It Is Not Hamas — It Is the Human Brain
The Gaza conflict in 2025 illustrates, in its starkest form, the way human decision-making is shaped not by rational calculation alone, but by unconscious mechanisms rooted in recognition. Conventional political science treats leaders as strategic calculators, weighing costs and benefits. Yet human minds are not computers: decisions emerge from the flow of concepts formed by sensory associations, and these flows are constantly biased by the Demand for Recognition (DfR). This enherited neural mechanism not only explains why the conflict has persisted for decades, but also why proposed solutions continually collapse into violence or gridlock.
The Human Decision-Making Mechanism
At its base, the brain stores every sensory input as a sensory entity. These entities form associations with other entities, which we call concepts. When humans “think,” what actually happens is a flow of concepts, each triggered by the prediction of the next most likely association.
The purpose of this flow is not “computation” in the sense of solving equations, but prediction: given a situation, what concept is most likely to follow? This predictive mechanism evolved to help humans anticipate danger, opportunity, and social responses.
But prediction never runs in a vacuum. In parallel, the limbisches System evaluates each association with a hidden comparison of “good or bad.” This evaluation is heavily influenced by the Demand for Recognition (DfR) — a deeply ingrained drive to be acknowledged, respected, and not humiliated. Every thought, even when framed as rational, is unconsciously tilted by this bias.
How DfR Shapes Conflict in Gaza
1. Israel and the U.S. (the strongest parties)
Israel’s leaders want to end this conflict once and for all. Decades of negotiations, cycles of violence, and failed agreements have created exhaustion. The Israeli DfR is now anchored in a single overriding goal: “create facts, eliminate uncertainty, and never again be forced into humiliating compromises.”
The U.S., as Israel’s main backer, ties its DfR to global stature: being recognized as the decisive powerbroker that “solved” the Middle East. Thus, proposals like U.S. trusteeship or the Trump “Riviera” plan gain traction — they promise recognition for decisiveness, while brushing aside ethical complexities.
2. Palestinians (represented by Hamas)
In today’s Gaza, the Palestinian people themselves are tragically reduced to victims. Their daily suffering — destroyed homes, food shortages, mass casualties — does not translate into political agency. Instead, their collective DfR is largely appropriated by Hamas, which positions itself as the defender of dignity and resistance.
For Hamas, recognition is not about governance or prosperity but about survival through defiance. As long as the conflict continues, Hamas sustains itself as the embodiment of Palestinian resistance. The DfR of ordinary Palestinians — to live, to be recognized as human beings — is drowned out by the louder DfR of armed actors.
3. The “Do-gooder” actors (UN, EU, NGOs)
These parties process Gaza through entirely different sensory associations: human rights reports, refugee statistics, international law. Their DfR is tied to being seen as ethical and humane. This bias pushes their conceptual flow toward solutions like two-state frameworks, international protection, or humanitarian aid.
But their influence is weak. Their solutions depend on the strongest actors restraining their own DfR impulses, which rarely happens in practice.
Why No Solution Emerges
The contradiction is now fourfold:
- Do-gooder DfR → recognition through moral legitimacy → peace and rights.
- Strongest DfR (Israel/U.S.) → recognition through strength and finality → tabula rasa.
- Hamas DfR → recognition through endless resistance → permanent struggle.
- Palestinian civilians → recognition through survival and dignity → mostly ignored, reduced to victims.
This structure ensures deadlock. The strongest want closure, the do-gooders want compromise, Hamas thrives on the continuation of conflict, and the people themselves have no effective agency. Each side’s DfR pulls the predictive flow of concepts into opposite directions.
And critically: Hamas will continue to exist as long as the conflict exists. Its DfR is parasitic on the struggle itself. Peace would strip Hamas of recognition; war ensures it. This is why every attempt to “solve” the conflict paradoxically strengthens the very actor that benefits most from its continuation.
The Present Situation (2025)
The Trump-backed plan for Gaza redevelopment — with U.S. trusteeship, “voluntary relocation,” and a Riviera-style smart city — epitomizes this dynamic. It satisfies the DfR of the strongest (appearing decisive, visionary, dominant) while negating the DfR of Palestinians (dignity, sovereignty). Do-gooders condemn it, Palestinians resist it, Hamas feeds on it, and Israel embraces it — each position perfectly predictable once the DfR bias is understood.
Conclusion
The tragedy of Gaza is not merely geopolitical but cognitive. Human decision-making, based on predictive association of concepts, is systematically biased by the Demand for Recognition. This bias ensures that each actor interprets events in a way that maximizes recognition for itself but denies it to others.
- Israel/U.S. seek recognition through strength and final closure.
- Hamas seeks recognition through resistance and conflict itself.
- Do-gooders seek recognition through humanitarian appeals.
- The people of Gaza remain victims, trapped in the crossfire of competing DfR biases.
Unless actors learn to recognize — and restrain — the hidden pull of DfR, Gaza will remain locked in its cycle of violence and failed solutions. The conflict is not unsolved for lack of clever plans, but because the neural mechanism of recognition ensures that every plan becomes another battlefield for dignity.
The emerging reality is that the United States is preparing to take decisive action by pushing the plan of a so-called “Golden Riviera” for Gaza. Behind the glossy language of redevelopment lies a clear geopolitical bargain: Israel, exhausted by decades of failed negotiations and endless rocket fire, seeks to wash its hands of Gaza entirely. In effect, the deal with Trump is brutally simple: “You solve the problem for us, and you can have Gaza. Do whatever you want with it.” The picture is almost grotesque: a smiling real-estate tycoon, Trump beaming with the confidence of a new property deal, holding up the promise of a beachside paradise. By shifting Gaza under U.S. trusteeship, Israel not only releases itself from the burden of direct responsibility but also secures recognition as the state that finally “ended” the conflict—while leaving the fate of two million people in the hands of spectacle and profit.
