Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Be Careful What We Wish for

The Brexit referendum was, in many ways, a classic case of voters not fully grasping the consequences of their decisions. For many pro-Brexit voters, it wasn’t about a clear vision of the future but rather a venting of frustration over economic struggles. The European Union and immigration became convenient scapegoats.

This phenomenon reflects a broader issue with modern populist politics, where emotional responses often overshadow the nuanced complexities of policymaking. The average voter, bogged down by the demands of daily life, rarely has the time or the inclination to delve into the details of complex issues. Instead, they gravitate toward movements that offer cathartic outlets for their grievances. It feels good to march alongside others who share the same sentiments, but such collective emotionalism can be dangerous, especially when it influences decisions that affect other nations.

Consider the recent turmoil in Bangladesh, where student protests successfully ousted the government but left the nation in chaos, with no clear plan for what comes next. The U.S. invasion of Iraq offers a similar lesson: once the initial Hollywood phase of toppling Saddam Hussein was over, the lack of a concrete post-war strategy became painfully evident.

Now, let’s apply this cautionary tale to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Imagine, for a moment, that the pro-Palestinian camp’s most fervent wish comes true: the United States completely withdraws its support for Israel—no military aid, no financial assistance. As the current war between Israel and Hamas intensifies, we’ve already seen the limitations of Israel’s “Iron Dome” system. Without U.S. support, more missiles and drones would inevitably hit their targets, spreading panic and chaos across Israel.

Furthermore, there will be no economic or geopolitical incentives for Arab nations like Jordan, Egypt, and UAE to normalize relationships with Israel because they are not interested in Israel itself; they see Israel as a proxy to normalize relationship with the U.S. Since their Muslim citizens are overwhelmingly against Israel, these governments will no longer have any interest in keeping the peace with Israel.

Without U.S. financial backing, Israel’s military capabilities would be significantly weakened, and the frequency of attacks—bombings, kidnappings, shootings—would rise. The Israeli government, struggling to fund its military, would have to divert resources from social services, causing a steep decline in the quality of life. Daily life in Israel would become increasingly intolerable. The gradual outflow at first will eventually reach a tipping point, leading to a mass exodus of Jews to Europe and the United States.

The migration of refugees is a crisis that benefits no one—not least the refugees themselves. They do not flee to Europe or the United States because they find common ground in shared values, but because they are left with no other choice. If their home countries were stable and prosperous, they would return in a heartbeat. No one wants to be a refugee. While they may initially express gratitude toward their host nations, the deep-seated ideological and cultural differences inevitably begin to weigh heavily. Unable to fully integrate, many are forced to live on society’s margins, casting a long shadow over the self-esteem of their children. For the West, ensuring stability and security in the Middle East is not just an economic interest; it is a practical necessity to prevent refugee crises. Europe, in particular, stands to benefit from U.S. support for Israel, yet it is often the United States that shoulders the burden of playing the “bad cop” in this delicate balance of power.

If Israel collapses and Jewish people were pushed out of the region, what would history make of it? It’s not hard to imagine that this exodus could be framed as a form of persecution, perhaps even likened to another Holocaust or labeled as “ethnic cleansing.” Are we prepared to be part of a movement that might contribute to such an outcome?

The religious and cultural divide between Jews and Muslims in the region is deeply entrenched and, at its core, irreconcilable because of their monotheism and tendency to put religion/race above state. (And, Israel’s demographic is shifting towards the right.) Tolerance might be achievable through economic incentives, but mutual respect is a far more elusive goal. With the benefit of hindsight, one might argue that the Jewish return to this hostile region was a mistake, given the stark differences in worldviews. However, dwelling on historical grievances only complicates the search for solutions. We are where we are.

The sight of Palestinians suffering under Israeli military strikes is undeniably heart-wrenching. The imbalance of power makes it easy to view Israel as a bully, and by Western standards, the idea of “survival of the fittest” feels uncivilized and unjust. It’s tempting to react emotionally in support of the Palestinians, but we must be cautious about what we wish for.

Anger and fear are emotions we paradoxically find enjoyable—consider the phenomenon of “doomscrolling.” This is why so many are drawn into debates about the conflict, even if they lack the willingness or commitment to contribute meaningfully to solutions. But the real question is whether we are prepared for our wishes to come true. Like Brexit, an outcome that seemed unthinkable could very well happen. We must ensure that our protests and demands are rooted in a genuine desire for solutions, not just an emotional outlet.