The current conflict in Israel

[agner]

There is currently (March 2023) a severe conflict in Israel where hundreds of thousands of protesters turn to the streets to protest against a plan by prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to limit the powers of the supreme court. The protesters fear that this plan is a step away from democracy and that Israel may end up as a Jewish theocracy. The scale of these protests is unprecedented.

While many commentators are analyzing the opinions and motives of different groups of people on each side of the conflict, we are missing a deeper understanding of why some people develop extremist points of view. Regality theory is useful here for understanding the psychology behind political and religious radicalization.

Asymmetric conflicts are often intractable. In the current situation, there is a severe asymmetry of power between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The Palestinians are living in a hopeless situation, and they have few means to defend themselves against the encroachments on their land. There is no meaningful way in which the Palestinians can attack any "legitimate military target" of the occupiers. They see no other way than to attack civilians and illegal settlers. Such attacks will inevitably be seen as terrorism and discredit them in the international opinion.

In former times, asymmetric conflicts would often end in total eradication of the weak part in the conflict. Today, the international community will not accept such genocides. International organizations may condemn a conflict, but they rarely have sufficient means to intervene and stop a conflict. For example, the UN is often stymied by the veto rights of privileged members.

The consequence of this situation is that asymmetric conflicts tend to be very long-lasting. The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is one of the world's most enduring conflicts, and it gives rise to severe animosity between religions worldwide.

Violent conflicts have psychological and sociological consequences according to regality theory. The populations on both sides are developing more authoritarian attitudes, hard-line political opinions, and religious extremism. We are seeing this clearly in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict now. Palestinians are often blamed for unrelenting attitudes and a poorly functioning democracy, yet they hardly have the freedom and resources to rule their own territory and they are subjected to a constant threat that necessarily fosters regal and anti-democratic sentiments.

Viewed objectively, the Israelis are less threatened than the Palestinians because they are the strong part in the conflict, but the constant fear - amplified by the media - is fostering regal attitudes in large parts of the Israeli population as well. The clear signs of this regalization are religious extremism, strong right-wing opinions, and less regard for democratic principles. Consequently, the conflict tends to escalate.

International observers are very concerned about how the situation develops. The government plan to weaken the powers of the supreme court has currently been postponed due to pressure from the protesters and from US president Biden, but the situation is still highly volatile.

Concerned about how this situation will develop in the future, we may consider two opposite scenarios:

1. Escalation scenario
The political conflict between left-wing and right-wing Israelis ends in a compromise where the power of the supreme court is weakened a little, but not as much as initially intended. Netanyahu's government continues with salami tactics and takes more steps in the anti-democratic direction.
Netanyahu does everything to stay in power because this will protect him against the corruption charges that could possibly put him in jail.
The right-wing bloc is strengthened by a demographic development that we are already observing: The right-wing extremists and settlers get more children than people with more moderate views, as predicted by regality theory, while people with moderate and left-wing opinions leave the country because the situation looks bleak to them.
The violent conflict with the Palestinians escalates. The situation becomes intolerable and hopeless for the Palestinians who turn to increasingly militant tactics. The Israelis retaliate disproportionately, and the situation ends in total mayhem.
The Palestinians have only few means to influence the international opinion in their favor because the major international news media are dominated by the US that has a geopolitical interest in supporting Israel.

2. Deescalation scenario
The US government is reducing its strategic activities abroad due to a deteriorating economy and decreasing domestic support for foreign political and military involvement.
The geopolitical priorities are moving away from the Middle East because oil is being replaced by fossil-free energy sources. The Jewish diaspora in the USA and elsewhere become less supportive of the building of settlements in Palestine. USA is reducing its political and military support to Israel. The USA puts a strong pressure on the Israeli government to change its policies. A new centrist government is elected in Israel. The international opinion is moving in favor of the Palestinians.
Political and intellectual elites are realizing that the two-state solution is impossible. A process towards the establishment of a one-state solution gains momentum. Apartheid in Israel becomes ideological anathema. Political and religious extremism is slowly decreasing on both sides as the situation becomes more peaceful.

Conclusion
Whether the conflict will be escalated or deescalated depends on the international community, and especially the USA. The asymmetric conflict cannot be resolved without external intervention.