Analyzing Major Conflicts and False Justice Through Bert Hellinger's Lens: My Personal View on Israel's Current Situation

Internal and external conflicts are an inescapable part of human history and our daily reality. This time, I've brought to my blog the text by Bert Hellinger, which delves into the factors and processes behind significant conflicts, the human desire to destroy, and the influence of false justice on the continuation of conflict. Hellinger's work invites us to ponder fundamental questions and examine our behaviors and reactions in conflict situations, reassuring us that these struggles are a universal experience.

This article reflects the harsh and complex reality we have been living in for the past two years. Through Hellinger's understanding, we can see the destructive processes currently taking place in our country, the use of false justice to justify destructive political actions, and the urgent need to preserve democracy. I invite you to delve into the article and reflect on the essential questions it raises. Let's begin, understanding that the preservation of democracy is not just a goal, but a responsibility we all share.

Major Conflicts

Bert Hellinger

The will to annihilate

Each significant conflict wants to get something out of the way. Ultimately, it seeks to annihilate it. Behind these conflicts, the will to annihilate is at work. What kind of energies or fears does the will to annihilate feed on? What feeds the will to annihilate is, above all, the will to survive. Where our life is threatened, we react by flight or fight. Flight means the flight from being annihilated by others, and fight means attempting to annihilate the others or to make them take flight. Annihilation, by definition, is the complete eradication of something or someone. As a rule, the goal is not just to kill others; it is also, in any possible way, to usurp the place of those others and take what belongs to them – physically or spiritually: their goods, their homes, their land, their skills, their cultures, the totality of their lives.

Yes, this is also in the service of survival, to kill and take what belongs to others. It appears we shun cannibalism; this is a thin veneer. In many situations, human beings safeguard their survival at other people’s cost, even at the expense of their lives. Often, absorbing what we just destroyed is necessary for our survival. We may get our nourishment from what nature gives us, like fruit and nuts, but for meat, fish, and even vegetables, we have to kill them before we can take them.

Are all life and death conflicts inhumane? When we are in dire need, we cannot escape them. Large-scale conflicts only serve survival on the one hand; on the other hand, they endanger survival. Therefore, human beings have always sought ways to resolve conflicts peaceably, such as by making contact, having clear boundaries, and forming alliances among smaller groups, through common laws and leadership. Deadly conflicts are kept within limits by a legal system. In particular, the ruler’s monopoly on the use of force is effective to various degrees in halting violent conflict and forcing resolution between individuals and subgroups.

This legal order is external. To some extent, it relies on consent, but to a large degree, it relies on the fear of punishment, including being put to death and exclusion from the community. This legal order is established through force, originating from an external ruler. Once instituted, it is upheld by force. So, this type of enforcement may reduce conflict, but it also relies on conflict and fighting simultaneously. Of course, this kind of conflict is usually of an ordered nature. Thus, it still serves the survival of the whole group and its members.

The legal system generally limits individuals' destructive tendencies and protects individuals and groups from outbreaks of destructiveness. When these boundaries break down, such as in wars or when the legal system collapses, such as in a revolution, the original destructiveness breaks out again with terrifying consequences.

Displacement of the will to destroy

Within a legal system that protects individuals from their own destructiveness and that of others, we can still see groups living out their destructive tendencies through displacement to other levels. We see destructiveness at work in political confrontations and in many scientific and ideological arguments.

We can see destructiveness at work wherever the objective level is abandoned. Instead of searching together for the best solution and observing and examining issues in an objective manner, the members of the other party or school of thought are attacked with words of abuse, slander, and defamation. Aggressions breaking through like this are sometimes not too different from physical destructiveness. They both have the same emotional base and intention to destroy the other morally by declaring the other an enemy of their group, with all of the ensuing consequences. Can individuals protect themselves from this? They are exposed to this conflict, even without participating in it at all. But even then, such individuals are themselves in danger of responding to such aggressions with their own destructiveness, which they may have great difficulty keeping at bay.

Justice

Such confrontations draw their energy from the will to survive and a need common to all humans: a balance between giving and taking and between gain and loss. We also know this need by the name of justice. Only when balance is re-established do we calm down. Therefore, justice is one of the most excellent goods for all of us. At the same time, as mentioned earlier, the idea of ultimate justice does not exist; in the end, somebody pays.

Justice is only precious in a limited framework when we are looking for a balance in a good way. The need for justice has completely different consequences when we try to achieve balance after damage and loss.

When people have hurt us, the instinct for retaliation often arises. This stems from our need for balance and justice, but it also activates our will to survive and destroy. We want to avoid being hurt and damaged again by others. Therefore, when we retaliate, we risk sliding into outright revenge. We might go way beyond the need for balance and justice and end up causing the others more harm and suffering than what we received from them. Others consider ways of achieving justice and revenge, so the cycle is perpetuated. There is no end to the conflict between us. This stark reality should make us all the more cautious about the destructive consequences of revenge.

Here, revenge happens under the pretence of delivering justice. In the name and under the protection of justice, destructiveness forges ahead.

The article "Rising in Love" by Bert Hellinger was published in issue 39, January 2022, pp. 7-9 of "The Knowing Field" magazine.

---

The Israeli Connection

As I delved into Hellinger's text, I couldn't help but think about Israel's complex political and social situation over the past two years. I see the inherent conflicts within our society and how they are eerily reflected in Hellinger's descriptions.

Hellinger discusses the desire to annihilate as a central driver in significant conflicts. In the Israeli context, one can see how fear and threat from the other, whether internal or external, lead to extreme reactions. In its desire to survive politically, the current government threatens democratic institutions and tries to strip the judiciary of its power and independence. The relentless attacks on the Attorney General, the Supreme Court, and the judicial system as a whole are living examples of this.

Hellinger also speaks about false justice, under the guise of which destructive acts are committed. In our Israel today, the government uses justice arguments to justify its actions. However, these actions (or inactions) do not stem from a genuine need for justice but from a desire to continue to rule and maintain power. The rhetoric of "equality" and "justice" serves as a facade for a legal coup, which aims to weaken the judicial system and prevent criticism of this bad government.

From a broader point of view, Hellinger reminds us that internal and external conflicts are an integral part of human reality. But precisely from this understanding, we must strive for a more balanced and healthy relationship with ourselves and those around us.

The conclusion is that it is our civic duty to continue fighting for the preservation of democracy, freedom of expression, and the rule of law, and with the same determination, to demand that the government do everything to immediately release and return all the hostages, alive and dead, even if it means ending the war tomorrow morning. Yes, this also includes seeing Netanyahu's government replaced by one that will promote true justice and equality for all citizens, yes, this includes absolute equality in burden-sharing.

In conclusion, this is a challenging period full of conflicts. Still, if we learn from Hellinger's insights, we can find ways to create a more balanced and healthy society, a society with room for true justice, not false justice used as a tool for destruction. I hope the public discourse will continue to evolve towards understanding and cooperation, and that together we can build a better future for all of us. We must be strong and united in the fight for our Israeli Zionist values and the preservation of Israeli democracy. For me, this is a worthy "together we will win."

---

Sivan Avni offers couples therapy based on Family Constellation and Differentiation.