A conference of Israeli Ministers and Parliamentarians in Jerusalem on January 28th 2024 examined the idea of voluntary relocation of Palestinians. In attendance were 15 members of Knesset and 11 Parliament members, including National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bezazel Smotrich, and over a thousand others, discussing related ideas.
But to gain increased global support, the world must understand why a relocation option may be not only advantageous, but a necessary component of even the most liberal approach to the peace process. As I discussed in my article on my Three-Option Plan, Israel is only keeping Palestinians out of Israel; but it is the rest of the world’s mindless policy of not accepting Palestinian refugees that is keeping them in an “open-air prison.” Not only is allowing Palestinians who want to leave the freedom to do so not genocide, but it may be the prevention of genocide.
Humanity misunderstands the true causes of our wars, all wars, and that’s why armed conflicts occur despite all of man’s knowledge and wisdom. Wars are not really about land or resources or even religion. Rather, I believe there is a secret key for unlocking all war amongst mankind, which I call PeaceMatrix™ Entitativity theory.
People don’t usually act for the reasons they think they do, especially not as we approach conflict. People usually act based on subconscious impulse, primal instinct, and emotion, justified by select supportive logic after the fact.
Soldiers usually don’t start wars, but neither do leaders. The causes for wars that leaders and experts explain to their populations before, and historians explain in hindsight, are materially incorrect. The progressive actions and escalations leading to war are not the cause of war, but a symptom of another problem. But if these are symptoms, what is the true problem that is the cause of war?
The key to all human conflict, perhaps more valuable in predicting and preventing war than knowledge of every fact of human history is, that wars are caused by the collective psychological dynamics of in-group versus out-group polarization. As humans approach conflict, an unconscious ideological collective psyche (“hive mind”) dominates what we perceive to as individuals to be our rational thought, causing irrationality, strategic errors, escalations, and war.
This is why NATO won’t make a peace deal with Russia over Ukraine – because it is not an individual thinking clearly, but a groupthink erroneous collective decision. The hated of Jews is not rational. Nor is Harvard support of Islamic extremists over the “start-up nation” of Nobel Prize winners. Nor feminists supporting Hamas terrorists who would give them no rights. Nor Hamas terrorists aligning with communists who ban religion, etc.
Summary: The collective hive minds that control mankind as we approach conflict do not follow their proclaimed ideals or values, but operate in the collective unconscious under a different set of rules. The word “Entitativity” literally means the degree to which the individual versus the collective hive mind is the sovereign entity.
If we correctly understand these ideological dynamics and find ways to moderate and guide them, we can prevent, avoid, and end wars, maybe all war amongst mankind. By war, I don’t just mean nation to nation armed conflict, but civil wars, political upheavals, ideological, group, cultural, and religious disputes.
The key to the whole mystery of the rules of ideological group dynamics in conflict, and to stopping war is as follows:
Instead of group ideologies being controlled by their proclaimed values and leaders, ideological hive minds grow and spread like separate living organisms, which I call “living organism theory”. These ideological living entities behave like amorphous clouds that are the puppet masters of humanity, with power and growth interests separate and superior to their adherents’. They feed off of conflict by gaining more subconscious power over the rationality of their adherents.
This is why ideologies of opposing value systems combine for power. This is why ideological movements historically become more aggressive power movements as they reach their claimed goals – because the ideology becomes more powerful, and even more hungry for more power. This is why democracies are morally aligned with other democracies; not to enjoy being a thorn in the side of dictatorships, but because dictatorships are more prone to conflict as the internal ideology must polarize against an external out-group, leading to expansions and conflicts with other nations. This is why empires fall with often nothing replacing them, because new unconstructive ideologies unite to tear them down for the irrational power gain of doing so. This is why nations believe they are building up their defenses until they feel compelled to attack others. This is also why anti-Semitism grew in response to October 7th before Israel even responded, because the ideological entity was empowered by the primitive brutality and polarization.
Our mistake in our efforts to examine, interpret, predict, and stop war is that we think the parties actually want what they claim to want, for example: the Palestinians wanting a Palestinian state. Much of the world treats the Palestinians as though if they only had a state, they would be happy, and there would be peace. But the Palestinians have rejected a state five times, when not a stepping stone to better attack Israel from. They put their “cause” ahead of their own interests.
Our mistake is that we think the individuals are the party to the dispute, or that their leaders are. We neglect to deal with the true negotiator at the table, the ideology, as a separate party to the dispute. Without this factor, our formula of understanding is completely wrong. As we have seen, in 75 years, we’ve gone from 50% of Palestinians wanting Israel gone, to now near 80%. In Arab societies, ideological influence is regarded as much more powerful than we are used to thinking of them in Western societies.
The correct perspective is that the “Palestinian cause” is a living, growing separate entity. That entity sends human adherent pawns to their deaths by suicide bombing, proving the ideology is the sovereign entity. It survives by continuing the conflict that fuels the living ideological hive mind regardless the interests of individual Palestinians. Palestinians always reject statehood, because if they got a state, the Palestinian “cause“ would die, and it doesn’t want to die. Arafat was threatened with death if he accepted a peace deal at Camp David not by individual adherents, but by the ideology compelling them.
While the world treats Palestinians like a unique culture and people deserving statehood, they are the victims of their own ideological entity and the world’s misunderstanding of that. Relocation is not genocide, if the Palestinians choose it, and also because they are arguably not a unique nation, race, ethnic, or religious group, but an arm of a broader Arab ideology, which is why they cannot deal in their own behalf in the first place. They speak the same language, have the same religion, and pray daily toward the same Capitol in Mecca as the people in 22 other Arab states with nearly identical flags.
If hypothetically, Palestinians did get a state, the living ideological entity would become more powerful and even more hungry for more expansion, with an even greater need to expand and attack Israel. Even if Palestinian leaders wanted peace, ideological dynamics would replace them by channeling political and influential power to more extreme leaders who will increase arms and population buildup to attack Israel with. Eventually, the compulsion to attack Israel would be irresistible, and there would be more war, not less. The Palestinian “cause” has already changed from a goal of two-state statehood, to “from the river to the sea” right before the world’s eyes.
And hypothetically, even if the Palestinian entity conquered Israel, it would simply have an even greater need to expand and threaten Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and eventually Saudi Arabia. The Palestinian “cause” would simply change again right before our eyes from dominance of the Holy Land to regional dominance and a caliphate.
The way to deal with the problem and help Palestinians is not to empower an aggressive, and oppositional ideological entity of which its individuals and leaders are merely pawns. Rather, by the type of Entitativity modeling I am developing, to moderate the ideological entity’s limitless hunger for expansion and conflict, by:
a) a balance of competing unarmed political parties within a structured system to limit the growth of the “Palestinian cause”, with a threat of relocation so the ideology bears a consequence for not accepting the system. Then, the entity is not empowered by external expansion and conquest ideology. Leaders will have to compete to improve Palestinians’ lives instead of just declaring war, or else Palestinians will voluntarily leave, weakening those leaders. In essence, you use the threat of relocation to give a peaceful two-state solution the best chance of success.
b) if the entity does not accept moderation in its current location, the consequence is relocation to a Palestinian state in the Sinai, Jordan, Qatar, or other Arab land where it is not a stepping stone to try to destroy Israel. Having another location for a Palestinian state would separate the ideology that wants statehood from the ideology that wants to destroy Israel, and trigger debate between them like letting steam out of a steam engine. Thereby, the world is no longer united by anti-Semitism feeding support to the entity. (For example, Egypt and Jordan can treat Palestinians in ways Israel cannot get away with without international outrage and legal and political repercussions.)
Without an option for relocation, Palestinians and Israelis are two ideologies forced to be together like two roosters put into a small cage that have no choice but to fight. But with such relocation options, the “cause” would no longer be a united Arab versus Israel cause, but an internal Arab matter. The result of making it an internal matter is that ideological polarization would be reduced, weakening the entity, making it more manageable, thereby reducing conflict, and helping Palestinians.
If the Palestinians do not accept a Palestinian state elsewhere either, the consequence then is the entity will be weakened further, as Palestinians can be absorbed into other states’ populations as refugees. If countries like Egypt or Jordan, or even Iran and Turkey, are truly intent on helping the Palestinians, they can take in Palestinian refugees. The world has no right to force Palestinians to stay in a conflict, nor place the burden and dispute on Israel, when the issue is far less polarized if fellow Muslim states deal with it.
By creating a structured path of cascading weakening of the entity, you moderate the ideology, instead of trying to deal with leaders who are themselves victims of their more powerful ideology. It’s a win-win because either you weaken the aggressive ideological grip on the population, or obtain the next best alternative for the people. All “international law” rulings to the contrary are wrong, and this is right, because what is truly immoral is a global mindset and imposed policy preventing Palestinians who want to relocate from doing so.
When our conflict resolution efforts adopt these understandings, ideologies in conflict will stop trying to primitively destroy each other triggering their defense mechanisms and greater polarization and wars. Humanity can stop fighting our conflicts short-term and piecemeal, and address broader and long-term issues coming 10, 20, and 50 years ahead. We will be able to allow all beautiful cultures to preserve themselves if they choose. Ultimately, humanity can learn to carefully and gently guide an ideological entity in a manner that strategically weakens it for not moderating itself, so it may do so. And, so it may not just grow, but develop, just like we would want for any other living organism.
For more on this, see my article:
The Three-Option Plan for Exploring Simultaneous Palestinian Statehood and Relocation