This article is an opinion piece that discusses the Israel-Hamas war from a human behavior perspective. I primarily use Marina Abramovic's Rhythm 0 live art performance as an analogy to the ongoing war and the dangerous extremes to which a lack of moral and legal safeguards can lead.

::::::::

For more than two months, the world has been witnessing Israel's increasingly remorseless campaign on Gaza and its population. The campaign, which officially aims to destroy Hamas, has drawn criticism and condemnation from countless human rights organizations for what can at best be described as a brazen disregard for civilian lives.

To the outside observer, Israel's collective punishment of Gaza is baffling. From a realpolitik perspective, Israel's violence against civilians has no strategic value and is only serving to galvanize international public opinion against Israel. Going beyond the politics, I believe a certain live art performance from decades ago can provide us with the insight to understand the Israelis' campaign of pain and terror from a human behavior perspective. Let me explain.

In Naples in 1974, Marina Abramovic held a groundbreaking live art performance. The performance, dubbed Rhythm 0, started with Marina Abramovic standing in her art studio before a group of strangers while holding a sign that read:

"There are 72 objects on the table that one can use on me as desired.

I am the object.

During this period, I take full responsibility.

Duration: 6 hours (8 pm - 2 am)"

Marina Abramovic's Rhythm 0 sought to answer a question at the heart of our understanding of civility: how would humans behave without the moral and legal safeguards of civility? What transpired in the performance was disturbing. Marina almost lost her life as the participants, freed from any responsibility for their actions, took inflicting pain and terror on Marina to dangerous extremes the details of which I will spare you.

To me, the performance demonstrated above all that our capacity for sadism can override our self-imposed limitations. In other words, we cannot expect a collective to practice self-control in an environment of absolute unaccountability.

Looking at the Israel-Hamas war from a human behavior perspective, the revelations are eerily similar to those of Rhythm 0 and just as disturbing.

For all intents and purposes, Gaza is the Marina Abramovic in this war. Gazans may not be holding signs that say, "I take full responsibility for Israel's campaign", but they may as well be. And no, let us be honest here, Israel's campaign is not on Hamas alone. As the Palestinian ambassador to the UK Husam Zomlot puts it, Israel has categorized all Gazans into one of three groups: Terrorists, terrorists sympathizers, and human shields. This is corroborated by the statements of Israeli officials and intellectuals. Israeli President Herzog rejected the premise of Gazan civilians, asserting that "it is an entire nation who are responsible". Just last week, two pro-Israel opinion pieces were arguing that there were "no innocents in Gaza", and an Israeli commentator was shamelessly boasting: "I am for war crimes,I don't care if I'm criticized".

In the aftermath of the October 7^th Hamas attacks, the message from the US-led world order was clear: Israel will enjoy unconditional support from the West as it "has the right to defend itself". To the Israelis, this "unconditional support" translated into a carte blanche to do whatever necessary to destroy Hamas. This was clearly communicated by White House spokesman John Kirby who outright stated that the US is "not drawing red lines for Israel" in its attack on Gaza. Furthermore, any international efforts to enact a permanent ceasefire or condemn any aspect of Israel's war were either opposed or outright vetoed by the US.

In Marina Abramovic's experiment, participants had 72 objects, not all harmful or dangerous, to use on her as desired. This pales in comparison to the grotesque arsenal of US weapons made at Israel's disposal to use on Gaza as desired. The participants in Rhythm 0 may have had the capacity for sadism, but their worst and most violent impulses were enabled by the objects provided in the performance, including a knife and a loaded gun. Similarly, while the Israelis may have been initially propelled by a want for retribution, there is no denying that the extremes of their violence against Gaza and its civilians were enabled by the US arsenal of war. Even now, the US policy of weapons transfer to Israel remains unconditional, with the CNN reporting no US plans to "draw any red lines around the transfer of weapons and munitions to Israel".

Perhaps most significant in Marina Abramovic's artistic experiment was her declaration "I am the object". It is no secret that dehumanization has always been a gateway to violence against the socio-cultural other. In the simplest of terms, denying the other side their humanity enables us to overcome any moral inhibitions against inflicting pain and terror upon them. To her credit, Marina was unbelievably committed to her artistic performance. Witnesses reported her doing nothing to resist the pain and terror inflicted upon her beyond tears running down her face.

In Marina Abramovic's case, her dehumanization was self-imposed. She voluntarily, and admirably, endured for the sake of her art. But Gazans have no choice in their dehumanization. From the outset of the Israeli offensive, the phrase "human animals" was a constant theme in the rhetoric of Israeli officials. It was used by Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to justify the complete siege of Gaza and things only escalated from there with no pushback from Western officials or the Western mainstream media.

All the factors are there: little to no internationally enforced legal or moral safeguards, the means to inflict pain and terror on a massive scale, and a sustained campaign of dehumanizing the sociocultural other. Add to these the collective Israeli trauma from the October 7th attacks and you will have the perfect storm for violence against Gazans to be normalized. As Marina Abramovic's performance has shown, despite our veneer of civility, we are still very much prone to indulging our sadistic desires when the circumstances dictate it.

A case in point: It is reported that 94% of Israelis polled think that IDF is using firepower that is "appropriate" (36.6%) or "too little" (57.5%) in its attack on Gaza. Keep in mind, this is the same firepower that has inflicted record numbers of civilian casualties, with an estimated 40% of them being children. This is the same firepower that has displaced 90% of the population and targeted hospitals, schools, and places of worship. This is also the same firepower that Joe Biden had to admit is indiscriminate in its bombing of Gaza.

Political leanings aside, can anyone honestly argue that 94% of a population supporting indiscriminate bombing is civil normalcy? Can anyone call an IDF soldier demolishing a residential building in Gaza as a birthday gift to his daughter anything but indulging in sadism? How about Israeli soldiers going out of their way to set fire to food and water supplies when half the population in Gaza is starving according to the WFP? And these are by no means isolated incidents. Look beyond the partisan media narratives and analyze the actual human behavior: this is a traumatized collective that is losing its capacity for moral self-reflection in its relentless pursuit of retribution against Hamas and Gaza.

I do not claim to be objective; I am firmly on the side of the Palestinians. Likewise, I do not begrudge anyone their support of Israel. Our worldview is shaped and sustained by complex political, cultural, and religious influences that are not easy to suppress. I am not arguing here against anyone picking a side, but rather imploring you to acknowledge your side as fallible human beings that are capable of going to dangerous extremes if the circumstances dictate it.

Ask yourself this, is the West, particularly the US, doing the Israelis any favors by allowing them to spiral into this vicious cycle of remorseless violence? In a campaign of unchecked retribution that has drawn condemnations from countless human rights organizations and the anger of millions of Israel's Muslim neighbors, is "unconditional support" really helping Israel's case in seeking legitimacy and peaceful co-existence?

Yes, Israel was always going to respond emphatically to the October 7^th attacks, and the Israelis understandably are resentful of Hamas and Gazans. But at what point do we acknowledge what Rhythm 0 had proven decades ago: a collective cannot practice self-control in an environment of moral and legal unaccountability. It is time to end this morbid live performance, and meaningfully reconsider the implications of pledging unconditional support in times of war.

Authors Bio:

Hamza Toghoj is a university lecturer and a freelance translator from Jordan. He has a PhD degree in translation studies with a focus on news translation.