#deradicalization

Love your blog btw, you're a real one 😎

Thanks for the question, Molly. It's enormous, unwieldy, and totally inappropriate for this format.

So of course, I've spent days trying to answer it. To make the answer more readable, I'm going to split it into multiple parts.

Part 1: Who Has Supported a Two State Solution and Who Has Opposed it?

In seeing a two-state solution as practical and respectful, you're in very good company. That was the consensus view for decades...at least among Israelis and the international community.

1947 UN Partition Plan

The UN's partition plan proposed taking the 30% of Mandate Palestine which hadn't been turned into the Arab state of Jordan, and creating from it two more smaller states, one Jewish, one Arab.

Who supported it?

The UN, the UK, the US, and the Jewish leadership

Who opposed it?

The leaders of the surrounding Arab states and many of the Arabs of the Levant

What happened?

Instead of supporting a two-state solution, five Arab armies invaded the day after Israel declared independence.

After Israel fended off that attack, Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt occupied Gaza, and the Palestinian Arab state proposed by the UN was not created. From 1948 to 1967, none of these Arab powers suggested a Palestinian state because a Palestinian state was never their goal. Palestinianism was driven not by Palestinian nationalism, but by a rejection to Jewish nationalism.

1967 - After the Six-Day War

Israel offered to return captured territories in exchange for peace and recognition.

Who supported a two-state framework?

Israel, the US, much of the international community

Who opposed it?

The Arab League responded with the "Three No's" of Khartoum: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel

What happened?

No progress toward Palestinian statehood.

Camp David 2000

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered a Palestinian state on approximately 94% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Who supported a two-state solution?

Israel, the US (Clinton administration), the international community

Who opposed it?

Yasir Arafat walked away without a counteroffer.

What happened?

The Second Intifada - a wave of about 140 suicide bombings and violence explicitly targeting civilians.

2008 Olmert Offer

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered even more generous terms, including a Palestinian state on territory equivalent to 100% of the West Bank (with land swaps), and a shared, divided Jerusalem.

Who supported this two-state solution?

Israel, the US, the international community

Who opposed it?

Abbas told Olmert that the offer "was very serious," and that he needed to study the map, but he never responded or returned to the talks.

What happened?

A lot of things, none of them Palestinian statehood.

Throughout the 2000s-2010s, polls consistently showed Israeli public support for a two-state solution at 60-70% when coupled with security guarantees. American Jews overwhelmingly supported it. The international consensus embraced it.

The major obstacle to a two-state solution has been consistent over time.

If Palestinian leadership had ever actually sought a state, they'd have one. Instead, they sought maximalism and the death of Israel. At every turn, they've chosen war and ruin over the hard work of actually building a state.

This tells us a great deal about their goals and motives - and building a Palestinian state is not at the top of their list.

Palestinian statehood has never been the goal of Palestinianism. Palestinianism was created and has been sustained for the explciit purpose of the prevention/elimination of a Jewish state in any borders.

To come:

Part 2: If the two-state solution is possible, how can the prerequisite of Palestinian deradicalization be accomplished?

Right now, you probably feel extremely uncomfortable when you see the words “Jew”, “Zionism”, “Israel”, and “antisemitic”. You may feel very strong negative emotions. You may even be triggered into heightened emotions you feel you can’t control. Anger, disgust, fear. You feel it in your gut.

Those words probably didn’t cause fear and disgust two and a half years ago. You can unlearn that. It will help you join up with folks seeking peace and justice, because a lot of us are Jewish.

My recommendation is to follow some Jewish positivity blogs, ones that don’t post about the war, and who just share the bright side of Judaism you probably haven’t heard about in a long time. You need to see that every faith and culture has good sides to it, and that no one is demonic or evil to their core. We’re just all humans.

This is how you deradicalize. This is how you unlearn hate.

I would be the happiest goy-cosplayer alive if I only could know this one thing, man. It's so hard to say, because most people who hold some level of antizionist attitudes are just normal people who are shaped by the news they read. I'm fairly confident most of those people could be turned around with just a bit of elbow grease and better information.

With online leftists, it's so much harder to say. At this point I'm not really sure you can draw any clear lines between those two groups. Based on my personal experiences, so much online antizionism is fuelled by what could charitably be seen as misguided anger and helplessness at seeing endless content about the misery in Gaza, dead children, crying mothers, combined with the al-Jazeera-type of one-sided framing of Israel as the cause of the suffering. "This is so horrible, why is no one doing anything about it?" can in the right context fester into the vilest type of antisemitic conspiracy bullshit imaginable, like it did for me.

Most of them absolutely feel like their rage is born from caring about people who suffer - everyone thinks their anger and hatred is good and justified, obviously. Trying to deradicalize people like that is so hard, because you have to fight against the psychological factors fueling the inclination to swallow misinformation, conspiracy-theorizing and fanaticism. Especially since your own personal grievances get folded into it. Therefore every one of them will be convinced by different things.

I would say most of them really do want the excuse to hate, even if they started out just feeling angry and helpless about real tragedies. If you don't feel like you have the power to change a horrible situation, it's pretty natural to turn to hate and rage. It's all self-reinforcing, which is the hard part. And if the question "what kind of monsters would do things this evil?" is easily answered in the content you consume by employing all the classic antisemitic tropes imaginable, you're gonna start hating jews. Even if you convince yourself that it's "only Israel, not jews" - it never is. This is also combined with making excuses for Palestinian violence against Israelis - "if my child was killed in an Israeli air strike, I would also do that", is what you tell yourself. Nevermind that treating people like human beings means holding Palestinians accountable for rage-motivated violence the same way they claim that Israelis who've suffered at the hands of Palestinian violence aren't justified to do the same. There's so much cognitive dissonance, which is hard for people to accept that they have, because they've been conditioned to excuse it as rational.

A lot of them also couldn't care less about "liberal values", if we're talking about the tankie crowd - then they're even more inclined to justify violence against Israeli civilians.

For my part, I was probably lucky that I had someone who helped me in my Moment of Realization - it would have taken much longer otherwise. Still, I fought tooth and nail to hold on to my beliefs the entire way, because it's never fun to change, especially when that means you have to accept how much of a piece of shit you have been. A few things I remember that helped in particular was this video by Haviv Rettig Gur about how Palestinians view Israel (👇)- because it helped me realise that Israelis were actually thinking about why Palestinians hate them beyond just "they're evil fanatics". Every step was small pieces of propaganda that got dismanteled, like taking apart a brick wall one brick at a time.

I care a lot about the effort of deradicalizing these people, because I feel a sense of personal shame and responsibility for them - and an immense amount of frustration. I just don't know how you're supoosed to do that effectively - nor am I going to tailor everything I say to be as diplomatic as possible, because I'm also just human. But I shouldn't forget how hard it was for me to do myself, either. (I also reject the idea that it's some responsibility for jews or Israelis in general to try and help these people not be awful idiots, because it isn't.)

[Image ID: A screenshot of a reblog from user anti-sexist-enban that shows the hashtags "#oh my gods exactly #I am not saying women & gender minorities are to *blame* for so many cis men being radicalized #but I *am* trying to point out what we can do to *benefit* our cause -- what helps with deradicalization #antisexism"]

I saved this awhile ago because it's a real touchy topic, but it needs to be discussed because there's a strong temptation to lean so far into righteous activism that you ignore human psychology, and that's one of the fastest ways to kneecap your own movement and ideas.

First: What's below is so valid. 100% and completely.

[Image ID: Screenshot of a post from user queendread that says "The fact that oppressed people can't make a single angry statement about their oppressors without being asked to clarify they didn't mean *literally everyone in that group* just in case they hurt someone's feelings blows my f cking mind.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings by pointing out that you're part of a group that benefits from the dehumanisation of others.

I guess I was just too busy being *actively dehunanised* to care."]

However, the rise of the internet has changed how these kind of statements (broad generalizations about groups of people who have traditionally or currently hold power) will be processed and perceived. It's valid and harmless to say shit like "All men are trash" to your girl friends on a night out while talking about someone's latest asshole ex. Everyone party to the conversation knows what you mean and empathizes with the experience you're conveying with that simplified statement.

The effect those kind of statements have when they are posted online or are widely taken up as slogans are much different, and in my opinion, do more harm than good.

First issue: They become divorced from context. In the in-person example, everyone knows that what you mean by "all men are trash" is "Goddammit dating is hard, and so many men are ultimately terrible partners." Just posted as a general statement, not everyone who views it will have that context. It could be misinterpreted as genuine misanthropy. For every hundred people who say "all men are trash," 99 are women frustrated with various common male behavior, but 1 is an extremist who really means "men's only use should be as sperm donors" (this is meant to be illustrative about extremist opinions in larger movements, not a real statistic).

Second issue: Misinterpretation of popularity. When big accounts post stuff like this, and it gets thousands of likes and shares, there's a strong tendency of the people who are targeted by the statement to perceive every single one of those interactions as a literal endorsement of the statement. Like I think when men see "All men are trash" with 50K retweets on Twitter, the subconscious interpretation they immediately land on is "50K women hate me personally without even knowing me," and I would guess a very small percentage are introspective enough to make the jump from that initial thought to understanding that what that really means is, "At least 50K women have had such negative interactions with men that they find this statement relatable. Holy shit that means every woman I know has probably experienced something awful at the hands of men. I should really be more cognizant of women's issues."

Key thing here: A lack of introspectiveness is not a fatal flaw that makes someone an unsalvageable tool of the patriarchy lol. It's an empathetic skill that has to be learned, so to discount all the people who do need a little bit of hand holding in order to make that interpretative leap is really just taking the easy way out in activism and feeding into ideological polarization, i.e. "If you're a man, and you read this, and your first thought is 'not all men,' then you're the trash they're talking about." <- Nah. Way too harsh, unrealistic, and unproductive. When someone criticizes a group you're part of, the first thing you're going to think of is your role in that group. It's natural.

Third issue: Receiving a criticism without receiving instructions on how to do better is ~INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATING~. You know who I know that shares "all men are trash"? Only women and a handful of gay men. You know who shares "Remember. Bro code DOES NOT include covering for a rapist."? ALL my homies, male and female. Because it's a lot easier to say yes to a call to action and spread it than it is to receive a general criticism and then try to come up with what to do about it yourself.

Fourth issue: Negative bias. You know how you should always take the proportion of negative reviews on a business with a grain of sand because angry people are way more likely to post a negative review than satisfied people are to post a good review? Kind of same deal. People think of their own bad experiences with men and share "all men are trash." But on a good day, when a man has been kind and supportive, does anyone ever post "Thankful for the men who work on themselves and genuinely want to support women."? If they do, they do it far less often. This means that the target group, here men, are way more likely to get bathed in vague negative criticism when they're online (and online makes up a significant portion of people's lives now) than they are to get a balanced perspective or actionable instructions on how to be better. Which brings me too...

Fifth issue: Social media's biased algorithms amplify statements like that beyond their natural context and reach. So whereas the average dude would not hear "all men are trash" in person unless they'd personally just done something heinous or had the context of a group of girls discussing men who have wronged them, the likelihood that they'll wake up for the day and open social media, get inundated by "all men are trash" type posts, and then repeat every time they get online is much higher.

Once, I even got fed up with it and posted something like "Hey. Not all men are trash. I have a lot of great male friends. If you genuinely believe all men are trash, maybe look at how you're choosing your company." [Context: This was due to being fed up with female friends who were sharing things like this while openly admitting it was over stuff us unserious as their boyfriends breaking up with them and "daring to ask that they could still be friends." I acknowledge this could be a statement that stings for people actively traumatized by men. That's not who it's directed at.] And my DM's got flooded with men I know just saying thank you because they felt seen for a second, and half of them inadvertantly poured their hearts out about how it really did hurt/upset them to see those statements constantly, but they were aware that for a whole host of reasons, they weren't allowed to express that (including that they were very consciously aware that their feelings of dejection didn't compare to women's negative experiences with men).

My point in drawing attention to these dynamics is because we're seeing some of the consequences of them play out in real time. The constant feeling of being categorically hated, even if it's not associated with tangible oppression, combined with feeling like you can never express those feelings without negative backlash, creates a well of pent up emotion, that in turn, makes people feeling that way incredibly vulnerable to manipulation by people offering them validation.

That is part of what has happened with conservatives in America. This is not solely the fault of the left, but because so many people who care about leftist issues get too heated in arguments and call anyone discussing conservative views stupid, conservatives have started to feel categorically hated, and Trump + Elon and the gang have been offering them validation. Again, not to say that this is all the left's fault (because it's not like there aren't the same type of people on the right), but here's what I've seen at play here:

People who care about leftist issues are often very intense and resort to being snarky if not outright insulting in arguments. It's not everyone, but it's enough that most conservative people have experienced at least one personal interaction like this. Additionally, people who want to support leftist issues but don't really have the background to explain them try to make up for it in hardline intensity. Ex: During the first round of covid vaccinations, I saw pretty much anyone expressing any concerns about the vaccine automatically branded as a backward, dumb, antivaxxer in the comments. My conservative friends who trust me had to resort to going to my DMs to say things like,

"Hey, I really just have some questions about the safety of the vaccine because it was produced so quickly, but if I question anything about the vaccine, people immediately shut me down. Can we talk about this?"

And you know what? Fair. Fair to feel upset and automatically suspicious of people who won't let you ask any questions. Fair to not trust that people who are actively disrespecting you somehow have your best interests in mind.

Because I do have the background, I'd then quickly explain that 1) The tech to make the vaccine had existed for years, so it was not new, untested technology. 2) The vaccine components rapidly degrade in your body, so I actually trust the mRNA vaccines MORE than traditional vaccines. 3) The reason it was able to be developed so quickly is because it became a national priority. They'd just witnessed what can happen when the government fully funds and prioritizes science.

And guess what? That got them asking things like "Why can't the government do that for cancer research?" And I'd be like "GREAT QUESTION! I think we should *both* go to the federal government and ask them that (because they absolutely could make that a national health priority)!"

Suddenly we have common ground.

What they don't tell you about civil discourse is that it's not about maintaining some Victorian idea of manners or playing nice with oppressors; it's about discussing ideas in a way that falls in line with human psychology - with the circumstances under which people (in general) will and won't accept new/differing perspectives.

Circling back to current events, because most conservatives have had at least one highly negative interaction like this and frequently see tweets/posts bashing conservatives on the internet, they're vulnerable to additional rage bait - content designed to feed into their existing feeling of being insulted and silenced - and sympathy from people manipulating them for their own gain (Trump).

Has anyone seen someone go from supporting Hamas/Hezbollah/PFLP while claiming they aren’t antisemitic to understanding why those orgs are in fact antisemitic and changing their position?

Curious not because I think it’s a good use of our time to try to convince terrorist supporters why they’re wrong, but because if it’s a thing that people have had success with we could come up with a guide for well meaning gentiles to be able to deradicalize their friends.