Offering unconditional love to the perpetrators: Is barbarism a cry for God?

As known to science, rivers, seas and any land in between are indifferent to their inhabitants. This is because they are inanimate. Those with a cause are not free as they are bound to their cause. From this perspective the chant, “From the river to the sea Palestine will be free” is a nonsense: “river”, “sea” and “Palestine” relate to inanimate material phenomena. Further, the chanters have a cause. While they identify with their cause they are not free. To those chanting, the chant is not a nonsense. It is chanted with affect. As a corollary, that it is profoundly meaningful to them is indicated. It is as though the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is animated, has agency and free will and it needs to be freed. As a corollary, it can be inferred that the chanters carry these material phenomena in a metaphysical relationship.

In way of background, the phrase, “From the river to the sea Palestine will be free” appears in the charter of Hamas, designated a terrorist organization in its entirety by the New Zealand government as a result of “what happened on 7 October [2023]”1. Hamas’ ties with the Islamic Republic date from when it opened its office in Tehran in October 1991 stating that both Iran and Hamas shared an “identical view in the strategic outlook toward the Palestinian cause in its Islamic dimension.”2 Understanding the nature of this metaphysical relationship may hold the key to understanding and bringing resolution to the Al-Aqsa Flood crisis.

For those familiar with psycho-analyst John Bowlby’s Attachment Theory, the story of Moses’ meeting with Al-Khidr described in the 18th book of the Quran offers insights into this metaphysical relationship. Through the statement that, “God would replace him with a better child who is more obedient and has more affection”3 the author describes a culture that does not aspire to provide children unconditional love and positive regard. Rather, it hints of a culture where children are expendable and honor killings accepted as normal. Through the statement that, “The crew of the ship recognize Al-Khidr and offer them to board their ship free of charge”4 the author describes a culture where Al-Khidr is provided unconditional love and positive regard and this regard is extended to those accompanying him.

This is not a biblical story: it only appears in the Quran. To the extent that the “Islamic dimension” relates to Al-Khidr. The following event takes on a particular meaning,

“… six men were publicly executed by Hamas forces outside al-Omari mosque on 22 August in front of hundreds of spectators including children. Hamas announced the men were suspected “collaborators” who had been sentenced death in “revolutionary courts”. The hooded men were dragged along the floor to kneel by a wall facing the crowd, then each man was shot in the head individually before being sprayed with bullets fired from an AK-47.”5

As does the following quote by Ayatollah Khomeini, subsequently first supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, during the reign of the Shah,

“The Ministry of Justice has made clear its opposition to the ordinances of Islam by various measures like the abolition of the requirement that judges be Muslim and male; henceforth, Jews, Christians, and the enemies of Islam and the Muslims are to decide on affairs concerning the honor and person of the Muslims.”6

Speaking of first relationships and how they influence our capacity to love, Robert Karen describes a child’s first relationship,

“In the sunshine of her love, we grow and develop, take an interest in things and people, learn, acquire skills, become a proud member of the family. We babble in response to her, smile with her interaction, check back earnestly to make sure she’s still there when we’re old enough to crawl away. We feel in a sense a part of her, her wonderfulness making us wonderful too… There are times when mother does not come, when mother is insensitive, when mother does not please us because she doesn’t respond or is too stimulating or because we are beyond soothing. Terrible hatreds boil up inside us and the earth darkens. We become filled with murderous wishes. We wail inconsolably, until our blood vessels seem to burst. Hell, pure hell, is everywhere. Mother is hell. Baby is hell. But then the sun comes out and the steaming toxins evaporate. Mother-love, pure and unclouded, shines again.”7

What is a child to do with feelings of hatred? What are they to do with their murderous wishes if the ones that they want to be cared for by are afraid of their hatred and may be “overburdened” by their “misconduct” and imagine that Al-Khidr will think them “defiant and disobedient to his parents”? Whatever the facts, to avoid Al-Khidr’s retribution, that they would insist that they are wonderful is indicated. From a child’s perspective hatred would need to be displaced onto those not part of “them” and “their” wonderfulness lest they are one of those “dragged along the floor to kneel by a wall facing the crowd, then shot in the head individually before being sprayed with bullets fired from an AK-47”.

Yoseph Haddad provides the following translation of a recording of an October 7 2023 perpetrator speaking to his father,

“Dad! Allahu Akbar! I just killed ten Jews. I have their blood on my hand. I stole their phone. I’m speaking with you from her phone.”8

The perpetrator calls his father to report his achievement. That the perpetrator was motivated by a desire for his father’s admiration and positive regard is indicated. In enacting the role of Al-Khidr he is not his own person. In seeking parental admiration and positive regard he is not free. He has no conscience.

The dilemma the destitute woman presents the baker’s daughter explored in A Raft in the Flood is a variation of this theme. Entering the bakery seeking bread but without the means to pay defies convention and places the baker’s daughter in a difficult position. Through unconsciously identifying with the values with which she has been inculcated by her parents, the baker’s daughter only begrudgingly assists the destitute woman initially. When she applies critical thinking to the situation and imaginatively experiences the plight of the destitute woman the Baker’s Daughter’s assistance is wholehearted. It is the ability of the baker’s daughter to hold two perspectives and chooses to disobey and defy the values she has been inculcated by her parents that leads to her metaphysical transformation into an owl. Her identity is no longer that of the baker’s daughter. Metaphorically she is her own person. She neither seeks nor requires her parent’s admiration. She has the courage to defend her decision if challenged. She knows herself to be wonderful enough. She is free and her conscience clear.

Is it those who have a conscience that are the non-believers in God or those who do not? Is the difficulty that Iran and its proxies, including Hamas, are submitting to Al-Khidr with all the theological and psychological difficulties this presents? Is this anything to do with Israel? What does their conscience tell them?

—