Mimesis in the Middle East
With Israel’s killing of Yahya Sinwar just two days ago, optimists will be hoping that this is the first step towards a permanent ceasefire and the freedom of Gaza from tyrannical rule by both Hamas and the Israeli occupation. Skeptics, however, will note that it is far from likely that Sinwar’s death will lead to the end of this devastating conflict. Rather, this recent conflagration will only embolden Netanyahu to prolong the war in Gaza in order to retain power. In order to fully understand the complexity of the war in Gaza and, now, Lebanon, it is helpful to consult Rene Girard’s work on mimetic theory.
According to Girard, after our basic needs of food and shelter are met, our desire becomes social. Simply put, we want what others want for no other reason than because they want it. Indeed, Girard posits that we signal to each other what is desirable through our actions and argues that we are inevitably drawn into mimetic rivalry because of our desire for common objects. Once we are drawn into mimetic rivalry, mimetic contagion spreads and threatens to destabilize the entire community. It is only by the execution of a scapegoat, according to Girard, that order can be restored to the community. Now, let us consider how Girard’s mimetic theory functions with regard to the two main players in the Israel-Palestine conflict: Benjamin Netanyahu and Yahya Sinwar.
Netanyahu and Sinwar desire the destruction of not only the other’s political community but the elimination of the other’s political ideology. This mimetic rivalry persists because of their mutual desire for the same common object: the Holy Land. Now, with Sinwar dead, we may optimistically assume that the Girardian scapegoat mechanism will come into play and the war will end. Indeed, Israel has accomplished its ostensible objective of killing the commandant responsible for the October 7th attacks while Hamas has been destabilized by the loss of both its political leader, Ismail Haniyeh, and military leader, Yahya Sinwar. However, to suppose that Netanyahu will now call for a ceasefire is beyond naive.
Interestingly, Netanyahu and Sinwar resemble each other as mimetic rivals. Both are aging demagogues willing to sacrifice their own people for personal ideological gain. Instead of calling for a ceasefire and facing possible prison time, Netanyahu will undoubtedly prolong the conflict in order to maintain his stranglehold on power. Perhaps Girard’s most timely revelation, then, is that the cycle of mimetic rivalry merely repeats after the scapegoat mechanism. As Israel pushes into Lebanon and civilian casualties continue to mount, it is only a matter of time before Hezbollah’s deceased leader, Hassan Nasrallah, is replaced by an eager martyr. So long as Netanyahu remains committed to staying in power and Hamas and Hezbollah remain committed to martyrdom, it is unlikely this horrific conflict will end.
