton) was not some empty rhetorical exercise. Not only would a war maximize the inherent powers of the president, but it would also maximize the budgets for military and homeland agencies.
This relationship between arms sales and conflict escalation is not just a matter of correlation but causation. The ready availability of arms emboldens military actions, lowers the threshold for engagement, and prolongs conflicts. Each new shipment of weapons serves as kindling for the fire of violence, ensuring that the flames of conflict remain stoked.
Moreover, the military-industrial complex is not a silent spectator; it actively shapes policies and perceptions. Through lobbying efforts and strategic alliances, this complex sways political decisions, often skewing them towards continued conflict and militarization. The narrative spun is one of constant threat, necessitating endless armament.
In this context, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more than a geopolitical struggle; it's a showcase for the latest in military technology, a grim advertisement for the effectiveness of new drones, missiles, and defense systems. The human cost becomes a footnote in the brochures of arms fairs, overshadowed by the gleam of polished weaponry.
Thus, as we dissect the narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it becomes clear: the military-industrial complex does not merely benefit from the conflict — it is an active participant, with stakes high enough to influence its continuation. It's a cycle where war begets weapons, and weapons beget war, with a just peace remaining an elusive, unprofitable dream. It is what Eisenhower described as the “misplaced power” of the military-industrial complex – power that renders public opposition and even thousands of dead soldiers immaterial. War may be hell for some but it is heaven for others in a war-dependent economy.
Media Narratives and Manufacturing Consent
The military-industrial-media complex presents a grim tableau of media manipulation and manufactured consent, as outlined by Noam Chomsky. This complex weaves a narrative fabric that subtly shapes public perception, often aligning with the interests of those profiting from war. The media, once envisioned as the watchdog of democracy, has morphed into a mouthpiece for the military-industrial complex, driven by sensationalism and algorithms that tailor and restrict content to reinforce existing biases.
From the ominous consolidation of media power, with a mere handful of corporations controlling the majority of messaging, to the insidious intertwining of media and military agendas, the landscape is rife with conflicts of interest. The narrative pushed by these media giants is not just biased; it's sculpted to support the machinery of war. As seen in the case of General Electric’s ownership of NBC, the links between media and arms manufacturers are not just theoretical but literal, with direct financial interests at stake.
The military-industrial-media complex doesn’t merely report on conflict; it often sensationalizes it, framing wars and military actions in ways that benefit its own bottom line. This results in a skewed public understanding, where war is often presented as the only solution, and peace, a distant, unprofitable concept. The critical voices, those calling for diplomacy and de-escalation, are drowned out by a chorus of reports that amplify the need for military intervention.
The military-industrial-media complex presents a grim tableau of media manipulation and manufactured consent, as outlined by Noam Chomsky. This complex weaves a narrative fabric that subtly shapes public perception, often aligning with the interests of those profiting from war. The media, once envisioned as the watchdog of democracy, has morphed into a mouthpiece for the military-industrial complex, driven by sensationalism and algorithms that tailor content to reinforce existing biases.
Chomsky's concept of manufactured consent becomes evident here. The public, fed a steady diet of pro-military narratives, begins to view war and conflict as inevitable, even necessary. The independence of the media is compromised, not through overt censorship, but through a subtler, more insidious alignment with the interests of the powerful. This alignment is not just a threat to objective journalism but to the very fabric of democratic discourse.
A stark example of this phenomenon is evident in the Western media's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly following an attack on a hospital (Ahli) in Gaza. As reported by Matthew Petti, media outlets, which previously cited reports from the "Palestinian health ministry in Gaza" without bias, shifted their narrative post-attack, labeling the ministry as "Hamas-run." This change in language subtly influences public perception, aligning it with a narrative that undermines the credibility of the Palestinian health ministry, and by extension, the Palestinian perspective.
In this milieu, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often presented through a lens that favours military action, overshadowing the human suffering and complex geopolitical realities. The role of the media in perpetuating this conflict extends beyond mere reporting; it becomes an active participant in the shaping of public opinion, nudging it towards acceptance and even support of endless conflict.
The Role of Trauma in Perpetuating Conflict
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, laden with decades of violence and suffering, is a stark canvas displaying the profound impact of individual, collective and historical trauma. Gabor Maté, a renowned expert on trauma, provides invaluable insights into how such deep-seated psychological wounds fuel the cycles of violence and misunderstanding that plague this conflict.
Maté's analysis reveals that trauma, often transmitted across generations, shapes the perceptions and reactions of both Israelis and Palestinians. This unresolved trauma becomes a lens through which each side views the other, not as fellow humans with shared pains and aspirations, but as perpetual threats to their existence and identity. It perpetuates a narrative of victimhood and aggression, trapping both communities in a perpetual cycle of retribution and suffering.
In this context, the trauma experienced by one group is often used to justify the infliction of pain on the other, creating a vicious cycle where violence begets more violence. The inability to recognize and address this trauma only deepens the divide, making reconciliation and peace ever more elusive.
Understanding this role of trauma is crucial. It's not just about acknowledging the pain and suffering of both sides but recognizing how this unaddressed pain fuels the conflict. It suggests that any lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must involve healing these deep psychological wounds, fostering empathy, and building bridges of understanding that transcend generations of pain and anger.
By recognizing the role of trauma in this conflict, we see beyond the surface-level narratives of politics and power. We uncover a more profound human story, one that requires not only political solutions but also a collective effort towards healing, understanding and a just peace.
Recognizing Our Complicity and Moving Forward
Our complicity in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is starkly illuminated by Western economic engagements and media narratives. Investments in companies like Raytheon and General Dynamics, as reported by Jacobin, directly fuel the conflict, with these firms openly discussing the profitability of warfare in Gaza. The Western media's role is further accentuated by algorithms that shape public perception, often magnifying certain narratives while downplaying others.
The shift in Western media narratives following the attack on Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza, as detailed by Matthew Petti, feeds into the interests of the Military Industrial-Media Complex by aligning public perception with cynical political and economic interests. By casting doubt on the Palestinian health ministry and implicitly supporting Israeli and U.S. perspectives, these narratives serve to justify military actions and policies. This benefits the military-industrial complex, which profits from continued conflict, and the media complex, which gains from heightened engagement on these polarizing issues.
Moreover, as highlighted in The Guardian, financial institutions like Morgan Stanley and TD Bank anticipate profits from the conflict, underscoring a direct link between financial markets and ongoing warfare.
To disrupt this cycle, Western societies must introspectively examine their roles. This means reassessing where investments are made and understanding the potential impact on conflict regions. It also involves cultivating a critical approach to media consumption, questioning the sources, biases, and intentions behind the news and narratives being presented.
Our collective responsibility extends to demanding ethical practices from media and financial institutions. This includes advocating for governmental policies that emphasize a just peace over profit. The fact that profit is at the heart of all Western sponsored and supported wars should antagonize our collective humanity. We must end profit from the cruel equation. There ought to be a collective response and solution that flips the script by making peace profitable, while making unnecessary war cost-prohibitive. There is power to be obtained from our collective ability to take a page from cancel culture and cancel corporations that whitewash these wars, as well as boycotting any company doing business with Western-backed aggressors.
The path forward is not just about recognizing complicity; it's about proactive engagement in altering the course of events. It calls for a shift in perspective, fostering a culture where empathy and informed dialogue take precedence over divisive, binary rhetoric. In this way, we can collectively contribute to reshaping the narrative, steering it towards one that champions peace and mutual understanding rather than conflict and division.
Final Thoughts…
In our deep dive into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we've not only unearthed the critical roles of manufactured consent and unaddressed trauma but also the stark complicity of the West, particularly the US. This complicity extends from the boardrooms of defence contractors to the offices of media corporations, revealing a network of interests that profits from and perpetuates the conflict. Yet, recognizing our role in this complex narrative should not render us powerless but rather galvanize us to demand and enact change.
As we stand at this crossroads, it's crucial to recognize that moving beyond mere acknowledgment of our complicity is the key to forging a new path. We are not powerless bystanders; our actions, be it challenging the narratives we consume, rethinking our investments, or advocating for ethical foreign policies, can collectively steer the course towards a just peace.
This journey requires us to embrace the full narrative, one that transcends binary viewpoints and simplistic solutions. It calls for a deep, empathetic understanding of all sides and a commitment to a peace that is not just declared but just and enduring. In doing so, we can reshape not only our perspectives but also the future of this horrific conflict.