The title of the present issue of the Palestine-Israel Journal,
"Separation or Conciliation", suggests that these two concepts are
two ends of the same continuum. It implies that if you are
separated from another person or group you are not likely to
reconciled with them. This implication is made even stronger by the
use of the word "or" in the title. It tells us that "separation"
and "conciliation" are mutually exclusive. One can be "separate" or
"conciled" with others but not "separate" and "conciled" with them.
Yet, in relations between Israelis and Palestinians the choice is
not between "separation" or "conciliation", but between
"separation" and "integration". The real issue is: If we want
conciliation - should we do it through separation from or
integration with our adversaries? I shall try to advance the
argument that the real task that faces us in this region is to
build conciliation through separation and integration. It may sound
vague, inconsistent and conflicting. I hope that by the end of this
article it will be a clearer and an internally consistent
proposition.
In developing this argument I shall draw upon my identity as a
social psychologist. The editors have asked me to do so, and I
agreed, believing that psychological thinking on the tension
between "separation" and "integration" with the social environment
is highly relevant to my overall argument. I do not propose to
fully cover the manifestations of this dilemma in psychology. This
task calls for a book length manuscript. I shall note a few major
ways in which this dilemma is reflected in psychological and social
psychological thinking.
Integration and Separation: Psychological Dimensions of the
Dilemma
The tension between separation and integration begins early in
life. Leading personality theorists tell us that, close to birth,
we are the ultimate example of social integration. In the first
months of life newborns do not distinguish between themselves and
the mother. During this time, we are told, there is no sense of a
separate "me", and the "I" is completely fused with the "you". The
major developmental task, according to these theorists, is the work
of separating from this bond and developing a sense of independent
and secure self.
Importantly, an adequate process of psychological separation from
the other person does not mean dissociation from them, or avoidance
of them. An adequate process of separation leaves the individual
separated from the significant other, yet attached to and
integrated with them. The quality of these attachments is said to
color the quality of social relations that we shall form in the
rest of our lives. Being able to separate from significant others
while staying integrated with them is the sine qua non for
psychological well being. Human beings need to create a border
between themselves and their social environment, but these borders
must be flexible enough to allow the person to construct and
maintain significant social relations. The same message is conveyed
in discussions on processes of social identity.
Our sense of who we are, our feeling of identity, is social in the
deepest sense of the word. A concrete example for this is when we
ask a person "Who are you?" The answer to this question would be a
stream of group affiliations. The person may respond with
"Palestinian", "Muslim", "Jewish", "woman", "Israeli", or "a fan of
Hapoel Tel Aviv." Regardless of the specific terms that are used,
all of them are groups. This serves to remind us that the building
blocks of our sense of "self" are the groups to which we
belong.
But by belonging to a group, we also define the groups to which we
do not belong. When I feel as an Israeli I have a clear idea of who
is beyond the boundaries of "Israelis". We may like it or not, but
from a psychological viewpoint identity is built on the distinction
between "us" and "them". Without such a meaningful demarcation line
between my group and the other groups there is no identity.
Moreover this is not a neutral distinction. It is associated with
behaving more favorably towards in-group members, and
discriminating against out-group members. By being social we tend
to be instinctively discriminatory. Not a very flattering view of
human nature. But to be able to build barriers against our impulses
we need to first know them well.
Belonging Requires Clear Boundaries
Groups that don't have clear boundaries are not a suitable basis
for a psychologically significant sense of belonging. For example,
belonging to the group of "earthlings", to which all living
organisms belong, is not likely to be experienced as
psychologically significant. Such belonging does not distinguish
between "us" and "them". If, however, extraterrestrial beings would
show up on planet earth, being an earthling might suddenly become
psychologically relevant and be associated with all the emotional
energy that the affiliation with "Israelis" or "Palestinians" is.
It would be the basis of boundaries between in-group and out-group
members. We need to belong, and the only belonging of psychological
worth is that which excludes those who do not belong.
Belonging and Uniqueness
But our need to belong is not the only motivating psychological
force in our social world. People have two basic needs: the need
for belonging and the need for uniqueness and individuality. At the
same time that we need to be integrated with others and belong to
social groups, we also need to be separate, different and unique
from others. Feeling exactly the same as others hurts, in the same
way that being disconnected from others does. Here again we
encounter the constant tension between separation and integration
that dominates our social existence. Adopting a uni-polar solution
to this tension is not likely to be a psychologically optimal
option. If only the need for belonging dominates, the person may
lose his or her individuality; if the need for individuality
dominates, the person may be separate from others and feel lonely.
As was the case with the psychological development of the infant,
the solution to the dilemma between "separation" and "integration"
cannot be mutually exclusive. An optimal social life will consist
of being the same as others, and different from them at the same
time.
What generalizations can we deduce from all this that will help us
to consider the dilemma of separation and integration in relations
between Israelis and Palestinians? First, we learn of the
importance and significance of borders. Without borders individuals
do not have a sense of personal identity and groups cannot have a
sense of group identity. Borders are important because they define
identity.
Second, an optimal solution to the tension between integration and
separation satisfies both needs. Well being is predicated on a
person's development into a separate individual who is integrated
with significant others, and group affiliation must satisfy two
human needs: the need for belonging through integration with other
group members, and the need for separation by being different from
them.
Separation, Integration and Conciliation between Israelis and
Palestinians
Israeli society brims with discussions of the dilemma between
integration and separation. The proponents for building a wall that
will separate Israelis and Palestinians tell us that the only way
to enable a life of relative tranquility for Israelis is through
unilateral separation from the Palestinians. Within Israel there
are two opposing camps to this unilateral separation. The first
source of opposition comes from the political right that wants
Israelis and Palestinians to live in an integrated Greater Israel.
They forget to tell us that in this Greater Israel integration with
the Palestinians will leave them without representation. Those in
this camp who realize the impracticality of this plan call for
integration and transfer: Jewish integration in the same state
after the Palestinians have been expelled from this Greater
Israel.
Another source of opposition to the idea of unilateral separation
comes from the Israeli left. Here we find the advocates of
separation and integration. The proponents of this view tell us
that forced separation without a political agreement is a recipe
for continued violence. Such separation may quell terrorism in the
short run, but be the breeding ground for terror and violence in
the longer run.
The proponents of this view, of which I am one, stress the message
that conciliation between Israelis and Palestinians will occur only
if these two peoples agree to separate, create borders between
them, and at the same time weave threads of integration in the form
of continued cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians. This
approach recognizes what was previously noted as the lessons of
psychological thinking on this dilemma.
First, people need to base their identity on the groups to which
they belong, and psychologically relevant groups have boundaries
that define "us" and "them". But, the option of living in a state
of conciliation with self and neighbors behind a brick wall is
untenable. If separation is to lead to conciliation, it must be
through an agreement to separate, which forms the basis of future
cooperation, to keep the threads of integration viable.
Moreover, say the advocates of this view, Israelis and Palestinians
are already integrated, whether they like it or not. They breathe
the same air, use the same water resources and are affected by
similar economic constraints and opportunities. Separation is
important to both peoples, but it should occur on a background of
acknowledging the integration that exists and the one that needs to
be developed.
Similar Palestinian Trends
Looking at the other side of the "fence", into Palestine, I see
similar trends. Because they live under occupation, Palestinians
have not developed a movement for unilateral separation. Occupied
groups cannot, realistically, contemplate unilateral actions. Yet I
can see a political camp of Palestinians that opposes separation
and has dreams of integration that are comparable to those of the
Israeli right. They also opt for integration of Jews and
Palestinians. Integration in a state in which Israeli-Jews are a
minority without a viable opportunity for self-determination.
This time, however, in "Greater Palestine". Parallel to the views
of the far Israeli right, an extreme version of this vision calls
for the expulsion of Israeli citizens, myself included, if they or
their parents came to this land after a certain year. There are
those, however, in Palestine who see a future conciliation through
separation and integration. This future is based on two states that
are separate and have clear borders between them but at the same
time cooperate and maintain the threads of integration as two
neighboring peoples.
As I draw nearer to the conclusion of this article I venture a ray
of optimism in these dark days in our region. I believe that the
number of Israelis and Palestinians who see conciliation as a
process of separation and integration is growing. More and more
people in both nations understand that we must have two states with
clear and agreed boundaries between them, who will nurture the
threads of cooperation that will integrate them. Given our history
and geo-political realities there is no other option.
Key Condition, Equality
Yet there is one prime condition for the viability of this model of
conciliation through separation and integration. This condition is
equality. Not equality in financial or technological resources. I
am referring here to a feeling of equality that is closely related
to the feeling of respect that one has for the other side. This
equality is associated with a sense of empowerment and control.
This type of equality has not prevailed in relations between
Israelis and Palestinians. One side, the Israelis, controls and
occupies the other. Under these conditions attempting separation
and integration is not likely to lead to conciliation.
When I reflect on the fate of the Oslo process with these concepts
in mind, it may be that one reason for what seems like its failure
is that it attempted conciliation through cooperation and gradual
separation without first securing basic equality. Would an earlier
creation of a Palestine have been sufficient to insert more
equality into the process and help avert the pitfalls that we all
fell into? At present the answer to this "What if?" question cannot
be anything more than speculation. But, the question and the
rationale upon which it is based may help us stop and think once
more before we make future mistakes.