The guardians of the walls. How Denialism sets the ground for new problems to come?

Denialism, the guardians of the walls. 


During the writing of this article, the operation “Guardians of the Walls” is in progress. 

The story repeats itself and is not the first time that we saw similar actions and reactions from all sides involved in this crisis. Denialism is the actual cause of the conflict. 


Israels’ response in this specific crisis is, more than ever, justified. Hamas attacked them from Gaza, and they (like every nation or every individual) have the right to defend themselves.

Although the objectiveness is clear, instead of having a unique condemnation from every sane person in this world, or at least a decent logical controversy, we see the same old tape on defending cliché positions. 


But why is that? What are the real reasons people (often people with an over than the average education) have these standpoints? What drives people to reject the truth?


In psychology that is called “Denialism.” 


Denialism is a person's choice to deny reality to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth.

Denialism is a person’s choice to deny reality to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth. 

It is part of a defense mechanism to protect a person’s core identity with various intentions. 

What are the intentions of denialism? 

  1. Justify and verify the persons belonging to a group that shares common views. 
  2. Protect the core identity and the continuation of myths where this identity is built.
  3. “Monetize” on particular standpoints that serve specific interests.
  4. Lift the burden of a conflicting reality. 

I do not want to deep dive into a controversy on who is right and who is wrong in the conflict in the middle east, because from the one side I am not an expert in the field; secondly, that is not the intention of this article. 

Beliefs openly challenged from logic and do not want to be faced, are the rawest sample of “Denialism.” I guess it is part of the “Believing” part of a cause. It imposes its standpoint by refusing reality. I am not talking about having a different opinion on a topic; I am referring to strictly not wanting to hear what is real. 

The thing with reality (and science) is that it exists; either you like it or you believe in it, or if you deny it, it is there, and it is what it is. 

Your dealing with reality is what you can influence. 

In my opinion, our Judaeo-Christian civilization, with its judgemental mindset, is the root of “denial” as a mechanism to cope with the hard realities of life. 

Everything has a flavor of good or bad, instead of being as it is and being observed. 

If there is no logical mind prevailing over the irrationality of traditions and myths, then the stage is being set up for the conflict. 


It saddens me to see Arabs sympathize with terror; however, I understand the real reasons behind. And we in the west are part of the blame. 


The real reason is that facing reality and taking an objective standpoint would lead to being expelled from the group to which he belongs. At the same time, many Westerners are unwilling to accept him, even if his opinions and mindset are different from the majority of the ethnic group to which he belongs. 

If that happens, he will find himself a different person after some time with a separate identity. 

Denial makes life easy many times; 

however, our responsibility is not only on the things we do but also on everything we could have done and do not do. 

In the Israeli Arab conflict, reality knocks on the door, and its denial does serve to a certain extent. But when the truth hits the door, the one that strikes it, becomes very unpleasant, not because of the answers on the specific topic but because he collapses the whole world constructed, the entire identity and existence that was based and created on axioms set as the pillars of a personality without any logical background. 

It has nothing to do with Israel; it has to do with the breakdown of a world based on unproven assumptions. 

The west managed to deal with “unproven assumptions” when it separated itself from the darkness of the middle age and, through the “renaissance” of science, logic and art, understood the world better. 

On the other hand, Asian cultures, with their Buddhist approach to life and perception of life from a different angle, without all the judgemental crab that defines our Judeo-Christian culture, have a better understanding of life and do not pave the path to conflict and esoteric dead ends. 

Maybe “denial” would not have been necessary to be the “guardian of the wall” of personalities if the mindset realized that the true self is over the thoughts and emotions and observed them in a world where “Political Correctness Gone Mad,” thinking out of the box might bring more long-lasting solutions to issues and problems. 

That would enable someone not to identify with a label instead of seeing things as they are and working on the response that better serves.


To influence situations and realities, we need to identify the real reasons behind them and address them. 

Alex Valassidis