Demonstrators demonstrate against the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu (Getty)
Our generation - the generation of the eighties of the last century - was destined to be overtaken by events and faced by major events. The beginning was the October 1973 war, and we were in the primary stage. We have not completed ten years. At that time, we kept the newspapers from this period until they turned yellow, along with the remains of the downed Israeli planes.
We entered the university with the assassination of Sadat in 1981, and we and a number of colleagues devoted our graduation thesis to the effects of the Iranian Revolution (1979) on the legitimacy of Arab political systems.
We interacted with the vitality of the Arab public sphere - give and take - in the eighties and nineties, which extended until the first decade of the new millennium, to live the Arab Spring uprisings in its two waves. During these extended decades, the first and second Gulf Wars broke out, and the successive Palestinian uprisings, and we witnessed the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, and the United States’ sole dominance over the global system, and September 11, 2001, which inaugurated the era of the “War on Terror” that extended for two decades until the American withdrawal from Afghanistan. And the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and last but not least; "Al-Aqsa Flood" 2023.
These events - in their entirety - announced the end of a way of thinking and approaches that had prevailed for decades, giving way to a new one that was gradually taking shape and becoming clearer. I took great care in delving into the impact these events and facts had on patterns of thinking and ways of understanding, and they were all of a pivotal and distinct nature.
Would you allow me, dear reader, to practice some of my hobby in this regard, asking: What new can the “Al-Aqsa Flood” offer us in understanding the world around us?
My thinking has guided me - and I hope I am not wrong - to the fact that what the Al-Aqsa “flood” can offer us is confirmation of the methods of view that should govern our thinking in the twenty-first century, which I believe - and some suspicion is not wrong - are completely different from the way of thinking that ruled the century. The twentieth century, which was the beginning of the transition from the eighties of the last century, but it was greatly strengthened in the last decade of the twentieth century.
Contemporary theoretical approaches are based on several foundations, including:
First: The lack of cognitive certainty, as the phenomena are complex, complex, and interconnected, such that a small factor, actor, or distant event can cause extended, profound, and influential effects on the entire world, and may change the entire system or bring about qualitative shifts in it.
The "Al-Aqsa Flood" is one of these types of events that will have lasting effects in the region and the world, and of course in the Palestinian issue and the Zionist entity. The war on the Palestinians does not seem to have a single context, but rather multiple contexts. They may seem separate at times, but they are intersecting and intertwined, which increases their complexity.
The Nakba and the new displacement, the future of the so-called axis of resistance under the current rules of engagement, the relationship of Iran and Turkey with the Palestinian issue - where their interests seem to have trumped the Palestinian tragedy - the paralysis of the United Nations, and the inability of the international system to impose a ceasefire or adhere to international humanitarian law, have shaped Governance in Israel after the war, the relationship between the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, the future of the Palestinian Authority, competition in the international system and its transformation from unipolarity to multipolarity... the list goes on and on, but what is certain is that an event like the flood will leave its direct and indirect effects on all of these contexts.
Talking about the future is complex and characterized by uncertainty, as many factors intersect, such as: climate change, technological developments, and economic conditions, and many incidents surprise us, such as the Corona pandemic, the Ukrainian war, the Al-Aqsa flood...etc.
The structure of the international system is not yet stable, and I think it is heading towards fragmentation and chaos. It is witnessing a competition between the United States and China, but it is not similar - as a result of overlap and common interests - to the situation of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the West.
It also witnesses the emergence of new forces on the scene, such as India, which, due to the rise of Hindu nationalism, no longer belongs to the South, and globalization is being rethought through the restructuring of supply chains, and identities disguised as extreme nationalism and the extreme populist right are on the rise, and all of this is accompanied by a change in the functions and roles of the state. And its structures, and the distribution of sovereignty in it between soft and hard, and new actors next to it and its opponent, who may replace it and perform some of its functions, and a shift in the structures of the economy, its nature, and the maps of those influencing it...etc.
All these factors and more; Decentralized structures were produced, and were now controlled by the logic of the network, not stable structures, and their forces and forms were distributed between a center around which they revolved and decentralization that amounted to disintegration and fragmentation.
The flood also destroyed the Israeli theory of deterrence and the technological superiority of the Zionist entity. At the same time, it ended comprehensive, comprehensive, reductionist concepts, such as: the concept of the West, the Jews, the South, and the Arabs
in the flood; We are facing a major battle between stable, centralized structures - such as in the Israeli army and Western armies - and decentralized structures that operate connected, separate, and distinct from each other inside and outside Palestine.
In Palestine, there are multiple resistance forces, and the armed organization of each faction operates in a decentralized manner. They are united by comprehensive coordination frameworks and strategies, but each faction or group within it moves according to what the requirements of reality dictate to it. In this way, we must understand the difference in Hamas between politics and weapons.
According to this logic; We will be facing multiplicities that reach fluidity, and a permanent change in functions and roles that will eliminate opposing dualities such as state intervention and withdrawal in the economy, or a distinction between secular and religious structures, or between traditional and modern, or between old and new, and in our case between armed struggle and peaceful struggle... etc.
Relying on epistemological certainty means that stable units of analysis can be adopted over a long period of time. The state was the basic unit of analysis in politics, and society was a total unit - as in capitalist analysis, which can be viewed from the perspective of cohesive classes - as in Marxist analysis.
In the flood, the role of non-state actors, including movements, organizations and networks that move in armed resistance or through global peaceful demonstrations, is strongly highlighted. The effectiveness of all of them comes from the fact that there is no structure that brings them together, but rather ideas that unite them or networks that mobilize and mobilize them around a common goal.
In this context, Palestinian or Israeli society cannot be viewed as a single whole in their positions and priorities. A dominant current may prevail at the moment of war - as in Israeli society, or at the moment of resistance - as in Palestinian society - but even the unifying moments witness variation and disagreement, as between the West Bank and Gaza. among the Palestinians, which will have future repercussions.
With cognitive certainty, we cannot realize the process and development of concepts; Rather, we deal with it in its final form, and the goal or goal becomes to reach its comprehensive, comprehensive standards. That is, the final product. According to this perception; We are no longer faced with open endings; Rather, it is one and only station that everyone must reach.
Talking about the next day and new deals assumes that the region is devoid of people capable of charting their own destiny and imposing directions different from those that were put on paper or negotiated between politicians.
Second: The absence of universal, comprehensive concepts, and the ahistorical, conflicting, reductionist dualities: If cognitive certainty ends; It is not possible to talk about comprehensive, comprehensive, ahistorical, reductive, conflicting concepts governed by an “either or” logic.
In the twentieth century, we found many common concepts such as: the West versus the East, Islam versus secularism, socialism versus capitalism, the private sector versus the public, originality versus contemporary...etc. There are many concepts, but what they have in common is that they are ahistorical, comprehensive and ideological in nature.
Ideology is an expression of intellectual purity; It provides a comprehensive explanation of the universe, life, and man’s place in it. However, it is of a conflictual nature; Because it is based on confronting ideological opponents; Other gentiles.
Everyone is looking for ideological purity and ideal application in a way that serves and fuels polarization. We need the opposing dualities, and what comes out of them - even though reality is always at odds with this intellectual purity - so that the conflict continues.
Whoever abandons it is a dissident - as in the experience of the Soviet Union - even though the dissidents were looking for an ideal or better application for it. In the West, McCarthyism was in one of its manifestations a search for ideological purity, and in our Arab world, the concepts of governance and ignorance were invoked by those who opposed the state. The post-independence state, extremism and terrorism to describe those who deviate from the state's ideology, which is of a mixed nature that combines disparate elements.
The concept of the West - which became widespread and is still used despite the absence of any significance for it now - is a comprehensive, comprehensive, ahistorical concept that includes disparate elements, and this is a characteristic closely related to the way of thinking in the twentieth century, which is based on polarization between opposing dualities. It is also a reductionist concept based on epistemological certainty; Because it is linked to ideology: the East versus the West, the Soviet Union or the Eastern Bloc versus the West, and the Jews versus Muslims. Holistic, comprehensive concepts are used in conflict and assume complete purity to ensure the continuation and nourishment of the conflict.
The flood also destroyed the Israeli theory of deterrence and the technological superiority of the Zionist entity. At the same time, it ended comprehensive, comprehensive, reductionist concepts, such as: the concept of the West, the Jews, the South, and the Arabs.
Demonstrations broke out in the West in solidarity with the Palestinians, and included multiple parties that are part of the West. One of its main components was non-Zionist Jewish youth. As for the South, its positions on the flood varied. South Africa led part of it in confronting genocide in The Hague Tribunal, while India/Modi, of an extreme Hindu nationalist nature, abandoned its historical legacy in supporting the Palestinian cause.
In contemporary times, it is not possible to obtain comprehensive, comprehensive concepts; Rather, it is necessary to draw detailed maps and explain the various situations. Without this, interpretation, analysis, or building a political or intellectual position cannot have meaning. Dealing with comprehensive, comprehensive logic covers phenomena; That is, it hides it and does not allow it to be discovered.
Each concept includes multiple components and disparate details that require mapping them and demonstrating their pluralism. In this context, it is not possible to talk about structures that are distinct from each other, but rather there is a lot of overlap and mixing.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.