Identity & Shared Humanity

Readers’ comments on ‘Our Shared Humanity’

(If you have received this by email, please click on the title to read the latest version. I often correct typos and continue to edit my essays after publishing the first version).

Photo by Wylly Suhendra on Unsplash

Readers’ comments and the discussions that unfold beneath my articles often inspire my thinking and writing. These exchanges reveal what preoccupies people’s minds as they struggle, both emotionally and intellectually, to process Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people and their own relationship to these events. A recurring theme emerging from these discussions is the complex question of identity—specifically, how Israel invokes its self-designation as a ‘Jewish state’ to claim exceptional status in human history. The following essay is built around some of those discussions.

‘Positive’ and ‘negative’ exceptionalism

Israel is gradually exterminating the Palestinian people in full view of the world. Most of the West’s leaders and the corporate media maintain shameless and unrepentant support for Israel. They repeat the fraudulent justifications Israel offers for what it does, namely that Israel is reluctantly engaged in a ‘war against terror’, and that everything Israel is doing, including (but not limited to) destroying hospitals, directly targeting medical staff, and murdering children and babies, is necessary for Israel’s security. Most media outlets continue to perpetuate the fallacy that there is symmetry between Israel—a settler-coloniser society—and its victims—the Palestinian people.

The phrase ‘settler-colonialism’ is never mentioned. Infuriatingly, our politicians and the media continue to peddle the image Israel has sold the rest of the world for decades, that it is an ‘enlightened’ and ‘normal Western democracy’, a nice and benevolent country that desires nothing other than to live in peace. This, along with the ongoing supply of arms, munition, spare parts, and other destructive military and surveillance technology enables Israel to proceed, uninterrupted, with its genocidal settler-colonial plan.

Israel’s Zionist settler-colonialism’s aims are:

• To eliminate all the Palestinian people from all of historic Palestine,

• Destroy all evidence of their culture, history and existence,

• Take over all the land and natural resources from the river to the sea, and now also to the north (parts of Lebanon and Syria), and

• Replace all of historic Palestine’s non-Jewish inhabitants with what Israel calls Jews.

You do not have to be an expert in International Law to recognise that Israel’s actions qualify as genocide.

It is clear for anyone to see that Israel enjoys extraordinary exceptionalism that enables it to not only get away with genocide, but also receive seemingly unlimited military and diplomatic cover. (Whether this will finally change remains to be seen). However, the exceptionalism that others see Israel enjoying bears little resemblance to Jewish Israelis’ understanding of their own situation.

Inside Israeli society, Israel's exceptionalism is perceived differently. Jewish-Israeli society focuses only on criticism of, and objections to what Israel does. Israeli Jews perceive any criticism of Israel's policies and behaviour as stemming solely from antisemitism, treating it as completely detached from, and unrelated to Israel’s actual conduct. The strong belief within Israeli society that everyone hates Jews serves as justification for their view that Israel is treated differently to other countries. Israeli society and its politicians, as well as supporters of Israel around the world, frequently compare what Israel is doing with other examples of human rights violations and genocide. They ask, ‘Why are you criticising us? Why do you single us out when others are doing bad things too?’

I thought exactly this way when I still lived in Israel. The Israeli media routinely downplay the support Israel receives and emphasise statements that are seen as hostile or critical of Israel. When I was in Israel, I believed everyone hated us. It is hard to explain to outsiders how obsessive we were about scouring every story about some celebrity overseas to see whether they liked us or not. If they did not absolutely admire us, or were even the least bit critical, we dismissed them as antisemites. (In Israel there is no distinction between society and the individual — ‘us’ means ‘Israel’). People’s views about Israel were the only measure by which we evaluated their worth. It did not matter what character or achievements people had. All we cared about was what they thought of us. I was frightened when I moved to Australia, because I genuinely believed everyone there would hate me. I still remember how shocked I was to discover that reality was exactly the opposite of what I was taught.

This selective understanding of exceptionalism—seeing only criticism whilst remaining wilfully blind to the unprecedented level of support Israel enjoys—reveals a deeper pattern. Israeli Jews have no real concept of how much money and how much support Israel is getting, as this would contradict their deeply held belief that they are uniquely victimised. This cognitive dissonance enables the population to be perpetrators while maintaining their self-image of victimhood. In other words, Israel’s perception of exceptionalism is ‘negative’. They believe they are singled out for unfair treatment, because of antisemitism, which is also seen as a unique and ‘exceptional’ form of racism.

About identity and ’specialness’ — Sharing a few comments and replies

In my previous article I wrote about my own relationship with the definition of Jewishness imposed on me by Israel, and referred to Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro’s interview with Katie Halper. In the interview Rabbi Shapiro argued that Jews do not need to emphasise Jewishness when they stand up for the Palestinian people because this just lends support to Israel’s false claim to be the state of all Jews, and to speak for all Jews. Katie Halper kindly commented on my article, and I share some of our exchange below.

Katie Halper: Thanks for the shout out. I identify as Jewish for several reasons but what I find undeniable is that it is politically wise to identify as a pro Palestine Jew because it dispels the notion that being Zionist and being Jewish is one in the same and it helps dispel the notion that antizionism is antisemitism.

My reply: Thanks for taking an interest in my essay and for commenting. Here is a previous reply I made to someone with respect to this essay: … I see both sides. I agree with the Rabbi’s point, but also with those who choose to call themselves Jews and do not accept Israel’s definition of a ‘good Jew’ (that’s a real thing in Israeli culture). I wanted to mention my own choice, which is to not call myself a Jew because I have no idea what makes me a Jew except Israel’s nonsense ‘race science’. I am only making a choice for myself, while seeing that others have a pov of their own.

Katie Halper: If, for argument’s sake, a majority of Palestinians thought it was helpful for people to identify as anti Zionist Jews would you still advise against it?

My reply: There are many opinions among Palestinians I know. Most don’t care about my background at all, only that I am another human standing shoulder to shoulder with them. The article [my previous essay, on which Katie is commenting] is entitled ‘our shared humanity’ for a reason. I believe the majority of Palestinians do not see what Israel is doing as a ‘Jewish thing’, and have no qualms with Jewish religion, only with Zionism’s genocidal setter-colonialism.

I find it offensive that Israel defines my ‘identity’ and ‘affiliation’ for me, seemingly leaving me with no choice. I did not grow up on any of the ‘Jewish values’ that you and other good people in the US say you have grown up on. I believe you, and I envy you to some extent, but that was not my experience at all.

Israeli society, its philosophy of life, and its institutions are there to justify genocide. This includes the interpretation of Jewish religion they teach even in the secular school system.

I have always been puzzled by how anyone who calls themselves Jewish does not, at least, critique the morality behind Joshua leading a comprehensive genocide in Canaan¹, supposedly at god’s instructions. I never understood how anyone can celebrate the Passover Seder and not consider how wrong it is to rejoice in the killing of all the eldest sons of Egypt on the eve of the Exodus.

Of course, none of it is actual history but these are identity myths that go right to the heart of Jewish ‘identity’. As a human being I can’t possibly identify with this, and if to be Jewish means I have to accept such stories/myths uncritically, then I choose to not be Jewish (and it is a choice, unless you believe in ‘race science').

I don’t know (I really don’t know) what goes on in non-orthodox synagogues in the West, and how they reconcile these stories with enlightened ‘Jewish values’. Israel revels in these stories, which are taught uncritically right from kindergarten and in families even earlier. There is never any moral questioning of any of this.

It is all taught as identity stories even in the secular school system, which I attended. No one questions the morality of it, because the moment they do, the entire quasi-religious justification for Zionism, the Nakba and the continued genocide in Palestine falls apart.

In light of my upbringing in Israel and my education there, I am justifiably suspicious of Jewish identity, as it is understood by non-religious Western Jews. As I said, I don’t know anything about what is taught in non-orthodox Synagogues, and whether these identity stories are questioned and critiqued on moral grounds. If they are not, then you can see the inherent contradiction between them and universal human values.

I think everyone needs to make their own choice, katie ... I am making mine. I am not decreeing anything for anyone else. My position is just that, my position, and there is always a diversity of views in any group and in any contexts, as you obviously well know. I also do not know everything as I said above.

My own personal moral sense does not align with any version of Jewishness that I grew up with in Israel. One of the disadvantages of Western Jews, I think (and I could be wrong), is that they really don’t know, or understand Israel at all. The only ones who do are the ones who join the ranks of the ‘settlers’. “

Until you live there you can’t know Israel and this is deliberate. Israel has always presented a very carefully crafted image of itself to the world, including to Western Jewish communities. Its citizens (including the 20% Palestinian citizens who are now in great danger) know the real Israel. Thank you for reading and commenting.

On another thread I had this exchange with reader Irfan A Khan

Irfan A Kahn: Indoctrination based on religious and racial exceptionalism can create a deep sense of entitlement in the minds of any population and that feeling of entitlement can be exploited easily toward mistreatment of ‘the other’. The extent of mistreatment of ‘the other’ can be exacerbated into settler colonialism, ethnic cleansing and genocide with a small nudge in the right direction.

This phenomenon is not true for Jews of Israel only. Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and even small tribes in the mountains have this trait in common. In Bangladesh, ~90% Muslims majority population is protesting and crying for the plight of Palestinians, but are doing the exact same thing to the indigenous tribes in the hill tracts of Chittagong for more than 50 years. No empathy. Interestingly, one of the victims of this abuse - the Chakma tribe tends to do the exact same thing to the smaller tribes when they get the opportunity.

Then you look at the ethnic cleansing and genocide in Kashmir by the Hindus, in Myanmar by Buddhist monks, in Iraq and Syria by the Turks, In China by communists, in Yemen by Saudi Arabia and see the pattern. I am sorry if I have missed any other genocide and ethnic cleansing going on at the moment.

One thing I know for sure, it is not really about religion or race.

My reply: Of course. One of the main points I always emphasise is that despite Israel’s sense of ‘specialness’, there is nothing special about it or what it is doing. Israel is just a case study in world history. It is among the most noxious ones, but it is by no means original. Israel needs to be called out for what it is: One of the worst examples of humanity, but still one of many in human history, as far back as we remember our history.

Very clearly it is not about religion and race, but both are used to justify a particular psychological mindset based on deep fear and survivalism. Very human. Having said that Israel is making it about race and to some extent religion as well, and it is important that people do not get trapped in the Israeli mindset, and maintain the position you (and I) hold, that what Israel is doing is a fundamentally a human problem. The Palestinians are human and their persecutors, Israel and its society are also human. That is why what Israel is doing is a crime against humanity, not some ‘special case’ that requires ‘special consideration’.

Does religion justify genocide?

Discussions in the comments section keep going back to Judaism and Jewish identity and their relationship to what Israel is doing. In South Africa, Christian interpretations were wielded to justify apartheid. To those who called themselves ‘Christian’ supporters of apartheid, the fundamental command to 'love one another' conveniently excluded black people. Today, we see the Taliban use their interpretation of Islamic teachings to enforce what stands as one of modern history’s most severe examples of formal oppression of women. Meanwhile, in parts of Asia, Buddhist monks—followers of one of the world’s most explicitly non-violent religions—preach hatred against Muslims and participate in their murder. One can only imagine what the Buddha’s response would be to such a perversion of his teachings.

In a 2010 interview with Amina Chaudary, Archbishop Desmond Tutu said:

It is people. … some people are able to use Bible as a means of opposing injustice, whereas others are able to find justification. You can find justification for slavery in the Bible. Some say this is what the Bible says and that closes the argument. You will find that the Bible, if you want it to, will justify many things. St. Paul had a very male chauvinistic view of women. He would say things like women must not talk in church, must cover their heads, they mustn’t talk and must remember that it was a woman who first tempted and this whole mess started because women messed us up. So you can read it in such a way that it justifies polygamy. Most of the leading figures of the Old Testament were polygamists. Abraham had several wives and concubines. If they wanted, they could say this was approved in the Bible.

People will use anything. Look, when you think of the KKK, they actually have as their emblem a fiery cross. And they don’t see any contradiction between the cross, an instrument of suffering that procured our reconciliation with God, and its use as a symbol for nefarious attacks on black people. But they believe that they are being obedient to God because they can read things that they see. People in apartheid South Africa can tell you that God cursed black people when they cursed Him. And so the hermetic people were condemned to be drawers of water and of wood.

There are no monolithic religions or philosophies. Everything splits into countless interpretations as humans mould these belief systems to their needs. We, humans, possess an extraordinary talent for manipulating any system of belief to validate our pre-existing convictions, and we seem to harbour a deep psychological need for such validation. Even the most morally compromised individuals must possess a conscience somewhere in the depths of their being—a quiet voice that unsettles their certainties. Religious justifications and rationalisations have proven particularly effective at silencing this inner voice, especially because they can invoke divine authority.

Self-deception comes at a psychological cost, usually manifesting in chronic anxiety. But for many people, perceived survival takes precedence over everything, including their own wellbeing. They would rather endure a life riddled with anxiety, than confront their own inner contradictions. When Israeli Jews believe that they are facing mortal danger from Palestinians, they will find something in Jewish religion to justify genocide. But are such justifications truly there? As Desmond Tutu points out, the Bible says many things.

Our fundamental psychology, which predates all religions and philosophical systems, underlies every belief we hold and every action we take. People will extract whatever meaning serves their purposes from any text. Zionists reading my essays immediately perceive the words of a traitor. What others might consider basic human decency, they can only interpret as betrayal of the group. Their psychology predisposes them to elevate group loyalty above all other values, including truth and justice. Meanwhile, some anti-Zionist readers scan the same text and somehow see pro-Israeli sentiment. When I ask either group to read my actual words more carefully, they respond with hostility. I have had to ban some Zionists and anti-Zionists from this Substack page, because they are unable to engage with what I say and end up attacking me as a person.

This selective perception is not accidental. Our more primitive limbic psychology predisposes us to see what we want to see, filtering out information that contradicts our pre-held beliefs. We are all at risk of that. Only through conscious integration can we hope to transcend these limitations. (See my short book Therapy Without A Therapist). A psychology dominated by fear and survivalism inevitably breeds tribalism, cultism, or racism. It also produces the ‘me first’ mentality we witness in our new ‘religion’ of economic neoliberalism, where indifference to others’ suffering is repackaged as rational self-interest.

Our identity is not given to us, we need to choose it

In my family therapy education, I studied Murray Bowen’s body of theory with a special focus on his theory of ‘self-differentiation’². Bowen defined ‘differentiation’ as ‘the amount of self you have in you’. Differentiation is another word for maturity or growth, or in Interpersonal Neurobiology (IPNB) terms, integration. My teachers were adamant that if psychotherapists do not commit to their own process of ‘differentiation’, they have no business seeing clients.

Bowen understood differentiation as the process of crafting one’s own identity within the web of relationships that shape us. He recognised that as human beings develop, they inevitably synthesise their unique identity from a complex tapestry of influences: their family of origin, its beliefs and patterns, their societal context, and the historical forces that shaped their family, their people, and humanity. Bowen urged individuals to trace their family history as far back as records would permit. While we cannot draw straight lines of causation from past to present, we can develop a profound understanding of the rich context that shaped us.

I cannot recall if it was Bowen’s own metaphor, or one my teachers devised, but we can understand differentiation through the image of sorting through a personal inheritance chest. Picture a chest filled with everything you have inherited from your family and ancestors: beliefs, patterns, traditions, values, behaviours, ways of relating to others, and of seeing yourself and the world around you. As you open this chest and examine each item within, you must decide what to keep and what to discard. If your goal in life is to grow and develop to your potential, you would keep the elements that nurture your authentic development, and discard everything else. If your main goal is to survive, you would keep the elements the support your survival, and get rid of the rest. This mental exercise demands both a clear-sighted perspective and honesty with ourselves. It makes us think about what we want from our life and what is important to us. We do not simply accept all of our inheritance and live with it. By differentiating, we choose our own identity.

The most significant limitation in Bowen’s theory lies in his tendency to ignore or overlook the role of emotions. Bowen saw differentiation as primarily an intellectual journey. He underestimated, I believe, the role of uncomfortable emotions, especially fear. Difficult emotions often drive people’s resistance to differentiating from their family or group. Bowen could not imagine any reason why anyone would not want to grow towards their potential. But it is usually uncomfortable emotions that people cannot face or handle that hold them back from differentiating, and growing towards their innate potential. Emotions such as fear, guilt, loyalty, often keep people tied to an inherited identity, or a group sometimes at a great personal cost. I had to differentiate from my family of origin to be well psychologically, and from Israeli society and the identity it gave me in order to become a decent human being.

Bowen did acknowledge the fundamental tension between ‘separateness’ and ‘togetherness’ that all humans experience. We harbour both a deep need to be our unique selves, and an equally powerful, survival-driven need to belong. I have always interpreted ‘togetherness’ not merely as belonging, but as sameness. In other words, we experience tension between the need to be ourselves, and the need to be like others, to conform. This tension emerges at the very start of life in response to our environment.

Growth and differentiation are easier within mature, confident groups that are not driven by fear. Such groups value difference and diversity, and actively encourage and support their members to develop their authentic selves. For example, mature parents and grandparents consciously help children develop their own unique self, and do not demand that they think, feel, behave, eat, or dress like others in the family. Unfortunately, mature groups remain the minority. At its present level of development humanity is dominated by immature groups that make conformity the price of belonging. The more primitive the group, the more intensely it demands our conformity, and the more likely it is to interpret the individual need to differentiate as betrayal.

When people actively engage with their process of self-differentiation, their moral compass increasingly points away from group loyalty. Their ethical choices emerge from a deeper understanding of a human connection that transcends tribal boundaries. This understanding is fundamentally embodied—it starts with our shared physical experience of being human.

I have a human body, a brain, sensations, and emotions. It requires little imagination to connect with what it feels like to be wet, cold and hungry. I can viscerally relate to the terror of human beings like me who are bombed out of their homes, losing all their familiar surroundings, cherished possessions, and routines. Fear lives in every human body. I know its taste, and can imagine the primal dread of hearing approaching jets, drones and bombs. I can comprehend the psychological devastation of witnessing, or experiencing abuse by barbaric Israeli soldiers. I understand what loss feels like, and the bewildering pain of not understanding why it’s happening, or why the world stands by and does nothing to stop it.

Our shared humanity provides all the moral guidance we need. It is the most trustworthy anchor, more reliable than any religion, philosophy, or group identity, no mater how benign. The deep, embodied recognition of our shared humanity does not require us to abandon our diversity, customs, beliefs, traditions, or any labels we choose for ourselves. These can enrich our lives and communities. But our fundamental guiding principle must be our recognition of our shared human experience. I support the Palestinian people for no other reason than the simple and profound truth that we are all human beings, and this does not require any explanation or justification of any kind. It is a self-evident truth.

---

A comment on paid subscriptions

Substack encourages writers to apply paid subscriptions. They take a small cut to enable them to provide this, otherwise free-to-use platform. A few readers have pledged money for monthly or yearly subscriptions, to which I am grateful. I enjoy, and feel privileged to write and publish on this platform. But I am holding back on monetising my Substack channel, because I do not want to turn my writing into an obligation.

Below you will see a ‘buy me a coffee’ button. If you haven’t seen it before, it is a way of offering a donation to freelance writers, and others who provide similar services that are not paid work. Payments are processed securely on the ‘Buy Me A Coffee’ site, using Stripe, and I believe people can keep donations anonymous if they wish. This is entirely voluntary. Everyone is welcome to read my work free of charge.

Thank you so much for reading my work!

1. The story of Joshua’s colonisation of Canaan is told in the Biblical book of Joshua. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Joshua)

2. See also my paper Differentiating from Israel. You should be able to access it via this link, but if you encounter any problems, give me a shout. See also my adaption of Bowen’s scale of differentiation, available to download from my work website.