Building bridges over the void: The Role and impact of dissidents within the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Tweet

“The Revolution is Unfinished! And so, indeed, it is.
 But only because no one knows, not even those who
cry most loudly that they do, precisely how to go
about the job of finishing it”
Clifford Geertz[1]

After more than 45 years of occupation, the impact of pacifist movements in Israeli society is still difficult to assess and, therefore, to evaluate their effectiveness. The failure of all efforts aiming at the end of the occupation is now more clear than ever, although, and this is remarkable, the fight against the system supporting this status quo never decreased. Despite this tireless activism, it is still not clear whether it has a potential input to peace or it is rather irrelevant to regional policies.

Not only do we lack convincing answers, but these answers themselves differ depending on external circumstances. During bleak times, as during the Lebanon war, the Cast Lead Operation or both Intifada, activist movements feel useless, while during more encouraging times as Obama election, the feeling tend to be more positive. This may be a defining issue among dissidents in Israel: swinging views without knowing what tomorrow has in store for them, going against the current under an uncertain framework-environment.

Shift of Paradigms

Answers can be found within the shift of paradigm, as a guideline for changes of ideology within a society, explaining when and how an emotional breach is open fostering the embrace of alternative ideas and leaving behind rooted concepts.

According to T.S. Khun, although science develops through cumulative processes, paradigm changes as Copernicus, Newton, Lavoisier or Einstein are brought about when previous theories are unable to explain physical phenomenon, thus, formulation of new theories become essential. No sooner are inadequacies of the methodological directives unveiled and mainstream theories get stuck showing anomalies, new extraordinary research blossoms leading to scientific revolutions[2].

In human sciences the process is different. Mihael Bajtin[3] pointed out the ideas system works as a concentric circle whose nucleus was formed by axioms, rooted concepts and mainstream ideas. The farther from the center, the more likely new concepts appear filtered from the outside. The most substantial changes take place in the border;  meeting point of different ideas and feedbacks. Therefore a new idea can only reach the center through the periphery, impacting every layer, and every internal circle until its final destination, the nucleus. In this sense, dissident groups in Israel also play this role; they are the border, the periphery, where alternative ideas can come across. New paradigms soak in the core of the society through these groups without whom none of these paradigms would ever be present in our society.

Social science differs as it takes into account other factors like economy and structures. Different social theories, particularly Marxist ones, agree on the fact that paradigm changes when a deep break in social, religious, economical, ecological or even military order takes shape, plunging mainstream  preconceptions into turmoil. Every ideology works as a social orientation system, according to Marxist ideas, as a super-structure which aims at a comprehensive explanation of reality. Therefore, these breaks pave the way for consequent ideological changes. According to these theories, as every social system brings forth its own contradictions, “same logic behind alienation and classes division set also the conditions for its own abolition”[4]. These internal contradictions lead inevitably to structural dislocations which change reality and therefore the social paradigms.

The Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, based on a more cultural perspective, agrees on the aforementioned thesis in a broad sense, although in addition, changes can be caused by a perception of a dramatic change which is about to take place leading to a structural crisis. Only the foresight of a crisis, in some cases, is enough for the paradigm shift, whereas this crisis is deemed drastic, clear and frightening. As these changes do not occur suddenly and there is a transitional period in between both paradigms, people tend to cling to pre-known ideologies bringing about what Herbert Marcuse defined as “false, fictitious and alienated consciousness” which they still believe in, despite its incoherency. The deeper the crisis gets, the more contradictions appear, easing the way for new paradigms which can explain coherently/comprehensively the new reality.

In the same line, Israeli sociologist Daniel Bar Tal, affirms the paradigm shift will be a consequence of a new framework gradually soaking in the psychological structure of Israeli society. In order to achieve a substantial change in the Israeli structure of thought, an alternative range of ideologies is needed, a new and creative range of concepts, ideas and thoughts which constantly defies mainstream narrative. The pace/sequence of the new approaches becomes essential for the paradigm change as they pile up until breaking down the vicious circle where the Israeli narrative is trapped.[5] According to this, Israeli dissident groups defy constantly the military and victim narrative of Israel and introduce new approaches which are meant to soak in the mental structure of society.

On the other hand, Michel Foucault, in “Discipline and Punish”, argues the advent of a new paradigm, or “creation of a new anatomy of politics”, is gradually built from “multiple processes, normally minors, from different origins and locations, which match, repeat or imitate, lean on each other… converging and designing the new methodological model”. Foucault highlights the accumulative process over the soak of ideas from Bajtin, but they both agree these processes need a trigger agent and dissident movements play this role in Israel, they are a catalyst of a process of change which tumbles the system, unveiling mechanisms of social oppression used by the State to rule its citizens. “Unless we identify the fulcrum of the class power we run the risk of its continuity and even its restoring after a revolutionary process”[6].

Shlomo Avinery in a paper published on the 20^th anniversary of the end of Berlin Wall, compared all different countries which were under totalitarian and communist systems, concluding civil society was crucial in building such different fore-coming regimes, from the Russia ruled by Putin, the dictatorship in Belorussia or Ukrainian chaos, to liberal democracies in Poland, the Czech Republic or Slovakia[7], wherever civil society was strong it built the foundation of new democracies. Civil society brought about new conditions for those countries to become liberal democracies, as for their neighbours, the lack of a social base upon where a new democratic system can lay turned their governments into more totalitarian regimes. According to this, pacifist Israeli movements guarantee base conditions for a future peace process as they build the foundations where peace can lay on and foster both communities encounter.

Cliford Geertz also agrees paradigm shifts, or “signification structures”, come after periods of crisis, although, unlike Marxist theorists, he understands crisis from symbolic and cultural structures.  According to his theory of cultures, paradigm shifts appear when a disruptive force generates a loss of orientation, traditional frameworks break down and “mainstream ideologies obscure reality more than clarify it”[8]  Then, the need for a new map, new orientation patterns opens the breach through which new ideas can come across settling an alternative ideological reformulation which explains new social reality. Geertz argues, as most of sociological schools, paradigm shift depends on social processes therefore a cultural reconstruction needs a radical change in social and institutional order. Unlike other sociologists, Geertz warns crisis not always assures a paradigm shift; in those cases where cultural matrices are rooted in the social structure they resist even high levels of crisis.

 

The Israel case

Based on the aforementioned theories, Israel military paradigm leads towards a structural crisis, but meanwhile, Israel dissident movement must pave the way for an alternative paradigm which aims at the end of the occupation and peaceful cohabitation with the Arab World. It is not about passively waiting for the crisis to take place, but unveiling the system incoherence and tireless criticizing it until it breaks down.

Paradigm shift does not imply drastically removing the entire system of thoughts and perceptions, but rather changing certain elements of the system which trigger the process aiming at the whole change. The breakdown of only one premise can start the chain reaction towards the change. Therefore the psychological turmoil can start from casting doubt upon premises and setting alternative frameworks. All premises are interlinked, thus, once one premise is broken down, it erodes the rest of them, leading sooner or later to the paradigm shift.

Where are we mistaken?

If in order to create the paradigm shift only the breakdown of one of the system pieces is needed for a domino effect towards the change, we wonder why we are not able to identify the piece, why it is so difficult to achieve this goal. The breach is not in the discursive arena but in the incapacity of creating emotional and empathic ties not with our narrative but our movement itself. This lack of communication is caused by the impossibility of penetrating the emotional and symbolic sphere of our community in order to create a framework with which they can identify with. Belonging frameworks are stronger than arguments, and emotional process are more influential than cognitive ones. That will explain the fact that people vote for conservative economic policies which are against their own personal interest. Dissident movements in Israel build solid arguments but are incapable of setting identity frameworks. “Rightism” soaked in the so-called “area of identity” getting into the psychic structure as it relates to the need of belonging. After the identity crisis of the Hebrew community caused by the rupture with the religious traditions maintained after generations, Nationalist Zionism (socialist and as well as rightist), in order to create identity ties different from the religious ones, brings forth people demands: an answer which relieves despite not convincing.  This relief can be identify with Lacan´s “desire” and translates into Israel society as an alternative identity which replaces the previous one. This is the cause of massive support of rightist policies and the key for structural changes. Nationalism is based on an affective dimension which needs to be tackled by the dissident movements. As it has been always undervalued by Israeli leftist; they lost their ties with the people. Dissident movements have never taken into account irrational trends which move the collective unconsciousness  or the emotive potential behind nationalist theories and relied too much on rationality.

Psychoanalysis revealed that structural changes are not based on cognitive arguments. Every political reorientation passes first through affection and symbolism and then through rationality, Yannis Stavrakakis, Lacanian psychoanalyst, points out that the leftist deficit is not epistemological but affective, and libidinal investment and the ‘mobilisation of jouissance” is  necessary prerequisites for any sustainable identification[9].

To sum it up, in order to foster the paradigm shift within Israel society, new ties based on affection are needed, opening space of activism, offering framework references, encouraging field activists, and going beyond paternalist, academic, western styles towards more basic aspects of identity without which we are doomed to failure.