Israel Studies

Israel Studies 2.2 (1997) 88-112

Israeli Society between the Culture of Death and the Culture of Life

Dan Bar-On

Cultural Background: Trauma and Its Recognition

TRAUMA IN THE MIDDLE EAST is deeply (though not only) associated with the bitter struggle of the last hundred years between Arabs and Jews. It is difficult to summarize this long struggle in a few sentences. I will concentrate in this paper on the trauma associated with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. There were about six hundred thousand Jews and a similar number of Palestinian living west of the Jordan river, when the United Nations decided to establish two national states in this territory, on 29 November 1947, thereby ending the British Mandate (which started after WWI). The Jewish population which immigrated to Palestine during the last hundred years ¹ came from all over the world. Most of the Palestinians ² lived in this region and some immigrated into it from neighboring countries. ³ The national consciousness of both groups grew systematically in a kind of implicated relationship, while focusing on the conflictual aspects of the commonly claimed territory. ⁴

The Jews viewed their immigration [aliyah, lit. "going up"] as an act of revival of their national home, which had been destroyed about two thousand years ago by the Romans. For many years, they had tried to ignore the Palestinian population as a separate social and recognized national entity. Most of the Palestinian leadership soon viewed the Jewish immigration as an intrusion of an alien group, similar to previous intrusions of conquerors or colonialists (Crusaders, Mamelukes, British, and French). Though there were several efforts to develop peaceful relationships between these two developing groups, most of the history of the last hundred years can be characterized by indifference and animosity of two geographically and economically [End Page 88] interwoven but culturally separate groups, who are at the same time also quite diversified, internally.

The Israeli and Palestinian national groups are very different in many respects, and particularly in historical heritage, religious belief, cultural linkage, socio-economic status, and community setup. They share, however, some similarities. Though they both come from ancient cultural and religious traditions, they both lack a modern, independent heritage of statehood. This means that they have had to develop the tradition of statehood during, and to some extent through, the violent struggle with each other. ⁵ Psychologically, they both tended to define themselves as victims of their enemy, which I call their "relevant other," and through which they have reconstructed their own collective identity. ⁶

After the UN decision in 1947, the Israelis viewed the Palestinians as aligned with the hostile Arab countries, like Syria and Egypt. From 1954, these countries were later heavily supported by the USSR, thereby slowly making the Middle East part of the Global Cold War. For their part, the Palestinians saw the Jews as a powerful hostile group, which had initially gained the support of the USSR and its satellites, the Western countries, and of course Western Jewry. While the Israeli population enjoyed wide political support from the Jewish Diaspora after WWII (mainly in the United States), the violent conflict created a Palestinian Diaspora, which slowly gained impact in the West and in Arab countries such as Lebanon, Jordan, and Kuwait. The Palestinian Diaspora has been manipulated by the Arab countries during both the power struggle with Israel and the power struggle among themselves.

Both the Palestinian and Israeli conflict spread to different spheres of life (threats to personal safety, ownership of land, housing and territory, education and cultural autonomy, control over scarce resources such water, international recognition and trade). Psychologically, each group addressed the other as the aggressor and saw itself mainly as the victim. For many years (1954-1989) this situation was manipulated by the struggle between West and East, thereby reinforcing the clear-cut conflict as perceived by each group. Only after the fall of the communist block in 1989, and the lack of military resolution (during the Intifada), did the leaders of both sides finally decide to put aside...