The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Girardian Perspective

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been waged since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 and it has spawned many opinions and theories about the role of religion in the conflict. Many scholars have tried to analyse the situation in order to find the root of the conflict and to try and explain exactly why there is no resolution in sight. This paper will examine the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in relation to René Girard’s theories of mimetic desire, mimetic rivalry and the scapegoat mechanism and find that each of these theories is significant in the conflict. In order to demonstrate the significance of mimesis and the scapegoat theory, they will be applied to three components of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The essay will firstly provide an overview of the theories of René Girard before delving into discussion of the conflict. Then, mimetic desire will be examined in relation to the Zionist movement and the creation of the Jewish homeland. This will then be followed by an analysis of the selection of Jerusalem and the West Bank for the Jewish State in relation to mimetic rivalry. Lastly, the scapegoat mechanism will be discussed in relation to the assassination of the Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin. These three examples corresponding to Girard’s three theories will reveal the importance of the mimetic desire and rivalry as well as the scapegoat mechanism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

René Girard’s works on mimetic desire have influenced many current-day scholars and it seems to have universal application potential. Girard’s theory addresses human desire and hence, the relationship between desire and violence (Stirling, 2004, 11). For the purpose of this essay, the discussion of Girard’s work will cover three main areas: mimetic desire, mimetic rivalry and the scapegoat mechanism. These areas are all very closely related and the first to be explained will be mimetic desire. As Girard states, “the subject thus looks to the other person to inform him of what he should desire in order to acquire that being” (Girard, 2005, 145-146). This means that humans desire what others have and as an extension, what others desire (Kirwan, 2005, 15).. Fundamentally, Humans desire something not due to its intrinsic value, but because others desire to possess it (Reynolds, 2009, 84). This leads to the idea of mimetic rivalry. After the subject has learnt to desire a particular object, conflict can result (Stirling, 2004, 17). At first, the model is admired for possessing the desired object, thus giving the object value. However, the subject will desire the model’s object which will imbue the model with a greater sense of being and when the subject tries to acquire the object, the model will move in order to stop the acquisition (Stirling, 2004, 18). The result of the rivalry is a cycle of increasing competition which exponentially increases the desire. This process then escalates and spreads like a contagion through mimesis among group members until it threatens destructive chaos (Reynolds, 2009, 85). It is at this point that the group will look for a scapegoat. The scapegoat mechanism is a solution to the cumulative tension brought about by mimetic rivalry. The scapegoat is the victim onto whom the group transfers their violent impulses without worry of corresponding competition. The person is identified, blamed for the troubles and then ‘sacrificed’ by either killing or expelling as a substitute for the mimetic rivalries (Reynolds, 2009, 85-86). As has been explained, Girard’s three theories about mimesis are extremely important in order to examine all types of conflict.

The original source of the religious violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the creation of the Jewish state of Israel, stemming from the Zionist movement which displays Girard’s theory of mimetic desire. In order to understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one must understand the history and context of the Zionist movement. Zionism is a Jewish political movement that supported the establishment of a Jewish national homeland (Gurock, 1998, 298). There are many different sorts of Zionism, though they all share a common trait, the claim to Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, based on religious and historical ties to the Land of Israel (Simoni, 1997, 346).The movement was eventually successful and on 14th May 1948, the State of Israel was formed as the Jewish homeland (Taylor, 1971, 10). However, the Palestinians and the Arab states rejected Israel being created in western Palestine and demanded a single state leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. This created a domino effect of religious violence. The Arab armies invaded Israel and the conflict lead to the flight of 711 000 Palestinians from Israel and the exodus of approximately 850 000 Jews from the surrounding Arab nations. The Israeli government then passed a law which prevented the expelled Palestinians from returning to claim their property or live in their homes (Shavit, 2004). Many people would also label the expulsion of Palestinians as ethnic cleansing (Pappe, 2006, 129). Basically, the establishment of the State of Israel in the heart of what was a previously Islamic land marked a major turning point in Islamic anti-Semitism (Judaken, 2008, 542). However, the conflict stems from mimetic desire of the land. Essentially, both the Jewish people and the Palestinian people desire the same land. The key issues of the conflict continue to be security, water and control of Jerusalem (Sela, 2002, 492). The Zionist movement was also brought about by the desire of the Jewish people to have what people of other nationalities possessed—a homeland. As it can be seen, Girard’s theory of mimetic desire is very influential in this case as mimetic desire can be seen in two instances, both in the idea of the nation and for the land possessed by the Palestinians resulting in mimetic rivalry and culminating in religious violence.

The ensuing conflicts that followed the creation of the Jewish nation-state, Israel, can be easily described by Girard’s theory of mimetic rivalry. For the purposes of this argument, the holy city of Jerusalem will be the object of both Palestine and Israel’s desire and hence, the source of conflict. Jerusalem is a holy city in all three Abrahamic faiths: Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The Jewish people want ownership of this land as to them; it is their holiest city while in Islam, Jerusalem is their third holiest city (Friedland & Hecht, 2000, 8). This means that both nations claim to have a religious interest in the holy city that they keep fighting over; however, the mimetic rivalry furthers the conflict over Jerusalem. ‘Ownership’ of the city has changed frequently since the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. In the 1948 war, Israel captured West Jerusalem whilst East Jerusalem was taken by Jordan. Israel then seized East Jerusalem in 1967 and the Basic Law then referred to Jerusalem as Israel’s ‘undivided capital.’ However, internationally, Jerusalem is not recognised as Israel’s capital, and most treat East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory being held by Israel under military occupation (United Nations). In this case, and as displayed in Girard’s theory, each protagonist blames the other for the conflict (Stirling, 2004, 18). This change of ‘ownership’ is clearly displaying Girard’s theory of mimetic rivalry, as previously stated; there is a cycle of ever increasing competition increasing desire of the object exponentially threatening to unravel into chaos (Reynolds, 2009, 85). As one Jewish commentator stated, “Jewish control over the scared city was essential” many regarded it as heretical to give up the least bit of Biblical land (Juergensmeyer, 2003, 37). However, at least a part of this sentiment could be explained by mimetic rivalry and the desire to keep the other party from possessing the sacred land. However, in the 1990’s, peace talks were becoming increasingly effective, until the Oslo Accords and the assassination of the Prime Minister in 1994. Alas, yet again, the violence began and the world saw some of the most brutal, violent attacks in modern history. René Girard’s theory of mimetic rivalry can be easily seen different phases of occupation of Jerusalem since the creation of the state of Israel.

The scapegoat mechanism can be seen many times throughout the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; however the case that will be used is the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. The assassination was a reaction to the signing of the Oslo Peace Accords. The Accords called for withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of the Gaza strip and West Bank, affirming the Palestinian right of government from within those areas (Mattar, 2005, 67). November 4, 1995 Rabin addressed a crowd of 100,000 telling them that he believed Israeli’s believed in peace and they were ‘ready to take a risk for it’ (Juergensmeyer, 2003, 48). Shortly after exiting the stage, a student shot the Prime Minister at point-blank range. As the student, Yigal Amir, was being apprehended he claimed to have ‘no regrets’ and that he ‘acted alone and on orders from God’ (Juergensmeyer, 2003, 48). Yigal Amir had seen a Rabbi and was informed that his actions would be justified by the ‘pursuer’s decree’ of Jewish legal precedence which morally obligates a Jew to halt someone who represents a ‘mortal danger’ to the Jewish people. Rabin presented this danger as he was allowing the Palestinian authority to expand into the West Bank (Juergensmeyer, 2003, 49). Many Zionists believed that the creation of a Palestinian government on the West Bank posed a danger not only to Israel, but to Jews in general and Judaism as a religion (Juergensmeyer, 2003, 53). The assassination of Rabin acted as a scapegoat mechanism within the Jewish community. The mimesis was still taking place over Jerusalem and the Israeli population did not want to concede even some ownership to the Palestinians and hence, the Prime Minister was “sacrificed” for the greater good of the Jewish community in the eyes of the Zionists. In Girard’s theory, it is common for the victim to exhibit stereotypical qualities that mark the victim as different or standing out from the others in the group (Reynolds, 2009, 89). In this case, Rabin was willing to concede some holy land to achieve peace, whereas, others in the Jewish community were not. Girard’s scapegoat theory can be applied to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, one of the many lives lost within the religious violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This paper has examined the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in relation to René Girard’s theories of mimetic desire and rivalry as well as the scapegoat mechanism to find that each of these theories is significant within the conflict. In order to demonstrate this significance, the three theories were applied to three components of the conflict. Mimetic desire was discussed in relation to the forging of the Jewish sovereign state. It was found that mimetic desire was seen twice in this instance: the first time being the mimetic desire of the Jewish people to have what other nationalities had, a nation state; secondly, the desire to have the land that was occupied by the Palestinians, in particular, Jerusalem. The occupation and constant fighting over the city of Jerusalem was then examined in regards to the theory of mimetic rivalry. It was found that the constant fighting and taking of Jerusalem by one state then the other, only lead to a cycle of mimetic rivalry which intensified over time and is continuing even today. Lastly, the scapegoat mechanism was analysed in relation to the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. It was found that Rabin acted as a scapegoat for the Jewish people and their unhappiness to give up control of some of the West Bank to the Palestinian authorities. The three examples that corresponded to Girard’s three theories have shown that mimetic desire; rivalry and the scapegoat mechanism are extremely significant in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and are still active within the conflict today.

Bibliography

Friedland, Roger & Hecht, Richard D. To Rule Jerusalem. USA: University of California Press. 2000.

Girard, René. Violence and the Sacred. Great Britain: Continuum. 2005.

Gurock, Jeffery S. “American Zionism: Mission and Politics.” In American Jewish History. USA: Routledge. 1998, 288-301.

Judaken, Johnathan. “So What’s New? Rethinking the ‘New Anti-Semitism’ in a Global Age.” In Patterns of Prejudice 42, no. 4 – 5 (2008), 531-560.

Juergensmeyer, Mark. "ZION betrayed.” In Terror in the Mind of God: the Global Rise of Religious Violence. USA: University of California Press. 2003. 45-60.

Kirwan, Michael. Discovering Girard. UK: Darton, Longman & Todd. 2005.

Mattar, Philip. Encyclopedia of the Palestinians. USA: Facts on File. 2005.
Pappe, Ilan. The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. England: Oneworld Publications. 2006.

Reynolds, Thomas E. “Beyond Violence in Monotheism: Interfaith Possibilities in René Girard’s Theory of Mimetic Rivalry.” Studies in Interreligious Dialogue 19, no. 1 (2009), 81-101.

Roshwald, Aviel. “Jewish Identity and the Paradox of Nationalism.” In Nationalism, Zionism and Ethnic Mobilization of the Jews in 1990 and Beyond. Edited by Michael Berkowitz. Netherlands: Kominklijke Brill NV. 2004, 11-25.

Sela, Abraham. “Jerusalem.” In The Continuum Political Encyclopaedia of the Middle East. New York: Continuum. 2002. 491-498.
Shavit, Ari. “Survival of the Fittest: An Interview with Benny Morris.” In Logos Journal 3, (2004), http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm

Shimoni, Gideon. The Zionist Ideology. USA: Brandeis University Pres., 1997.

Stirling, Mark. “Violent Religion: René Girard’s Theory of Culture.” In The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, edited by J Harold Ellens. USA: Praeger Publishers. 2004, 11-50.

Taylor, A. R. “Vision and Intent in Zionist Thought.” In The Transformation of Palestine. Edited by I. Abu-Lughod. USA: North-western University Pres., 1971. 8-15.

United Nations. “The Status of Jerusalem.” In The Question of Palestine and the United Nations. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/palestine/ch12.pdf