The past two years of war have been a lesson in psychological asymmetry, the phenomenon whereby a strong military force “loses” a psychological battle to a weaker force. It is now clearer than ever that the strategy of the Palestinian movement to gain by losing has achieved tangible results. Despite, or possibly because of a crushing defeat, the Western world has fallen victim to the psychological ammunition of a people who have used victimhood psychologically and terror militarily.
Victimhood is the psychological equivalent of a nuclear weapon. It utterly changes the perceptual landscape and casts fallout that spreads well beyond the borders of the conflict itself. It erases any weakness or guilt associated with behavior that would otherwise be considered horrific. Victimhood allows an aggressor the freedom to be absolved of any accusation that they, in fact, are responsible for the consequences of their behavior. It is the ultimate tool of actors who care only about the survival of an ideology and not about the people they purport to represent.
Victimhood provides cover for those in the West whose agenda against Israel is based on other factors. Whether basic animosity toward Jewish nationalism or political self-interest to appease domestic needs, claiming that one acts in the interest of justice allows the optics of effectively supporting the goals of a terror group to be obfuscated.
While victimhood may create a psychologically weaker Israel in the West, its effect in the Middle East may be the polar opposite. Here, as the old conventional wisdom dictates, strength is power and power, not victimhood, is respected. Western ideology and idealism may punish the strong, but in an area of the world where tribal traditions determine perception, Israel is seen as a force to be reckoned with. Clear victories in Lebanon and Iran have cast a shadow of grudging respect borne of fear across the entire region. In an area where Israel can strike thousands of kilometers from home, there is no appetite to be the next victim.
Since defeating Israel militarily is not currently possible, the focus switches to weakening it psychologically. Here, two factors are in play. First, attacking Israel externally. Protests in the streets, on campuses, in social and mainstream media, as well as supporting boycotts against Israel, feed the push for political criticism and support for a Palestinian state. Second, weakening Israel internally. Here, by exploiting the remaining hostages, fostering dissent, and creating an atmosphere where pressure is placed on the government to cease pursuit of its goal of ending Hamas rule.
This approach, taken from the playbook for opposing South African apartheid, is being copied by the Palestinian movement. Here, for example, is what an AI explanation of “attacking South African apartheid” said: “Opposition to South African apartheid took the form of domestic resistance, including protests, boycotts, and strikes, and international condemnation through boycotts, economic and arms sanctions, and diplomatic pressure by organizations like the UN and various global movements.”
Everything said above applies to the psychological war against Israel, a war in which the short-term goal is changing attitudes against the Jewish state and the long-term goal is ending its existence. It is a Bizarro world approach where most of the civilized world, as represented by the United Nations, votes to create a Palestinian state and condemns Israel for genocide, using the same language that describes almost exactly what the Palestinian victim attempted on October 7, 2023.
Israelis, whose sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers have fought against Palestinian fighters in Gaza, know that their soldiers are not trying to kill babies or intentionally target civilians. Palestinian families with fighters belonging to Hamas or PIJ cannot in good faith make the same claim. Yet the more the victimhood card is played, the more politicians, actors, entertainers, and people in the street accept the equation of victimhood=innocence, the more Israel and Israelis will bear the brunt of false guilt.
Fortunately, the most essential player in the game, namely the United States government, has not joined the anti-Israel team. But the more the game is played, and the more otherwise decent people are exposed to the false claim of Palestinian innocence, the more likely it is that a future United States government will treat Israel much like it treated South Africa at the end of the previous century.
Fighting an enemy with nuclear potential requires destroying its arsenal. But unlike bombing a site like Fordo, the myth of innocent Palestinian victimhood is in the hearts and minds of people whose perceptions have been set and whose attitudes are firm.
It will not be an easy battle.
