Bridging Jewish-Arab Psychology Differences

“Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is a system of thought.”
    – John Rawls, A Theory of Justice.

Trying to make sense of those placing blame for the current Hamas War entirely on Israel and then justifying the rising tide of antisemitism is especially difficult for us: (1) Lana, a psychologist who grew up in Israel the daughter of a Christian Arab mother and a Persian Israeli father; and (2) David, executive board member of Democrats for Israel, who supports a two-state solution.

Since October 7th, we have been dismayed by those disregarding Israel’s existential reality. Lana even has direct Arab family members who deny that Hamas brutally raped, killed, and harmed thousands of Israelis that day, including Jews, Muslims, and Thais. Especially baffling are people internationally who are choosing to forget the original atrocities so to instead strictly condemn Israel’s subsequent response; and the extension of said condemnation onto Jews everywhere, disregarding that 85% of Israelis in fact opposed the current Israeli governing coalition’s policies prior to the war. (Example: 2023’s weekly massive anti-government protests)

As a young child in Israel, Lana attended an Arabic Catholic preschool. An Arab pediatric psychologist recommended a move to a Jewish school due to persistent bullying because her parents were separated (unheard of in Arab communities). Her grandfather, a Christian Palestinian, often expressed preference to live under Jewish rule where he didn’t endure the discrimination Christians faced in Arab countries. Similarly, when visiting relatives in an Arab village, stones would get thrown by local neighbors shouting how Christians are not Arabs.

Over time the impulse became to treat this hybrid existence as more of an observer: A person’s mannerism and clothing would help decipher their religion and thus appropriate interaction standards. With Muslim Arabs referencing Israel by name and discussing the sexism inherent in Arab culture was avoided, and only Arabic was spoken – despite Lana’s native fluency in both Hebrew and Arabic. With Christian Arabs she felt freer to express opinions, while avoiding declaring their views of gender roles as outdated or revealing her desire to join the IDF one day.

In stark contrast, speaking one’s mind freely was her default with most Israeli Jews. Not because prejudice and hatred were absent, but because liberal Israeli Jewish culture is more accepting of anomalies and receptive to differing points of view expressed honestly. Israeli teens mostly conveyed a desire for peace and wished no harm toward Arabs. Conversely, quite a few Muslim Arabs made it clear they hoped Israel would be “erased” with comments such as “I wish Hitler was able to finish what he started.” To the young Arab-Christian-Jewish Lana, this was confusing because, in the wider context, Arabs are Semitic too, and hence the logical deduction was “but then Hitler would have moved on to killing you too”.

Being immersed in both cultures led to the idea of converting fully to Judaism after noticing a number of pragmatic differences (as also documented by A. Pines, N. Zaidman):

1. Judaism encourages asking questions and expressing doubts. Such is not permitted in Islam or Christianity.
2. Arab culture values collective thinking – and by extension, disapproves of free thought and strong discouragement of criticism – while Israeli culture values individuality and directness.
3. A woman feels treated as more of an equal and has more freedom in Israeli-Jewish culture.
4. Arab culture puts more emphasis on hierarchy and power differentials than does democratic Israeli culture.

Such opposing framing perspectives are challenging for a hybrid child, especially one growing up during a period of suicide bombings, which crystallized how terrorists simply assume all Arabs agree and are willing to die for their cause. As a result, it mattered not if some of their terror victims were in fact Arab Israelis.

Awareness of the universality of prejudice in every society led to pursuing a B.A. thesis which studied how intolerance lessens when individuals comingle and have positive social interactions. It is difficult to demonize an entire group when one also directly experiences its positive aspects. One such example is Akko in Northern Israel, with its mixed Jewish and Arab populations who generally get along well and coexist. When sirens are heard alerting them to seek shelter due to incoming rocket attacks, residents often hide together and help each other maintain those shelters.

The study of psychology teaches that biologically we are programmed to live in tribes, and our brains tend toward groupings of “us” and “others.” There is an old Arab saying: Me and my brother against my cousin, and me and my cousin against the stranger. This is representative of the tribal tendency that resides in most cultures and hence is part of our unconscious norms.

Cognitive psychology teaches we are programmed to see the world in terms of duality: deity vs. devil, good versus evil, hero versus villain, love versus hate. Books, movies, political propaganda, etc., often use this human tendency to evoke powerful emotions. We want to identify with the hero – the good forces fighting against injustice and oppression. In our current era of political correctness and echo chamber isolation the impact of words is wrongly taught as more important than the intent. Casting the other as the villain has replaced discussion when one dislikes what has been expressed.

Words in the public sphere are chosen to evoke strong reactions, often simplifying political events and portraying them as forces of “good v evil.” Those who do not support the underdog are reflexively in the villain camp, even if facts must be taken out of context. For example, Israel has recently been accused of genocide – an accusation inconsistent with how Palestinian population counts have mushroomed in and around Israel from 700,000 in 1948 to seven million today. The impulse to protect the perceived underdog outweighs deciphering the complexity of this conflict’s nuances.

Many myths prevail in modern divided society stemming from the myriad available sources of niched information. Choosing sides fulfills our innate need to group ourselves with like-minded people, whom we then label as the “correct” righteous heroes. The myths circulating in society serve this desire for black-and-white simplicity.

What are these myths? CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) teaches to try and become aware of cognitive distortions. Some of the most common are dichotomous thinking, emotional reasoning, overgeneralization, and blaming. These are the distortions we base our political selections on, since presumably:
…every situation “must have” a good and a bad
…if you don’t like what someone does or says, it means they are “obviously” the villain
…one part of a group represents its entirety
…there must be someone to blame for others’ misery

Jews, globally dispersed and often a minority, are known for valuing education and rising to influential positions, sometimes facing envy and discrimination. Unlike Judaism, which doesn’t actively seek converts, conversion is more emphasized in Islam. Palestinians, culturally inclined towards power dynamics, face socioeconomic challenges and have struggled with governance led by corrupt leadership alongside an impulse to push back against western democratic influences in the Middle East. Misunderstandings and longstanding tensions mark the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, exacerbated by groups like Hamas operating from within civilian areas, further complicating the resolution of this complex dispute.

Absent understanding of these influences that drive the narratives of the parties to the conflict, non-stakeholders globally combine their historically rooted suspicion of Jews with a reflexive desire to stand up for those viewed as the weaker David – versus the perceived Goliath. To achieve this framing a number of cognitive distortions are made:
* the horrific murderous events of Oct 7 are minimized
* Israel’s reaction becomes generalized to all Jews
* Israel’s defensive response results in Palestinian civilian casualties – as intended by Hamas who intentionally hides amongst civilians. This is misinterpreted as genocide and this misinterpretation is extended to hatred of all Jews worldwide

Innocents have been killed in both Israel and Gaza. However, the conflict’s long and complex history cannot impulsively be simplified via labeling any side as the pure hero v pure villain, or oppressor v oppressed. Even attempting a psychological understanding of how each side justifies its actions and perceptions is multilayered: Israelis usually are independent thinkers and hold varying opinions about political situations. Arabs usually are more dogmatic in their thinking, but even they display disunity (Sunni v Shia anyone?).

It is difficult for the Western mind to accept that some global conflicts are not easy to summarize. This conflict embeds centuries of religious, geographical, and familial layers alongside security and economic concerns. Resolution will come once visionary Palestinian leadership emerges ready and willing to break free of their heritage psychological stifling norms so as to allow their society to willfully work toward procuring a mutual coexistence resolution with a secure democratic Jewish state of Israel.

—

Dr. Lana Bitton is a psychologist based in Southern California
David Alpern is on the executive board of Democrats for Israel Los Angeles

Bridging Jewish-Arab Psychology Differences (Pexels)