David Canter, a renowned social psychologist, has recently delved into the ongoing conflict in Gaza, specifically examining the actions of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and questioning whether he may have made a crucial misstep in his response to the situation. With a wealth of knowledge and expertise in human behavior and decision-making, Canter has provided an insightful analysis of the propaganda of deed and how it may have influenced the events in Gaza.
In his exploration of Netanyahu’s approach, Canter begins by examining the concept of propaganda of the deed. This is a term coined by Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin, which refers to the use of provocative actions and violence to spread political messages. Canter argues that this concept has been largely overlooked in the current discourse surrounding the situation in Gaza, but could hold the key to understanding where Netanyahu may have gone wrong.
Canter explains that Netanyahu’s initial response to the protests in Gaza, which began in March 2018, was to send Israeli soldiers to the border to confront the protesters. However, instead of simply containing the situation and attempting to diffuse it peacefully, Canter believes that Netanyahu’s actions could be seen as a form of propaganda of the deed. By sending armed soldiers to confront Palestinian civilians, Netanyahu was essentially carrying out a violent act in order to send a message to the world and to his own people.
This approach, according to Canter, was a grave mistake. Instead of de-escalating the situation, it further ignited tensions and led to the deaths of over 100 Palestinians and injuries to thousands more. The use of lethal force against unarmed protesters also sparked international outrage and condemnation, damaging Israel’s reputation on the global stage.
But what led Netanyahu to take such a confrontational approach? According to Canter, this could be attributed to the prime minister’s belief in the effectiveness of propaganda of the deed. Canter points out that Netanyahu has a long history of using provocative actions to gain political leverage, from ordering the assassination of Palestinian leaders to his infamous speech to the US Congress denouncing the Iran nuclear deal.
Canter also highlights the influence of Netanyahu’s advisors, who may have played a role in shaping his decision-making. He notes that many of his advisors, including his son Yair, have a background in psychology and have advocated for a strong and aggressive response in order to assert dominance and control over the situation.
However, Canter argues that Netanyahu’s actions have ultimately backfired. By using propaganda of the deed in this situation, Netanyahu has not only failed to achieve his desired outcome of containing the protests, but also exposed the flaws in this method. Canter explains that the success of propaganda of the deed relies on a certain level of control and predictability, which was clearly lacking in this situation. The overwhelming response of the Palestinian protestors, who continued to gather and demonstrate despite the violent crackdown, shows that this approach is not as effective as it may seem.
Furthermore, Canter highlights the importance of considering the psychological impact of these events on both sides. The use of excessive force by the Israeli soldiers has not only resulted in loss of life and injuries, but also caused deep-seated trauma and resentment among the Palestinian community. This, in turn, has only fueled further violence and unrest.
In light of these insights, Canter urges for a more nuanced and measured approach in resolving the conflict in Gaza. He argues that by understanding the influence of propaganda of the deed and acknowledging its limitations, leaders and decision-makers can avoid repeating the same mistakes as Netanyahu and focus on finding a peaceful and sustainable solution.
In conclusion, Canter’s analysis of the propaganda of the deed in the context of Gaza sheds light on a crucial aspect that has been largely overlooked in the discourse surrounding the conflict. By critically examining Netanyahu’s actions and their consequences, Canter calls for a deeper understanding of the human psychology behind decision-making in times of crisis. It is through such insight and reflection that we can hope to learn from the past and create a more peaceful future.
