Prof. Gilad Hirschberger
, Social and Political Psychologist,
Vice Dean of the Baruch Ivcher School of Psychology, Reichman University. Researches the long-term impact of the Holocaust on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and how threat perception affects readiness for territorial compromises in a settlement with the Palestinians
Prof. Gilad Hirschberger, a few months before the war you wrote an article critical of the psychology of peace and conflict. You conducted a historical analysis of 32 major conflicts in the world from World War II to the present, and the findings are quite surprising. The processes of forgiveness, empathy, regulation of emotions - have nothing to do with conflict resolution.
"That's right. Confrontations that end in negotiations that end in a settlement – the sums of a return to violence are three times greater. Between a third and a half of conflicts that ended in conflict resolution, so to speak, return to combat within five years. Moreover, most conflicts, 55 percent, were resolved by defeating the adversary, while the rest were resolved through international intervention and frustration with the inability to subdue the enemy. All three reasons are variations of frustration with not being able to completely defeat the other side. Germany and Japan, for example, became peace-loving countries because they were defeated and brought to their knees, realizing that they could not defeat the other side. They had no choice but to change. In the current context, it can be said that there will once be peace with the Palestinians, but not before the defeat of Hamas. History shows that transformation takes place only from a place of no choice."
Your words give me the feeling that the attempt to be enlightened, empathetic, peace-loving is against us. Perhaps, in the context of the State of Israel, the term "round" should be erased from the lexicon in order to avoid tragic events such as that of October 7.
"It's pretty clear to everyone that the containment policy and the rounds have led us to pay a heavy price. Of course, it is also important to combine a military victory with a political initiative, because deterrence alone is liable to create an arms race that creates escalation. Deterrence alone is not a solution. It should have a continuation of the negotiations.
Documentation from the assassination of Ibrahim Abu Maghib | IDF Spokesperson
"Deterrence is indeed a way to frustrate the adversary, but it has another problem: deterrence is a metacognition of the enemy: you have to understand how he thinks in order to deter him. Is Hamas deterred by destroyed buildings and loss of life? Not sure. In order to reduce the motivation to eliminate you, you must always deter, but also offer some kind of 'carrot,' which means giving the adversary a chance to get something as part of an agreement, not violently."
What carrot would you offer to such a cruel enemy?
"I remember Lieberman once saying that he doesn't believe in the carrot-and-stick method, but in the germination method with spritzes and whipped cream cake with pineapple. In order to create significant deterrence, the dream of destroying us must be removed from their heads. But then we must show the generosity of the victors and offer something to the Palestinians. They will not disappear, and if some of their aspirations are not met, we will continue the dangerous game of deterrence-an arms race-escalation. A message must be sent that the Palestinians cannot destroy us, nor can they accept anything with violence. But if they are willing to lay down their arms, they will be able to get something in the framework of a peace agreement, which in essence is temporary and not eternal."
In your view, conflicts will not be resolved if the strong side does not significantly threaten the weak. In this sense, can the IDF's response create a change that will lead to lasting agreements?
"It's a long way. If Hamas were a national organization, like Fatah, whose goal was to achieve a Palestinian state, the path to negotiations and a settlement might be shorter. But Hamas is an Islamic-fundamentalist organization with no intention of compromising, and after October 7, I believe that the Israeli left is also hesitant about a Palestinian state in the West Bank in the current situation. There will have to be a change in the balance of power within Palestinian society in order to reach a solution."
Ambiguous romanticization
Reaching a solution by brute force will be complex, and the same applies to a solution based on strong public support.
"Although at the moment the public is not ready for an agreement with the Palestinians, studies in the United States have shown that the connection between public attitudes and policy is almost nil. In a meta-analysis conducted in 2014, it was found that the likelihood that a policy will be implemented as a function of the degree of public support for that policy is only 30 percent, regardless of the degree of public support. And in general, sometimes behavior is what influences attitudes."
Sadat's visit is an example of this.
"Polls conducted in the 70s before the visit showed that most Israelis believe that the Arabs do not want peace. In another survey conducted after his visit to Israel, the percentage of those who believe in peace jumped to 73 percent. Similar figures emerged in Oslo and the Disengagement. Reality changes attitudes, but it's not that attitudes drive change. I have yet to come across a psychological study that has found the magic formula for peace."
You're talking about peace. It's worth understanding what it is.
"It's one of the most misunderstood concepts in modern Western culture. We derive the concept of peace mainly from the 60s from films like Hair. There is a romanticization of the concept, but between it and actual peace - there is nothing at all. If I still had to summarize what peace is, I would say that it is frustration with the desire to defeat the opponent. When one side in a conflict understands that the other side cannot be defeated, or that it has been severely defeated by the other, an understanding is created out of necessity that peace must be achieved.
"The peace treaty between Israel and Egypt is an example of an agreement that stems explicitly from Egypt's frustration with the inability to defeat us. Sadat wrote in his memoir that he had come to the conclusion that peace must be made with Israel, because in this generation it cannot be defeated. He also qualifies: Maybe in future generations it will be possible. When Sadat arrived in Israel in 1977, Motta Gur asked him why they hadn't tried to break through to Tel Aviv in the early days of the Yom Kippur War, after crossing the Canal. Sadat looked at him and said: 'General Gur, didn't they tell you about Dimona?' This illustrates the frustration."
A peace that follows a defeat or frustration of one side tends to become stronger and more stable over time?
"Historically, conflicts resolved by defeat by one side have lasted much longer."
Which tragedy would you choose?
You believe that the ultimate goal of groups is not necessarily peace. And I ask myself, do the Palestinians even want peace?
"In realistic terms, the motivation of any group is survival, not necessarily peace. Groups make peace and compromise when it contributes to their survival and well-being. As long as the Palestinians believe that Israel is a temporary entity, then the events of October 7 have made it far from their point of view to reach an agreement, because they are perceived as a promo for the liberation of all of Palestine."
Your comments follow a survey earlier this year showing that Palestinians in the West Bank are shifting from supporting a solution to the conflict to supporting armed conflict.
"This is a process that has been going on for the last two years. If in the past the tension in Palestinian society was between support for two states and support for one, today there is an abandonment of both solutions and a shift to support for armed struggle.
Begin and Sadat in Jerusalem, Photo: GPO
"The question is whether we can reach enough frustration on both sides that we will be forced to accept a compromise, even if it is painful. Amos Oz was once interviewed by The New York Times and talked about the difference between a Shakespearean tragedy, in which everyone dies, and a Chekhovian tragedy, in which everyone is left desperate and sad. He said his hope was that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would end as a Chekhovian tragedy."
But our conflict is also quite unique. This is another point that comes up in the article.
"One of the main points is that Israel is perceived as a foreign plant in the Middle East. In the Iran-Iraq War, the sides killed each other, but it didn't cross their minds that the other side shouldn't be here. The same is true of the war waged by the Turks and Kurds. In our case, even the moderate axis in the Arab world accepts Israel de facto, not de jure. In other words, they do not accept Israel's right to exist as legitimate. Part of the frustration, on both sides, by the way, has to deal with the understanding that Jews and Arabs are here, and that no one is going anywhere. If this understanding takes root, we will be in a much better place."
Hermetic resonance chamber
In the article, you argue that psychological interventions do not necessarily work in conflicts, which are not necessarily the focus. This is unprecedented because you are a political psychologist yourself.
"Social psychology should be more modest, it has a place in contributing to achieving peace, but not necessarily the central chair. I did the research because of my growing frustration with sociopolitical psychology. Many studies make use of various operations, and find an increase in the desire to resolve conflicts. I have criticism of that, because even if you succeeded in getting people to support conflict resolution, it still doesn't solve the conflict."
How did your colleagues react to the study?
"I was pleasantly surprised by the responses of senior psychologists. Among many of them there is a sense that social psychology has made itself irrelevant, by moving to utopian places, which are less suited to reality itself. But as scientists, we are supposed to study reality as it is. There were also less enthusiastic responses, of course."
Comments that were less fond of criticism of the establishment, from within.
"One of the problems of social psychology is that it's usually a group of ultraliberal, progressive people who generate voices into a hermetic echo chamber. There is no critical voice that would undermine the paradigm. Many researchers see themselves as warriors of justice, not scientists. If you are a warrior of justice, you will be a warrior of justice. But a scientist should strive for objectivity. The value of ideological diversity also emerges from the study: the chances of survival of each group increase when there is a mix of different political ideologies.
Signing of the Abraham Accords. A stable government enables the creation of new diplomatic ties, photo: Avi Ohayon, GPO
"Beyond that, many of the interventions offered by social psychology – empathy, emotion regulation and forgiveness – work well at the interpersonal level, but not necessarily at the group level. It is important to remember that on the interpersonal level, between spouses or friends, for example, there is a basic connection out of will. But when Israelis and Palestinians come to therapy, they don't want each other. This reality was forced upon them."
Has any of the country's decision-makers been exposed to the study?
"Terem, but we're trying to influence decision-makers in our research. I think that these days decision-making has to be the product of real, objective data."
If you were asked to provide scientific advice to the cabinet or government, what would your recommendation be?
"Apparently, eradicate Hamas, Gaza and the West Bank. One of the most significant conclusions from 7 October is that containment does not work. The Palestinian Authority may not be a peace-loving dove, but I would recommend working to strengthen it, contrary to policy until now. Precisely after recent events, there is a more realistic option to establish a moderate Palestinian entity with which an agreement can be reached. After the elimination of Hamas, there is a higher probability of this, because Israel is not going anywhere. We may be afraid of the Palestinians after October 7, but in order to live in the Middle East, you can't have the perception that all Arabs are the same. Some of them are good citizens of the State of Israel."
You also explore horror management theory, which deals with the influence of death consciousness on human thinking and behavior. The idea of the group and its survival helps us to better cope with the horrors of war and death.
"The basic idea of the theory is that we work to avoid the thought of our own death, which is unavoidable. We connect to a symbolic entity, more continuous, and greater than the physical self. The group is this symbolic entity, and when a person belongs to a certain group, he understands that something of him will continue to exist even after physical death. This helps us understand why it is so difficult to compromise on symbolic issues - to whom the land belongs, for example. These questions are difficult to compromise, in part because they protect us from the terror of death. The paradox is that we find solace from death in absolute beliefs that may actually endanger us."
From a broader perspective, what is it about the human psyche that brings us to radical solutions, which are only followed by moderation, peace, empathy and quiet?
"The story is the survival of the group. I believe that human beings unite in groups because in nature we are inferior creatures. A person, facing almost every predator in nature - is doomed. Thanks to human cognitive abilities, we organized into effective groups that allowed us to defend ourselves. If we have come this far because we are part of the Jewish people, with all its hardships, we are motivated to defend this group. And these days other places in the world remind us how important it is to protect our team, because it's not exactly easy to be Jewish in other parts of the world. From this motivation we find ourselves in conflict with other groups, and for the sake of the idea of protecting the group - we also take radical solutions. But it is important to remember that the purpose of this radical action is to create more favorable conditions for an agreement that will give us peace and security."
For suggestions and comments: Ranp@israelhayom.co.il
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us