Israeli academic unpacks the plotlines of patriotism

MIRAH LANGER

“What I see at the moment is that in Israel, there is a monopolisation of patriotism. If you have a different opinion from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, you are not a patriot.”

Bar-Tal delivered an address in which he interrogated the distinction between blind allegiance and critical thinking. He said that he found the current power play over the concept of patriotism unacceptable.

“Patriotism is, by its nature, about love, care and concern for the country; it is not related to ideology or to a leader or particular goals,” he said.

“I love my country. Like Netanyahu, I also care about this state. But it is my right to think and express my objection to the way that the present government leads the state and I think it’s a duty [to do so].”

Bar-Tal is a recipient of the Peace Scholar Award from the Peace and Justice Studies Association, a non-profit organisation in the US. He said currently in Israel, as well as in Jewish communities around the world, a plurality of views was being flattened in favour of a single narrative about the current conflict in Israel.

“There is tension between allegiance and critical thinking. Every society needs loyalty and care, but it also needs critical thinking, because without critical thinking, you cannot change or progress.”

Part of a critical interrogation of the situation in Israel needed to be a psychological evaluation, he suggested.

The current belief between Israelis and Palestinians was that their conflict was “unique… and cannot be compared to any other conflict”.

Bar-Tal said his own research had led him to believe that the opposite was true. “As a political psychologist, I think that this is not the case – because the foundation and the dynamics of the conflict are very similar in many places.”

Bar-Tal suggested that while the context and content might differ, conflicts such as those in Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Cyprus, Northern Ireland and between the Turks and Kurds, had similar psychological dynamics. In these situations, he said, “The conflict is real. It is usually over territory, resources, self-determination and nationhood.

“Probably, conflict of this kind could be resolved easily, but for one problem. The problem is that in the society involved in this conflict, which lasts for a long period of time… there is a development of psychological foundations that make the conflict very difficult to resolve.”

These nations needed to be able to provide an explanation to their own people and the international community about the situation. “So, you build a very simplistic, black and white narrative in order to be 100% right. Conflict needs a mobilising narrative… Each side has to have reasons and justifications.”

Furthermore, he said, the narrative had to offer a goal. “You need to justify the goal and always there is a delegitimisation of the rival.”

While the rival would often be dehumanised, your own group was to be glorified.“So, on the one side, you say: ‘We are the most moral in the world, the most human in the world.’”

“Furthermore, in this kind of conflict narrative, each group views itself as an exclusive victim of the conflict, claiming: ‘They are not the victims; we are.’

“Talk with the Russians and talk with the Chechens, and you will hear the same story.”

The final part of the story, he said, was about a dream: “You need a dream that there will one day be peace.”

Bar-Tal said that Netanyahu’s narrative was easy to unpack:“[Firstly], he is saying: ‘It’s our land. It was given by G-d.’”

Netanyahu’s second plot point was: “There is a continuous threat to the existence of the Jewish people because of the Holocaust and the intransigence of the Palestinians.”

The third element was: “We don’t trust Arabs. Arabs are not partners for the story.”

Finally, the story offered this position to Israelis: “We are moral; we are the victims of the conflict.”

As such, Netanyahu encapsulated this psychological strategising through story, said Bar-Tal. “He responds to the needs of the majority of Israelis, who feel fear because of the Holocaust experiences and because of what they hear, see and experience. In my view it is greatly augmented and used, because fear is learned.”

It had become clear that Israelis’ fear had become stimulated not just through fact, but also emotion.The paradox in Israel was that while “Israel is a superpower… in terms of army training, commando training and the success of Mossad, still Jews feel that they are threatened.

 “It is not only a matter of objective reality, of counting how many rockets you have. You also have to see the consciousness of people: how it is built, how it is transformed.”

Furthermore, he said it was a common human impulse not to want to hear about “atrocities, misdeeds and immoral acts” perpetuated by their own people. “The French don’t want to hear about what they did in Algeria for example.

“Israelis are not exceptional; they want to hear that they are moral.”

As such, those that offered a different perspective on this were silenced. “We call them traitors.”

Yet, there would always be a few who had the “strength” and “courage” to say what they thought.

Bar-Tal urged that these opposing voices were heard.”