Humanism in the Face of Fanatics: Will We Let Evil Win?

For almost three years now the world has been devastated by the resurgence of the regional conflicts in the Middle East.

The idea that these wars are new or, as many point it out in protests and campaigns all over the world, that “it all started on October 7th”, is now commonly understood as a simplistic and naive view.

I’m not willing here to trace the whole history of the war between Israel and the Arab World or with the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is interesting however to see that everyone with a knowledge of the situation, or with a desire to know more, notices immediately how the history of such conflicts is rarely presented as things should be: scientifically and with a historian’s detachment! They are almost always narrated under a scope, from a certain viewpoint, and, in all cases, to justify a narrative or a supposed “right” to a land, to an existence, to a validity and to a legitimacy from a “who was here first” stance. Are Palestinians descendants of Arabs or Canaanites? Are Jews from Judea and Arabs from Arabia? Can someone claim land after a 2000-year exile? Who is indigenous and who isn’t?

Or to point to a “guilty” or an “innocent” with a “who started it all” position, with almost an “original sin” mindset. Is it the Balfour Declaration? The Hussein-McMahon Correspondence? The Peel Commission? The UN General Assembly 1947 partition plan and resolution? The Sykes-Picot agreement? The Nakba? The Shoah? The Farhud? The pogroms? The Mufti of Jerusalem? The Arab Revolt? The Deir Yassin Massacre? Of Tantura? Of Hebron? The Zionist Movement?

All of this might be interesting and I would like it if everyone did their own research on  the topic. However, far beyond history and international law’s characterization of the events unfolding before our eyes, there’s a clear pattern that can be observed in almost all societies with an Abrahamic tradition, whether they be fully attached to it or only “culturally” relating to it: the rise of an identitarian, ethno-religious discourse legitimizing the actions of one side or the other, often conservative, but sometimes even self-proclaimed progressive.

For the purposes of this article, we will overlook the religions adopted by Mandaeans, Samaritans, Yazidis, Druze and Bahá’is, not only because many people ignore their existence, but also because some of them aren’t Abrahamic despite being monotheistic, and all of them lack the influence of the three “traditional” monotheisms.

If I might create a typology of the discourse according to the ideology and standing, I’d divide them into:

• A Jewish Zionist discourse
• A Christian Zionist discourse
• A Christian anti-Zionist discourse
• A Muslim anti-Zionist discourse
• A Jewish anti-Zionist discourse
• A leftist anti-Zionist discourse

It is clear to the reader by now that ‘Zionism’ is the concept around which all this debate revolves. This is not a coincidence! This is very much related to the concept of a Holy Land. The three most influential religions in the monotheist tradition “venerate” Jerusalem, or Yerushalayim. Etymologically, Yerushalayim, is composed of Yeru, a Proto-Semitic root for city, dwelling, or foundation, all of which indicate settlement, and Shalim the ancient Semitic god of dusk and completion in the Canaanite pantheon, later associated, along the root Š-L-M in both Arabic and Hebrew with peace (Salam/Shalom).

The city of this pagan Canaanite god, soon turned into “The City of Peace”, as it is still known in later Hebrew and Arabic cultures which turned to monotheism. The expression is still present in the Arab collective memory, partially thanks to famous XXth century artistic creations. Two notable examples are a verse of  Palestinian poet Mahmood Darwish, “peace to a land that was created for peace but has never seen a day of peace”, and that of Lebanese singer Fairouz “Peace is on its way to Al-Quds.” (Arabic for Jerusalem from Bayt al-Maqdis/equivalent of the Hebrew Beit HaMikdash, literally the Holy House “temple”)

At the risk of falling in whataboutism, whose characterization as a fallacy under logics has been recently challenged in both legal and political realms where consistency, even-handedness and good faith matter more than abstraction, it’s obvious that among the around 130 conflicts happening right now as of the first half of 2026, 27 of which are classified as war, those that attract the most attention specifically, by media outlets, international governmental organizations, NGOs, political parties, as well global public opinion are those happening in the Middle East, specifically involving the so-called “Holy Land”.

This is no coincidence. Despite the horrors happening everywhere, including in Congo and Sudan, and without underestimating the suffering in the Middle East, it seems that apart from the economic and social factors underlying any war, there are metaphysical and eschatological dimensions to the wars between Israel, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups, the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies, as well as to the intervention of the U.S. in the Twelve-Day War and the 2026 Iran War.

More than one of us has heard a debate between conservative Americans grappling with the “theology of Zionism”, with ones, especially evangelicals, defending an American foreign policy based on an unconditional support for Israel, the nation God supposedly chose and that will bring about the second coming of the Messiah, and those defending replacement theology and suppressionism, particularly non-charismatic Protestants and most of Catholics, arguing that the Church is the New Israel and recycling antisemitic tropes and stereotypes from the New Testament and the Church fathers. While both parties speak about the interests of the U.S., ones arguing for interventionism, the others for isolationism, both justify their politics through eschatological or theological lenses. In that sense, the clashes between  the ideas of John Nelson Darby, Lord Shaftesbury and William Hechler, the early Christian Zionists, and those of John Chrysostom, St. Augustine and Martin Luther, influence American geopolitics as much as the presidential doctrines since the Monroe Doctrine.

The Jewish World, especially in the diaspora, is more divided than ever. Many religious Zionist Jews argue that the war between Israel and Persia, modern-day Iran, is a fulfillment of an end-of-times prophecy in Ezekiel 38-39, where Persia leads a coalition with other nations to destroy the children of Israel and gets smitten by God as a proof of his existence.

On the other hand, other religious anti-Zionist Jews, faithful to a specific interpretation of the Three Oaths in the Talmud, and opposed to a human abrupt end of diasporic life and a secular man-made creation of a Jewish State, argue that Zionism is anti-Torah.

Secular Jews are by far the most diverse group; while many wear watermelon Kippahs, protest against Israel’s actions against Palestinians, rally with socialists and organize around structures such as Jewish Voices for Peace, others, specifically in the State of Israel draw a distinction between the far-right government they don’t support, and the military actions they endorse with more or less enthusiasm.

On the other end of the spectrum, the Islamic World, specifically public opinion in Muslim-majority countries, overwhelmingly oppose not only the war, but the existence of Israel itself. Aside from the arguments about human rights, self-determination and self-defense, which give legitimacy and universal language to the struggle of the Palestinians, the religious and ethnic solidarity of the Ummah with the Palestinian people reveals most importantly an aversion to Jewish sovereignty over the land and appears to not even make the distinction that many people in the West draw between Judaism and Zionism.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has a specific eschatology rooted in Twelver Shi’ism and the need to hasten the appearance of the occultee Mahdi, the Christological redeemer figure in Islam, through turbulence and resistance. A deeply-held glorification of martyrdom and a banalization of death fuel this even more.

The fact that, in all cases, theology is the prism through which these conflicts are framed makes it almost impossible to speak about concessions, negotiations or good faith diplomatic efforts. Once declared holy, it’s so hard to argue that a land full of symbolism and perceived sacredness can be partitioned in two, or that concessions can be made to mitigate the effects of real horrors causing real suffering to real victims.

Once a mission or a place is labeled holy, everything is permitted. Destroying the rivals by appealing to the Bible and comparing them to the Philistines and to Amalek to justify mass murdering them, or sacrificing your whole people’s life on earth deeming that martyrdom is worth it and that sacrifice to a bloodthirsty God is the ultimate virtue become necessary costs and collateral damages in the pursuit of redemption.

Tribalism is very much ingrained in our human subconscious. In-group vs Out-group way of thinking, commonly referred to as the “Us vs Them” is not the lot of religious people alone, but of mankind at large, being all products of evolution. 

One small remark should be drawn here regarding leftists broadly and socialists/communists specifically, most of whom are also secular. At the risk of offending adherents to socialism and communism, I would also characterize them as another ‘tribe’ among the ones we’ve already mentioned, not in any derogatory way, but in the aforementioned sense that evolutionary psychology ascribes to our human collectivist behaviors and instincts.

Socialism and communism developed theoretically in a Western setting which was very influenced by the Abrahamic tradition, and despite some exceptions, most notably China, their implementation also happened in countries shaped by the same tradition. The ideas of good vs evil, the good being workers and the evil being the bourgeoisie, of foundational books like The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, or The Little Red Book, of dogma (orthodoxy) and revisionism (heresy), of an intermediate stage of transition being socialism (a purgatory) and a final stage of bliss being communism (heaven), have been highlighted as components similar to those of religion by many critics, including in Reinhold Niebuhr’s 1931 piece in The Atlantic, a man of faith himself. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the sympathy for Eastern countries under the ‘yoke’ of Western dominance, including Iran, have been classical fields in which socialists and communists chose their orthodoxy following their fierce post-colonial, anti-Western and anti-imperialist attitudes.

Now, moving to Secular Humanism, I can deem that we are unique among all these ‘tribes’ both in form and in substance.

Humanists haven’t been silent when these conflicts unfolded grotesquely three years ago, and didn’t just start getting interested in the situation in the Middle East since then. Yet, unlike other ‘tribes’, Humanists are by definition universalists who believe in the equal dignity and worth of everyone regardless of beliefs, origin, ethnic background, political affiliation or any other status.

Already in 2014, the then International Humanist and Ethical Union adopted its statement on Israel-Palestine conflict in which it condemned the terrible loss of life on both sides, the deployment of human shields and disproportionate responses to attacks, while also tackling the historical mandate-era injustices that led to the culmination of the conflict to its current grotesque form.

In 2020, Humanist International’s Board of Directors issued a position statement on annexation of Palestinian land opposing the ‘peace plan’ suggested by Trump and Netanyahu aiming to render impossible the establishment of an independent Palestinian State.

The Freedom of Thought Report, constantly updated, also points out to the grave violations faced by the Palestinian population historically and the dire post-October 7th situation caused by the Israeli retaliation.

At all times, Humanists International showed moral clarity and consistency, including in its oral statement before the UN Human Rights Council on human rights and war in Iran in which it fiercely condemned both the Mullahs’ regime for its grave human rights violations against protestors and their families, and the war and its terrible consequences on kids and their rights to life and education.

Also, the organization condemned the U.S. sanctions against the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, as well as the attacks against Israeli civilians on October 7th, and called explicitly for “the immediate release of hostages [and] for an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire in Gaza.”

Other member and associate organizations around the world took similar positions.

In October 2023, less than a week after the attack, Humanist UK issued a statement on the Middle East in which it expressed its sadness “by the loss and suffering experienced by innocent civilians in Israel and in Gaza.” While that initial statement highlighted how hard it is for Humanists in the UK to do something about the course of events in the Middle East, the more recent 2025 statement on the starvation in Gaza called upon the “UK Government to step up and rethink its approach to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Palestine.” It also highlighted the importance of ceasing to arm the Netanyahu Government and urged the UK Government to deploy diplomatic efforts to secure the entry of humanitarian convoys to the Gaza Strip.

Similar positions were adopted around the same time by the Humanist Society Scotland and the American Humanist Association, with both condemning antisemitism and Islamophobia that thrived in the last three years.

The Norwegian Humanist Youth, Humanistisk Ungdom, also issued a statement supporting the Palestinian people and warning against associating acts done by Hamas and Israel with Muslims and Jews in Norway.

It is however very important for us as Humanists, to make sure our Jewish and Arab siblings’ voices get heard. Till now, the Society for Humanistic Judaism, including its leadership and Rabbis, refrain from giving official statements on the issue, while hosting a positive and constructive dialogue about it within the community. This should be understood by us, as a variety of people have a variety of viewpoints including on such thorny issues, and as the people directly experiencing the pain are those who can be less asked to motivate their feelings or to rationalize their reactions.

As for the two officially member/associate Humanist organizations in the Arab World, Humanists Libya and Freethought Lebanon, their websites are not updated, and, for all we know, crackdowns and persecutions have faced their members, with one of Humanists Libya members having been temporarily imprisoned and their old website being taken down by authorities. 

As rational human beings aiming for progress, and conscious of the human origin of culture(s) independent of any supernatural or timeless agency, Humanists need to set the records straight! Empathy and openness, as well as freedom of conscience, although important beliefs that we cherish and hold dearly, cannot by any means be weaponized against us to make us shy away from saying the truth under the guise of diversity and politeness. And the truth is that tribal, nationalistic, religious and geopolitical doctrines and narratives are not eternal or set in stone, but ever-changing, ever-developing, and sadly, because oftentimes taken as the opposite, inflicting real life trauma and resentment.

Breaking the cycle of trauma means that empathy must be corroborated with well-meaning, albeit painful questions, and a redefinition of cultural identities, especially among peoples that share the vast majority of their genome, a common language family, observe similar laws, and share, whether they like it or not, the same piece of land.

As the fourth fundamental pillar of our Humanist worldview highlighted in the Amsterdam Declaration of 2022, which curiously proposes Humanism as an alternative for authoritarianism, tribalism, chauvinism, sectarianism and nihilism, puts it, “We are confident that humanity has the potential to solve the problems that confront us, through free inquiry, science, sympathy, and imagination in the furtherance of peace and human flourishing.” 

For peace, justice and pursuit of human wellbeing, some creativity and imagination are indeed needed. These require an openness to carve new institutions, cultures and beliefs systems that heal the old wounds and reunite a species that shares the same genome.