Any living being is born, reaches maturity, and then grows old, decays physically, quite often also morally, and then comes the end. Humans have the ability to procreate. And that means to extend, in a certain way, their stay on the Earth. However, the policies of the leaders of some states keep reminding us that everything is finite. It is possible that our existence on the Earth may come to an end. Degradation, disintegration, decomposition are quite natural phenomena, but when it comes to ethnic groups, to the behavior of this or that group of people, the issue of degradation is particularly acute. Degradation of an ethnic group is a tragedy not only for this group of people, this ethnic group, but also for the neighboring nations.
Some ethnic groups develop, evolve, learn to control the animal instincts inherent in every human being, while others do not. They go through a reverse process. At first there comes regression, i.e., return to the original state, and then this process goes further and degradation comes. That is, moral qualities gradually lose their stability. The right of the strong, pronounced in a pack of animals, and long enough cultivated in the human community, becomes dominant. Another feature of a degenerating group of people is the appropriation of the right to violence. Of course, by definition, established states have the right to violence. This right is exercised within the framework of the law, the judicial system, the whole apparatus created precisely to ensure that violence is not voluntaristic and is justified. The right to self-defense is precisely that justified violence. Azerbaijan exercised its right to restore its territorial integrity through war and violence. Note that in this context violence was justified, and our country resorted to it after 30 years, having exhausted all possible peaceful attempts to liberate its lands from occupation.
Groups of people, sometimes entire ethnic groups, who claim the right to violence quickly deteriorate. Often, there is no turning back. These people are lost to the civilized community. What are the conditions under which an irreversible process of degradation occurs? What principles guide such a society? In my opinion, there are certain prerequisites for the emergence of a degrading society. Isolation, seclusion of the ethnic group or sect, the idea of chosenness, fear of communication with the world, lack of critical thinking.
Conspiracy theories very often speak of supranational groups running the world, a congregation of the super-rich pulling the strings of recognized political leaders like puppets. I cannot say to what extent these theories are justified. It is possible that there is something to them. Nevertheless, if this kind of groups with a limited number of participants try to decide the fate of the world, and, given the top-secretness and privacy, stay in the superhuman status for a long time, then, I think, sooner or later, they also begin to degenerate, losing their bearings. I am not talking about moral principles, because if “superhumans” claim the right to rule the world, they have no moral principles by definition. That is, superhumans also degrade and can also bring the world to the brink of catastrophe. This is the situation we are witnessing today. I cannot presume to judge who is behind the conflicts spreading around the world like wildfires. But it is obvious that short-sighted politicians, motivated by personal gain, lead nations to confrontation, enmity, hatred, and, ultimately, to total degradation.
The recent events in Israel, when Hamas terrorists, who have lost their humanity, committed terrible crimes by breaking into Israeli kibbutzim, are proof of the complete degradation of this terrorist group of people.
Hamas, a radical militaristic organization that has lost the moral values of not only the Islamic mindset but universal moral principles, has seized power in the Gaza Strip. How did Hamas manage to seduce the Palestinians? To draw them into its nets, literally and figuratively? To organize, in a small area of the Gaza Strip, a stable group with great influence over the minds and hearts of the Palestinians? Would this be the case if the Palestinians had a state of their own? I cannot say for sure that if there were a Palestinian state, the Palestinians would be more peaceful, more rational, following the well-known formula “it is better to trade than to fight”. This was the idea proposed by Israel in order to keep peace in this territory, albeit under its own control.
As it turned out, just trade, just economy is not a determining, attractive factor for an ethnic group. Especially for an ethnic group like Palestinians, who carry on their shoulders and in their hearts an old grudge which, they believe, was inflicted on them by Israel.
Is it possible to change for the better the attitude of Palestinians towards Israelis and vice versa? It is unlikely. Just as it is impossible to change relations between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in the near future after the 30-year festering wound of Karabakh. No need to harbor illusions. The offended people have certainly deteriorated. There is no reason to expect that the day after the establishment of a Palestinian state or the delimitation of borders between the sovereign states of Armenia and Azerbaijan and the signing of a peace treaty, there will be peace and quiet and God’s grace. Generations will remember past grievances, but, I believe, the only way out of the endless maelstrom of wars, killings and violence today is to abide by international law. The main burden in implementing the decisions of international authorities, alas, falls on the leaders of the states in conflict. Much depends on the leaders’ foresight and rationality. The UN is obviously not in a position to seriously influence the situation. There are quite a lot of “advisers” around the blazing conflict, who are ultimately the beneficiaries of it.
There is little hope for the collective intelligence. The reason is that degradation of ethnic groups and entire peoples happens quite quickly. They just need to be locked in a confined space, without the possibility to fully communicate with the outside world, to be inculcated with the idea of their exceptionalism, their inalienable right to dominance, and to be convinced of the unquestionability of the supreme power.
Another sign of degradation of a certain group of people, is dehumanization of the opposing party. This is exactly how the Nazis operated. They dehumanized Jews. The Nazis portrayed the extermination of Jews as ridding humanity of malicious beings who had little in common with real humans. The Third Reich passed insane laws that discriminated against Jews, as well as other peoples. Such as Slavs. It pains me to see how some Israelis also dehumanize Palestinians, calling them beasts, and, consequently, justifying their government’s policy, namely, the endless bombing of civilians in the Gaza Strip.
The desire to destroy Hamas in order to discourage terrorists from the idea of carrying out attacks against Israel does not justify the process of dehumanization, the killing of Palestinian civilians.
Hannah Arendt, a Jewish philosopher and writer, was one of the first to talk about the Holocaust. She had the courage to speak out about the things that had been kept silent because it was unimaginably terrifying to talk about them. The banality of evil. This is her vision of the terrible catastrophe of the Holocaust in Europe. Evil becomes routine. It ceases to be noticed. The most gruesome procedures are meticulously executed without thinking or questioning, because that is what the Fuhrer ordered. And at the beginning of this process is dehumanization. Portraying the persecuted party as a terrible dangerous animal, a beast that must be destroyed. It makes no difference what form the beast takes. An armed fighter. An old man. A woman. A child. It does not matter.
King Herod probably had no doubt that his order to kill all male babies would be carried out. That is what a king is. God’s representative on earth.
About the ray of hope. Experts and political scientists talk about the process of emergence of a new world order in the modern world, when the idea of a nation state with clear borders and its own laws is no longer viable. In particular, Azerbaijani historian Rizvan Huseynov speaks about it. In the context of globalization and the emergence of such a powerful information tool as the World Wide Web, when the information about any event instantly spreads around the world, it is very likely that new communities will emerge where the issue of ethnicity will not be defining. The road is long. It is possible that in the new world, at least at first, the process of degradation will be minimized. Children, as a rule, are open, curious and love life.
