The bloody conflict that has engulfed Gaza for over two months now poses a true test to the stance of various countries regarding the core humanitarian values of freedom, justice, and equality. This situation has fueled the mainstream perception of selective solidarity and sympathy, along with a double standard in judgments and positions towards events occurring in the East and West. Often, these are influenced by interests that supersede principles—principles and values that are supposed to be the constitution of our era when it comes to self-determination and human rights. Human rights, in their universal sense, apply to everyone regardless of their religious, cultural, or ethnic background; at least, that is the rhetorical agreement within international thought and charters.
Over these two months, the extent of the contradiction, or even the hypocrisy, undermining these Western humanitarian values has become apparent. The fortress of human rights legislation, the philosophy of liberties, equality, justice, and the model of liberal democracy in America and Europe, have all but collapsed in terms of their practical reality, where interests devoid of values and might stripped of morality prevail. This is not only seen through the eyes of Arab and Islamic populations—those with bitter experiences of power, colonization, and destruction in the name of those very slogans—but also among a broad spectrum of Western public opinion itself.
The Western public has been jolted awake by the bloodshed in Gaza, accompanied by political stances that display a deep moral regression—stances that may have long-term effects on the psychological and knowledge-based positions of Arab and Islamic peoples. These countries have not yet shaken the superiority complex in their view of ‘the other’—in terms of civilization, culture, and people—which might exacerbate the sharp differences between the East and the West, fueling cultural and civilizational dissimilarities. Might Europe and America’s biased support for Israel lead to drawing a new world map based on stark cultural foundations and, thereby, deepening the rift between West and East? Or can an awakening of conscience in the Western public—which has manifested in growing empathy towards the Palestinian cause—create equilibrium in the foreseeable future and lead to changing the prevailing narrative?
Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” theory was premised on fuelling conflict based on sharp cultural divides between East and West, casting Islam and Arab-Islamic culture in hues of violence inspired by religious roots. The stark divide between the West and the East, as perceived by the Arab and Islamic public, is inextricable from the cultural and civilizational allegiance, compounded by the intertwined interests through the functional role these countries play in the Middle East.
For some, witnessing visits that display support and alignment with the Israeli narrative, along with providing complete political cover for a military operation that resulted in the deaths of thousands of children, women, and elders, raises suspicion. The general moral and legal custom in wars is that there are ethical boundaries and sanctuaries that should not be violated. However, what has transpired in plain view of the world is the complete opposite, with those countries that crafted the modern ethics of law appearing to endorse these violations and embed a state of double standards and contradiction.
This reveals that, more often than not, stances are based on grounds far removed from moral and value-based motivations, as further accentuated by the political and media narrative that justifies the war, considers any political and ethical criticism—a reminder of the issues of occupation, settlement, and the suppression of Palestinian rights—as anti-Semitic, warranting legal prosecution and media ostracism. The nature of this shift—in policies that support ethnic cleansing and the brutal mistreatment of Palestinians—will likely only increase the chasm between East and West, deepen disagreements on sharp bases, and erode bridges between these countries and the Arab and Islamic worlds, which hold a special place for Palestine and Al-Aqsa Mosque in their culture and history.
The standards that guide negative stances and alignments drawn on the canvas of Palestinian blood are part of a long history of similar alignments, be it with the extended plight of the Palestinian people or with numerous similar events since the colonial expansion, where dynamics and motivations often revolve around the “us” versus “them” dichotomy, permeated by an amalgamation of cultural, political, and general civilizational and religious aspects, characterized by generalization and extremism, devoid of ethical or rational sense, and thus calling forth roots of conflict that pose a danger to the future.
Civilizational clashes thrive when humanitarian and ethical standards disappear. The alignment of most Western countries—regarding the ongoing war on Gaza—evokes the nature of the relationship between West and East, historically marked by ebbs and flows: congruence at times and conflict at others, with political and military disputes continuously feeding the cultural contrast and highlighting elements of religious and civilizational difference.
Despite the West not being a monolith, made up of various intersecting blocs, and the East not being what many Western politicians and intellectuals conceive, the stark stance formed against Arab and Muslim civilization—on the historical stage since the Middle Ages to Andalusia, and subsequently through colonization—has made the relationship tumultuous and rendered the differences and disparities a priority over efforts to communicate and cooperate.
This geopolitical trend was shaped after the collapse of the Soviet Union, with the world map engineered on cultural and civilizational bases by those harboring such cultural inclinations, like Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington, who embodied the ideological challenge facing the United States in Islam, characterized by excessive, shallow generalizations and a view of the world based on rigid, monolithic cultural and civilizational moulds. In contrast, a pluralistic and dynamic perspective could foster just and equitable bridges of communication and networking between cultures and peoples based on mutual understanding and respect.
Huntington’s clash-based vision of civilizations, which once dominated the consciousness of the neoconservatives for a time, represented a strategic orientation for the United States at the time, a vision fuelling conflict based on sharp cultural foundations between East and West. Although this view has faded from the rhetoric of academics and politicians, the practices evident in the current conflict in Palestine have brought it back to the forefront, advocating for education reforms to eradicate the seeds of violence from Palestinian consciousness, and portraying the conflict as a purely religious struggle.
Remarkably, such narratives overlook the Islamic religion’s inherent values, texts, and civilizational experience in establishing coexistence, tolerance, and mercy on solid ethical foundations. Furthermore, they obscure the core issue—occupation, settlement, and the international failure to deliver justice to the Palestinian people according to UN resolutions, which require Israel to respect international law and remove the blockade on two million people in Gaza.
Now is the time for action to rescue Gaza from the inferno and from thousands of tons of explosives that wreak havoc on buildings and scorch humanity in plain sight of the world. The scale of the bloodshed, the disregard for human sanctity and right to life, and the distortion of reality all amount to some of the most heinous crimes against humanity ever witnessed. The human conscience should have awakened when a minister in the war government described Palestinians as mere human animals, a prelude to a process of cleansing and mass killing.
Yet, amid this tragedy, the Palestinian cause has sparked new dynamics among Western public opinion itself, striking a balance against the negative political stance of a number of countries and tipping the scales toward collaboration based on ethical and humanitarian foundations. In crisis and conflict, and under the pressures exerted by psychological, cognitive, and political dynamics, people’s sensitive positions are formed. Given Palestine’s symbolism in Arab and Islamic consciousness, the unfolding events extend their influence across the geographic scope of the Islamic world.
The alignment in the war on Gaza, under the pretext of self-defense without regard for violated Palestinian rights, is symptomatic of a severe imbalance in the Western political systems and the consciousness upon which relationships are forged, reminding us of the roots of colonialism issues and culture—a development that could deepen the rift and intensify the gap on sharp cultural and civilizational bases between the West and East, compounding future problems if there is no shift from this morally regressive stance.
However, at the heart of this calamity, the Palestinian issue has managed to generate a new dynamism within Western public opinion itself, which has balanced against the negative political position of several countries and favored prospects of cooperation on ethical and humanitarian grounds.
