Strenger than Fiction / Why Israel keeps moving right
Israelis at this point prefer international isolation, painful as it is, to reliance on Arab peace partners for its own security.
By Carlo StrengerIsrael has been sliding into ever greater isolation in recent years. Since Benjamin Netanayhu returned to power in 2009 this process has accelerated. The international community has been put off by his tactics: Whenever the question of Israel’s settlement policy comes up, he diverts attention to the Iranian nuclear threat. He argues that the world is facing a situation similar to 1938, and that its reaction is that of Chamberlain trying to appease Hitler. The world doesn’t buy Netanyahu’s rhetoric; his policy of stalling the peace process is perceived as a cynical ploy hiding Israel’s true intent of holding on to the territories.
This explanation fails to take into account that Netanyahu’s rhetoric reflects the paradoxical state of mind of the Israeli electorate. Polls show that a consistent 70 percent of Israelis favor a two-state solution. So why has Israel’s electorate been moving consistently to the right in the last decade? Why is Netanyahu’s popularity in Israel so high? And why is Israel’s public less willing than ever to listen to criticism of Israeli policies?
This development can be elucidated by a universal tendency of the human psyche uncovered by existential psychology in the last two decades. When under threat, particularly mortal threat, humans tend to react psychologically by entrenching their worldviews. These views, which include identity narratives of righteousness, become ever more rigid under these circumstances, leading to growing distrust, hatred and negative prejudice against out-groups. Criticism of the in-group and its worldview is rejected categorically.
This theory predicts that Israel’s move to the right reflects a sense of existential threat. To outside observers this may seem absurd, given that Israel is a regional superpower generally assumed to have a substantial nuclear arsenal, whereas the Palestinians don’t even have a standing army. Nevertheless all polls show that Israel suffers from deep anxiety about its viability.
Part of the explanation is quite concrete: Two realistic threats have indeed emerged in the last years. The first is the possibility that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, a threat that most Israelis see as catastrophic. The second is from groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, which have moved from suicide terrorism to rocket attacks on Israel. Israel, for the first time since 1973, is faced with security threats to which it has no clear-cut answer. As a result Israel launched massive attacks in Lebanon in 2006 and against Gaza in 2008/9 under the assumption that the price of rocket attacks must be destruction on a substantial scale. This has pushed Israel into unprecedented international isolation.
Israel’s electorate reacted to this sequence of events exactly as predicted by existential psychology: during operation Cast Lead, the Israeli public was unwilling to tolerate any criticism of the massive destruction in Gaza, and in the 2009 elections it moved strongly to the right and effectively erased the Israeli left.
The result is a vicious circle in which Israel feels that its existential fears are not taken seriously. Israel’s electorate moves towards leaders who address but also keep reinforcing its fears. International opinion becomes ever more negative, which in turn reinforces Israel’s isolation which in turn raises existential fears.
This has one, very unfortunate, consequence. Israel’s best chance of minimizing the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah and minimizing Iranian influence in the Middle East is to engage with the Arab League peace initiative. If Israel were to normalize relations with all of the Arab and most of the Islamic world, particularly Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas would be isolated to the point of having to move towards abandoning violence and recognizing Israel’s legitimacy.
Taking this road requires Israel to take a risk and bet on the positive dynamics of a peace process. But this is precisely what Israel is incapable of doing after the traumas of the second intifada and the shelling of southern Israel. Israelis at this point prefer international isolation, painful as it is, to reliance on Arab peace partners for its own security.
Are there any ways to get Israel out of its growing distrust of the outside world? Experimental existential psychology suggests two main means: one is, obviously, lowering the real or perceived mortal threat. The other is to decrease the sense of isolation.
The Obama administration has addressed both issues lately. It is stepping up security cooperation with Israel, and increasing its military aid to Israel, particularly to allow Israel to complete the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system developed to provide an answer to the short range rockets used by Hezbollah and Hamas. Obama has also changed course in that he has given Netanyahu a warm welcome after more than a year of giving him the cold shoulder. This, as most commentators assume, does not reflect a policy change: Obama is adamant about implementing the two-state solution, but he has come to the conclusion that embracing Israel is a more effective way of getting there than to isolate it.
The big question is whether this will in any way influence Netanyahu’s overall security conception, that Israel must retain control over certain areas in the West Bank to have an effective answer to any future attack from the east. Since this does not allow for territorial contiguity of a future Palestinian State, it will be unacceptable to Palestinians and the international community.
Nobody knows what Netanyahu’s long-term strategy is exactly – sometimes I doubt that he knows. But there is a simple way of gauging whether he is about the change course. Tensions between Netanyahu and his foreign minister, extreme rightist Avigdor Lieberman have been mounting lately. The day Netanyahu changes his coalition by ousting Lieberman’s hawkish Yisrael Beiteinu party and replacing it with Tzipi Livni’s centrist Kadima, we will have a strong indication that he is moving towards genuine progress with the Palestinians.
 |
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman |
| Photo by: Dror Artzi / Emil Salman |
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Maybe Israel has not so much "anxiety about it's viability" but rather the vocal minority on the right have anxiety about their prosperity. Israel's basic security in a two state solution could easily be guaranteed by the United States, but that would conflict with the ambitions of the rightists.
Money is what has "changed" Obama. Just as Harry Truman needed money for the 1948 election, so Obama needs money for the 2010 election. Obama has to abandon any pretense of evenhandedness because evenhandedness doesn't contribute campaign money.
Great analysis. There are valid reasons why Israel feels threatened and acts in a way that many in the world characterize as belligerent. Hopefully these issues will be addressed instead of exploited by politicians lusting for power. Otherwise, Israel will continue to be isolated and the threats will only increase.
When Mubarak goes and is replaced by an Islamist regime that abrogates the peace accord with Israel, then you will eat your silly words.
.. although, i really don't think supplying "peace" activists with weapponry is in principle ever going to favor peace processing.
I have yet to read a less informed article which purports to be serious. Should Israel offer a deal to the PA that cenceeds everything to the Pals, just retaining Tel-aviv, the airport and the beech, it would still be rejected. The P.A will NEVER sign a deal that ends the conflict. So all the talk of peace is just that...Talk. IF they had any intention of making a deal, they would start by cooling down the Nazi-type propaganda. Any evidence of that? How many times have the Pals rejected an honourable settlement? 1937, 1947, 1993, 2000 and the last from Bush and Olmet. Wake up, all you lefties and face the truth.
i don't know where you come from, but let's say a certain illegal immigrants in your country start building up militias and demanding your country to be split, i'm sure you'll rush to take the opportunity. about 1993, the Palestinians dropped their claim to all of Palestine, we agreed to the 1967 borders, israel was the one that rejected. as for 2000, no one is sure what israel proposed, at the time clinton was effectively out, and barak was as well out, so even if Palestinians agreed to the ridiculous proposals... [which btw, we did not reject, we said it was a great bases to continue negotiations from] ... it wouldn't be legal since american and israeli parties are not legally in position of accepting anything.
Stanley, you forgot 2002-2007. The Arab peace initiative. Remember that one? There are Arabs who want peace too. But do you want peace? perhaps you need to wake up and see the truth of how the politicians and leaders are playing on your fears to garner your vote.
None of the "honourable settlements" offered by Israel would return all of the land taken wrongfully, as is clearly required by many UN Security Council resolutions such as 465. The Pals have even indicated they would swap some WB land for land now in Israel proper. An offer to return only part of what has been taken wrongfully - not a single nation other than Israel recognizes any right of Israel to any part of Gaza or the WB - is hardly "honourable." If Israel would withdraw from Gaza and the WB, the vast majority of the World would cease to condemn Israel. Denial of this is paranoid, though it would certainly help if the idiotic rockets from Gaza would stop. Israel is its own worst enemy.
...and that is why Israel perceives a threat to its existence
Iran has weapons, and maybe soon nuclear weapons, but neither I or you want them to use these weapons.
Both opposing parties should start by small trust building steps towards each other without any preconditions. After all, imagine the economic power that could be generated by combining Israeli brains with Arab money!
1-Netanyahu long term strategy aims at keeping the territories: that’s clear from what he says and how he says it. 2-Israeli leaders must have studied diligently existential psychology, because, ever since, they have used the tactic of frightening the masses in order to manipulate them. Netanyahu is no exception. 3-This is also the reason why he succeeds in gaining so much support: we have a strong need to feel persecuted and he knows very well how to satisfy it. 4-In the age of very long range missiles, keeping territories for strategic reasons is only an excuse. 5-I do not think that Obama is investing so much thought on us. He is over all a weak leader, lacking vision and the approaching elections at the Congress interest him much more, at least at this point in time.
I don't believe it is the ideology but the economic factor that make israelis move to the right. When a government like the present one provides financial assistance along with easy loans and cheap real estate in the Palestinian land of course people will move to the occupied territories and support the right movements and parties. So people like Natenyahu and Leiberman black male the poor people to achieve their goal and satisfy their ego. It is unfortunate that moderate voices and peace loving people is demolishing.
The financial benefits are not substantial. It is Palestinian violence that caused the shift to the right. If there wasn't violence, there would have been an end to the occupation years ago. Ask Israelis.
A psychological analysis may be interesting in itself. It may even, as the writer suggest, predict the reactions of a person or group of persons. But it says nothing of the logic or justice behind these reactions. There is a reason why humanity has developed these mechanisms: It largely serves their interests. So even if you can analyse and predict a phenomenon (to a certain degree, one should add), you have not solved the case. And the solution suggested in this article is naive considering the history of the Middle Eastern conflict. But then again, saying so will just prove that I am reacting in the pattern of existential psychology. It is just that as a Norwegian, I am not existentially threatened by Hizb'Allah or Hamas. Where does that leave me in terms of existential psycholgy?
Easy. Read the articles and comments published by Haaretz leftists editors, columnists and contributors and one understands why. It's time for the left to re-evaluate its credos or disaper for good - not a bad scenario...
When the Pals stop the violence and the incitement, then Israel can calmly take the risk. Rewarding violence will only get Israel another Gaza, only this time a much larger, centrally located one. Take a really good look at a map to see how dangerous a militarized Palestine would be. Israel would have an extremely hard time defending against a major attack from such close quarters. Keep Israel defensible. Right.
Israel has its right wing ideologues for a long time. Strenger alludes to the real reason the left disintigrated and yielded the playing field to the right. In the late 90's the population threw out Netanyahu and elected Barak who promised to work out a peace deal. He quit Lebanon and the response from Hezbollah was continued aggression Hewas negotiating at Taba (I'm not claiming the Palestinians should have accepted his Camp David offer- If I were Palestinian I would have) but they were in serious negotiations at Taba- and the deal was fair. At that point The Palestinians, seeing the IDF withdraw from Lebanon, saw Israel as weak, and made a calculated, strategic decision to start the Intifada, with all its suicide bombings. They thought they could get more threw war then negotiation and they used a harmless political stunt by Sharon as the excuse. The Israelis, seeing their people being blown up, and seeing that the Palestinians were not negotiating in good faith rightfully quit Taba. And what was the reaction of the Euros - to excoriate Israel. The left died during those years and the psychology condition Strenger points to took root.
Meant to say "If I were Palestninian I would not have accepted the Camp David offer)
If they recognized Israel as a Jewish state and said Palastinain refugees that want to return could go only to the West Bank or Gaza, they would re-invigorate the left. After that, dividing Jerusalem would be easy. However, Palastinains and Israelis are only human and left to themselves will play out this stupid, self destructive tragedy to its possibly bloody end. Maybe there will be some extraordinay event that will change the direction of things for the better, It sure won't happen by iteslf.
... it is predicated upon the idea that Netanyahu's inflexibility is due to FEAR. It isn't. It is caused by GREED i.e. deep down, Bibi and his ilk w.a.n.t. a.l.l. t.h.i.s. l.a.n.d., and the fear-mongering is merely a puppet-theatre he plays so that Israel can avoid loosening its grip on it, because once Israel does that then this land will be out of reach forever i.e. it'll become sovereign Palestine, and that means the end of the "Greater Israel" dream.
...you must one day learn to butter it on the other side.
The situation in Israel has a resemblance of Germany in 1938...
Man is an animal, a mammal; when an attack is perceived, (falsely or not), all mammals regroup, females and young held in the middle of a male guard facing out, ringing the herd, pack, pod, or tribe. The thing is that human beings are capable of overcoming instinctive processes if they but try. My reading of the strengthening or the right-wing pack is that the left is missing from the scene. Until the Israeli left succeeds in reunifying its separate scattered parts, until it can show a unified front and a leader or leaders cogently offering a convincing argument for negotiations, instead of rigid enmity, the right will continue to grow, until the bitter end.
Jews know they cannot continue to steal more and more land and keep pushing the Palestinians out.
It matters not what type of government "Israel" installs; its isolation will become increasingly tight through rupture of relations, boycott, divestment, sanctions, and litigation. Eventually, perhaps in 10 more years, the Zionist entity will wither on the vine and collapse, much to the relief of the world (and to the comfort of Islam and Christendom). Through isolation, "Israel" will tumble into the dustbin of history.
Professor Strenger's analysis of the deplorable phenomenon of Israel's electorate' embracing the Right for the last few years is extremely perceptive and eminently accurate. I definitely concur with Prof. Strenger's suggestion that if Israel were to engage in political./ diplomatic dialog with the Arab League nations which would ultimately result in a 2-state solution, the raison-d'etre for the hostile intractability of Israel's surrounding states would effectively be neutralized and the basis for a realistic and lasting peace may finally be achieved. Whether or not Islamist extremist groups like Hamas or Hizbullah would follow suit in finally accepting and acknowledging the right of the State of Israel to exist - even in such an accommodating scenario - is another question.
it does not seem a far stretch, despite the fancy psychological theory, then Israelis fear the weakness of the left. just maybe, most Israelis feel that the right is more likely to defend Israel's existential needs. after all, every previous peace treaty was concluded by a right-wing government.
...on Prof. Strenger's psychological analysis (although I have seen it apparently employed by governments in other countries I am familiar with)--but one thing I would add is (and I can't begin to offer a psychological theory to account for it) is that I have a sneaking hunch Mr. Lieberman has his own plans re: the makeup of the next government.
You're making the article's point. Besides, "Ha'aretz" does not hate Israel, but hates how the P'rushim ("Orthodox" Jews) have chokeheld its government.
What a great article! It is no use Israel always recalling the past every time they don't like taking a step forward. Of course this psychology stems from so many years when the Arabs were just not prepared to be reasonable but times have changed and it is now Israel who is on the defensive and not the Arab States and Palestinian West Bank leadership. Maybe the Palestinians will still stick to their unreasonable positions but now is the time for Isarel to call their bluff. It should not make concessions which jeopardise its security of course but there is plenty that could be done to change Israel's tone of public voice and improve its image. A good maxim is to treat the Palestinians humanely, to go overboard in offering initiatives to improve their lot. Frankly this would just be gettiung back to basic Jewish Humanitarian Values. This costs nothing and is common decency. If the other side does not respond then Isarel will have lost nothing and will have shifted the label of unreasonableness onto the other side!
they want to flood Israel with millions of "refugees"
The same argument was made then and it was wrong. In both cases Israel lost a lot.
You state that Netanyahu is stalling the peace process. It was Netanyahu who called for direct talks while Abbas refused. This is called stalling?
If the talk is just talk......and that´s all Netanyahu ever do!
If the talk is just talk......and that´s all Netanyahu ever do!
That's why Bibi is (a) demanding direct talks *now* while (b) steadfastly refusing to state his opening position on the core issues. Haven't you noticed that he won't reveal ANYTHING, not even to his New Best Buddy Obama? That is because if the world saw what hand he was planning to play in those "direct talks" they would recoil in horror at the arrogance and the naked greed of the man.
"Experimental existential psychology" which is used by Strenger as an explanation for Israeli behavior is based, no doubt and like other scientific results, on statistical results. In particular, the theory predicts how an "average" human will react to such threats. The difference with nations is that they have leaders, special individuals, with possibly unusual qualities that would defy the statistical predictions. Israel had such a leader when it was established (David Ben-Gurion), at a time of greater peril and in the immediate post-Holocaust period. Unfortunately, political leadership in Israel is deteriorating in quality. Already in 1984 the sociologist Yonatan Shapira discussed why the first generation of leaders did not generate similarly qualified successors. His answer (which is not necessarily correct) was that the second generation were already bureaucrats (including army commanders), used too much to carrying out orders. The second generation were those old enough to participate in the 1948 war, Rabin, Peres, Sharon. All had some good qualities, but not all the required ones. Overall they were not failures. We are now in the third generation of leaders, those who grew up in independent Israel: Netanyahu, Olmert, Barak. ALL are proven failures. I think Prof. Shapira is deceased, so let a successor come up with an explanation for the poverty of this generation. I am just making the observation.
Israel has no realistic military option against Iran (with US disapproval), other than a nuclear strike which is unacceptable before the Iranians have a nuclear weapon and are ready to use it. The distance to Iranian nuclear installation is bigger than what the roundtrip range of the most capable Israeli plane can do without midair refueling. (Where?) The installations are also well dispersed and some locations may be unknown. Here is a completely different alternative for Israel: 1. Make peace with Syria. The Syrians offered it to Sharon and Netanyahu (following Hafez Assad strategic decision to make peace with Barak). Syria at peace will kill Hizballah by depriving them of access to weapons, and get Meshal and other Palestinian rejectionists out of there. Cost: The Golan. 2. Make peace with Lebanon. Papa Assad promised this will follow, and Syria can deliver. No more arms supply to Hizballah, and they will become a political party. 3. Make peace with the Palestinians. Abbas wants it, and Fayyad is establishing a state whether Israel likes it or not. Cost: Practically all the Territories except for some exchanges. 4. Make peace with all Arab states, as per the Saudi plan. 5. Iran, having been pushed out of the region, looks elsewhere to cause trouble. Iraq and Afghanistan will keep them and the US busy. Israel is no longer of central interest to them.
Iron Dome is not for sale. Israel does not need aid with regards to Iron Dome. The failure of US to fulfill JSF - 35 contract raises prospect of Lavi - II project now more than ever. And with apparent achievements in jet propulsion Israel is set to introduce a fighter of a next generation. Israel will need it, but a space exploration vehicle is needed even more.