Dan Leon: As Israelis working for many years with children
in professions like psychology and education, how do you see the
impact of the conflict on Jewish Israeli children? Haggith Gor Ziv: I was born in Kibbutz Ginnosar in the
North, when the Syrians were above in the Golan Heights. We were
afraid of hearing the sirens and, for years, I remember a recurring
nightmare from the 1960s: we had to go down to the shelters and I
couldn't find them, everything was empty. Though we ourselves were
not under fire, there was fear and tension in the air as we
children grew up there. Atar Oman: In general, it should come as no surprise that
one finds relatively little literature on the effects of the
conflict on Israeli society. In Israel, war and conflict are seen
as inherent to our very existence. The political system justifies
this as the price we have to pay, educationally and
psychologically, for achieving the higher objectives of our
society, for a reality which we, as a people, choose.
Israel established a state in which the children are protected by
institutions. The children are indeed guided into the shelters.
Things are under control. When Israeli towns and villages are under
fire in the North, an army of psychologists is there to help
children and adults. Children are for the most part not in the
front line, but even with a protective system, there are many
consequences for children of living with conflict and
aggression. Haggith: I am not sure they are really so protected. They
are seemingly protected, but perhaps the establishment fosters this
illusion in order to calm us down and numb our natural instincts as
parents who don't want our children to be exposed to any
traumas. Atar: When the effects are not direct, they may be more
difficult to see. The adults seem, at the time, to be protective,
but there are deeper internal processes at work among children
which are not always readily expressed. There is an ambiguity built
into the situation when adults are protective, but, at the same
time, expose the children to the dangers of violence. Haggith: In this connection, it is built into the system
that we must play down the cost of the conflict to children and
foster the myth of how much the system cares for them. Thus the
actual effects are de legitimized and wiped out, with the symptoms
being ascribed to other factors. Afar: For the Palestinians, 'the approach is the opposite.
There, poverty, violence and conservative values are played on as
symptoms of the occupation. In direct contradiction to Israel,
where the aim is to show how "normal" things are, the Palestinian
political aim is to show how "abnormal" the situation is.
Everything, including psychological problems of children, is viewed
from the political and ideological aspect. Haggith: There is a big difference in Israel between being
exposed to direct violence, or violence which is more covered up,
but our kids are exposed to much indirect violence: fear of terror,
exposure to death, etc. Our education seemingly aims to help and
protect the children, but this is so they can accept the situation
as normal, even if it sometimes goes against their basic
instincts. Dan: When you say "against their basic instincts," can you
give some concrete examples? Afar: The first basic instinct is to survive, to live.
Children play out their worst fears and are preoccupied with death
even when it is not a part of their own lives. When the probability
of death is high, and when children come up against "abnormal
death," not of old people, but of the young and healthy, they are
preoccupied with this and have to find more complicated ways to
deal with their fears.
I read in the press today about a film on Lebanon eight years ago.
Those who were children then are now soldiers and the situation is
still identical to the past one. Both the children of then and the
soldiers of now are "playing with death" as if this were "normal,"
though it is, of course, against their basic instincts.
Here is an example of the effect on Israeli children. During the
Intifada period we witnessed the "road roulette" game (seeing who
can stand longer on the road as a car approaches). Psychologists
saw this as the way in which children exercised their fear in
games, showing how they were preoccupied with death. Haggith: The Ministry of Education instructed all teachers
to talk the next morning with children about the dangers of the
game as if this were some instant remedy, but at the same time
there was no talk of Palestinian children. The symptoms were
discussed, but detached from the political issues as though there
were no connection with what one sees on TV.
We educate children, especially boys, to accept the notion of
giving up their lives for the country. Over the years, this is
presented as being more important than the basic instinct for life.
Unlike the atmosphere ten years ago, in recent years we see
children showing less readiness to go into the army or to die as
soldiers. But there is still ideological brainwashing behind the
efforts to educate toward "risking one's life for the
homeland." Atar:Parents are also part of this. The biblical "sacrifice
of Isaac" is a symbol of the way in which parents give up their
basic instinct of preserving the life of their children in order to
maintain their convictions. Modern Israeli literature dwells on
this symbol. Haggith: Massada, with its swearing-in ceremony for the
Israel Defense Forces (IDF), is less prominent today as a symbol,
but it carries a similar message: one of heroic devotion until
death for national goals. After all, since children don't usually
commit suicide, the children there were murdered. Only at the end
did the last adults commit suicide. This myth serves to foster the
sanctity, not of life, but of sacrificing one's life for the
nation. Atar: I think this is changing. Views are less rigid than
they were when we were children. Haggith: Still, it is changing too slowly. There is still
acceptance of a total doctrine of thinking in only one way, of the
concept that, in order to survive, we have no choice since "we have
no other country." In spite of the peace process, negotiations and
dialogue are not viewed as secure options. We see violence on the
TV news and the Israeli child still identifies and wants to be a
soldier like the one he is watching. The child imagines his future
as someone who, when he grows up, will be the same as that
soldier's, and the same will happen to him. That is a heavy price.
There is identification with heroes, with wounded soldiers, with
funerals, where certain behavior is expected from everybody. Dan: As educators, how do you find this affects our children
and youth? Atar: One of the consequences of the conflict is that,
compared to other Western societies, our children and youth are
usuallly more conformist and conservative. No research can measure
how much this is the result of this situation of aggression and
war. But how is it that Israeli students study the way they do,
with no interest in political issues, no political protest? I think
one of the answers is that the educational-psychological system in
all institutions tends to have conservative and conformist
expectations from students. Haggith: After the 1967 war there was talk in my high school
of the "liberated territories." When I said we should return the
territories, the teacher said that it was forbidden to express
views outside the consensus.
For example, following the disaster in the spring of this year
[1997] when two IDF helicopters, on their way to the Lebanese
security zone, collided in mid-air, causing 73 deaths,
psychologists and teachers had to discuss the event the next
morning with children. The system talked as one about the national
mourning though, among the children, there was not one line of
reaction. No place is left for a variety of reactions among
children.
Research shows there is much aggression in kindergarten and I,
particularly, felt this as a kindergarten teacher when I came back
from the USA. Again, this goes back to the children acting out what
they see in their society and here, more than elsewhere, it is
legitimized by the need to prove that they are strong. Atar: It depends on with whom we make the comparison. Haggith: I don't have any academic comparison, but this is
my experience compared to kindergartens in the USA. Since our
society is more aggressive, this also shows itself in play. Atar: Even if one thinks this is so, one can't prove this is
the direct result of the conflict. Haggith: In the army, too much feeling and sensitivity in
the men must be blocked out and, later, this will show up in their
family life and human relationships. Dati: What about Holocaust education? Atar: On Holocaust Day in schools, the children express
genuine feeling and identification with the victims of the
Holocaust. But what we want from our children is a conformity of
emotional reaction toward feelings which are very frightening and
terrifying. So, in order to survive, many children nowadays say
they go to the ceremony, but shut themselves off from what is going
on. Haggith: It is a sign of hypocrisy that, while we really
want to protect our children, we start Holocaust education, which
is so important in the curriculum, much too early. In this
connection, in my work in training teachers, I ask them for their
earliest memories as children and often hear terrible stories. One
kindergarten teacher candidate recalled that, as a girl, after
hearing from her teacher about the gas showers in the death camps,
she couldn't take a shower. Others heard of death trains and
couldn't travel by train. Atar: I have heard many similar examples. Haggith: Now the trend is not to tell the harshest stories
about, or show terrible pictures of the gas chambers, but to
explain the children's fight for survival in the ghetto, as well as
stories of heroism. This is an attempt to make it easier, but I am
not sure it does so on the psychological level. Children are taught
that there is a direct connection between the Holocaust and the
danger of war with the Arabs, unless we are strong. Atar: The general fears caused by the conflict are expressed
in the children being frightened of Arabs, of any Arab, of anyone
looking like an Arab. This prejudice, fearing the "other," fosters
the need not to see him/her, to push him/her out of our lives. This
in turn nourishes the fear. In a way, one can measure the fear
among our children by the amount of prejudice. Haggith: A society which supposedly protects children,
actually leaves them alone with their traumas. For example, after
the suicide bombings on buses, psychologists provide an instant
reaction, but the trauma which a child feels may come later and it
may appear as unconnected to the real source. Atar: We pay a high price for insecurity and for the
blocking of elementary feelings. War is more "easily" accepted than
terrorism because war has more clearly defined limits. Children
think that only old and sick people die. Outside these categories,
"unnatural" death is shattering. Terror knows no limits and breaks
all lines of defense. Children are affected, they think they may be
the next victims. An eight-year-old boy started blinking after he
saw, near his house, two young Arabs whom he suspected were
carrying bombs. But the connection between the source of anxiety
and the symptom could easily have been overlooked. Haggith: Such incidents are common, but they are not always
accepted or talked about. Staying afraid is not legitimate and
children must accept the situation as part of their lives,
including the different world of soldiers serving "out
there." Dan: What about different approaches to boys and to
girls? Haggith: As regards boys and girls, both pay for our being a
militaristic society. Boys must fit into a strong masculine mold
and teachers will be more tolerant of their behavior because of
their future in the army. Atar: Our society has different and conservative gender
models. From early days, boys will be strong, violence by them will
be tolerated and insensitivity in them will be considered a problem
of adjustment. Girls, on the other hand, are passive and
supportive. Israeli education has a slogan of "equality of the
sexes," but, in fact, the rules for the sexes are different.
There is something schizophrenic in the gap between slogan and
reality.
In the army, there is meant to be equality but, under the surface,
the message is the opposite. Israeli boys have "the privilege of
sacrifice." Sexist attitudes start from kindergarten age and, from
then on, there is a double standard specific to this society. Haggith: We try to imitate the democratic values of the
Western world, but the boys are actually in a privileged position
because of the military message, while the girls are educated to
accept that their military service is less important. Atar: The greatest danger is in the double message: we say
one thing but we mean the opposite. The message is liberal, but
underneath it we nourish a different message which is conservative
and dogmatic.