An Interview with political psychologist Prof. em. Dani Bar-Tal about the state of mind in Israeli society and politics. By Michael B. Elm (20.11.2025)
Das Interview mit dem langjährigen Konfliktforscher und politischen Psychologen Dani Bar-Tal wurde vor dem Hintergrund der vorläufigen Beendigung des Gazakrieges und der Rückkehr der israelischen Geiseln geführt. Es dient einem vertieften Verständnis der inneren Verwerfungen, die durch Massaker, Krieg und Geiselnahme in Israel und Palästina entstanden sind. Eine zentrale Vorannahme war, dass die ungeheuren Gewalterfahrungen auf beiden Seiten von maßgeblichen politischen Akteuren dazu genutzt werden, die bestehende Ausweglosigkeit und wechselseitige Animosität zu erhärten und sie für die eigenen politischen Zwecke zu nutzen. Demgegenüber geht es darum, sich nicht von der Dynamik der Gewalt bestimmen zu lassen und Leid und Traumata zur Sprache zu bringen, ohne den gängigen Instrumentalisierungen Vorschub zu leisten. In der Sprache von Dani Bar-Tal und der Konfliktforschung heißt das, den Wechsel von `conflict supporting narratives´ zu solchen der Koexistenz zu befördern. Diese sind an innen- und außenpolitische Realitäten gebunden, die im Interview ebenfalls angesprochen werden. Mit der Eröffnung des zweiten Krieges der USA und Israels gegen den Iran am 28. Februar 2026 tritt die geopolitische Neuordnung der Region in eine neue Phase ein, die im Interview keine Berücksichtigung findet. Realistischerweise dauern Prozesse der Be- und Aufarbeitung von Gewalterfahrungen dieser Größenordnung Jahre, wenn nicht Jahrzehnte, um in den jeweiligen Gesellschaften ausgewogene Diskurse in Gang zu setzen.
Dani Bar-Tal has written 20 books and hundreds of articles and essays on conflict resolution, group psychology, studies in prejudice, and intractable conflicts. His latest book Sinking into the Honey Trap: The Case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict appeared in 2023. I interviewed him in his apartment in Herzliya. I intentionally start my interview with an open question to give the interviewee room for choosing a subject that is important to him.
Question: Dani, you have been a lifelong researcher of so-called intractable conflicts or cultures of conflict with an emphasis on the Israeli Palestinian case. What surprised you or maybe shocked you most during these long and difficult years since October 7th?
Dani Bar-Tal: Right, I deal with these subjects also on an internationally comparative level. When I come to Cyprus or other places, they are sometimes surprised: what, you talk about us. But regarding your question. It did not shock me, because you have to understand the context and Israelis are running away from the context. They don’t want to talk about the context, but we are dealing with a very brutal occupation that lasts many years, 58, we are coming to 59. You don’t have to be very smart or a historian. Nations rebel from time to time like the Poles, Czech, the Irish and so on. We Israelis were taken by surprise, because we believed that nothing would happen. That the occupation can go on forever. And Gaza was some kind of external occupation. There were signs that something might happen and reports from the female observer along the border, which were ignored. Israel, because of the political situation in which Netanyahu is, allowed money transfer to Hamas from Qatar and some battalions were moved to the West Bank. So, the surprise was very, very big, and the scale was unbelievable, which is also not a surprise. It was an accumulation of frustration of anger and hatred. Palestinians behaved exactly like Israelis later.
Question: Let us talk about the language of violence. As a social scientist one tries to understand if there is a political message inside the violence that is perpetrated. October 7th was a massacre by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, aiming at the destruction of life in Israel. Indiscriminate violence against children, the elderly, women and civilians sent a message that everybody in Israel understood. I think the language of violence can be characterized as genocidal, while the political goal was to undermine any form of coexistence between the two peoples. It seems to me that the Jewish majority of Israeli society with its rich experience of violence took the bait. The war that followed developed soon into a war of destruction, revenge, and annihilation. What is your assessment of this form of violence and its political intentions?
Dani Bar-Tal: These are two questions. Why did they do it and why in such a way? First, let’s start with why they did it. They did it in a way because the Palestinian case was lost. At the time Biden was negotiating with Saudi Arabia, and there were rumors or information that Saudi Arabia is abandoning the Palestine cause and is willing to make a deal with Biden without any particular condition. In fact, Hamas achieved this goal, they were extremely successful with terrible costs. The issue of Palestine returned to the world stage, which we did not see coming in August 2023. Secondly, they showed that the way of Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas: President of the Palestinian Authority; ME] is wrong. Because he is ready to negotiate with Israel and Netanyahu doesn’t care about him. Not only this but Abu Mazen became a collaborator in security coordination, he allowed the Israeli army to enter area A of the West Bank, which is supposed to be without Israeli interference. Thirdly, they wanted to free Palestinian prisoners, which is a very important issue for Palestinian society. They also succeeded with this. Those were the issues that guided the internal leadership of Hamas who was planning the attacks for more than 9 months.
Question: So, what you are saying is that they were ready for this kind of violence – which contains from my understanding of Hamas a genocidal quality – because they were aiming at the political points you just mentioned?
Dani Bar-Tal: I am saying that it had to be a very strong signal that will shake-up Israel. It’s a mass killing and atrocities, it’s not a genocide.
Coming to Terms with the Accusation of Genocide
Question: In your latest essay ‘Between Reconciliation and Brutalization: The Israeli Case’ you argue that the military campaign in Gaza descended into genocidal violence. Maybe you can elaborate on your assessment and reflect about the ability of the Israeli society to come to terms with such a criticism.
Dani Bar-Tal: My assessment is based on UN the definition of genocide, which requires to prove execution and intent. The International Association of Genocide’s Studies voted with 87% for a declaration that it is a genocide. But there are people who object, mostly from the pro-Israel camp. In the essay I listed the statements of Israeli leaders to prove intent. Almost all the ministers talked about the complete annihilation of Palestinians and just now, before you came, I was looking on recent surveys. Most of the Israelis think similar: All Palestinians are the same, they deserve what happened, etc. So, the intention was given. Even some of the army generals, who were in the field, expressed it directly. When we come to quantity, it’s unbelievable. The current count of the dead and wounded is about 200.000 people, which is, if you compare it proportionally, like a million Israelis. This is in my opinion genocide. Even now they talk about annihilation.
Actually, the reason for the denial in Israel is very simple. No nation wants to be attributed with the mark of Cain, and we see it in the world. You can think of Japan, United States, Turkey, Russia, etc. Even when Adenauer was negotiating with Ben Gurion, I think it was in 1953 after the holocaust, which was a clear case of genocide, people with whom I argue, tell me, there were no explicit commands or orders to execute a genocide. But in the case of the Jews, the intentions were stated at the Wannsee-conference and yet Adenauer, who was ready to pay money, refused to acknowledge that it was a genocide.[1] Only in 1972 Willi Brand made the gesture of genuflection before the statue of the Warsaw ghetto uprising statue and asked for forgiveness. It’s very human, and very natural that people don’t want to acknowledge these crimes, because the repercussions are incredible.
Question: Indeed, history tells us that it’s very difficult to come to terms with such accusations and claims, even if they are well-founded. What comes to my mind when dealing with wartime responsibility and guilt feelings in Israel, is the film of Ari Folman Dancing with Bashir. It was realized only 20 years after the First Lebanon war had ended. The plot tells the story of the war and the collaboration of the IDF with the massacre of Sabra and Shatila [which was committed by Christian militias] from the perspective of a reservist soldier, who is haunted by nightmares. Should we prepare ourselves for a similar period before a reckoning in Israel sets in or do we live in different times now?
Dani Bar-Tal: First, you have to understand the structure of the Israeli society. 65% of Israeli-Jews are considered rightist, which is defined by their view on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Only about 25 are centrists. But if you watch and follow Israeli politics, you understand that there is not much difference between the centrist, whose main representative is Yair Lapid [head of the Yesh Atid party, ME] and the right. Only 10 to 12% are what I would consider leftist. And even among the lefties, there people who deny the genocide. I think that they are 8% or 7%, which amounts to about 800.000 Israeli Jews who, like me, view, that what is going on, is a genocide. I would argue that 8% is a rather large portion for the beginning of a recognition process. It is not 1% but 8%. They and some NGO plus certain individuals consider that there is a genocide. I believe that this is a good starting point for the claim of genocide but of course it will take a lot of time.
Notice something very interesting. None of the governments, except South Africa and one more state, said that it’s a genocide. So, the governments have a very different position than the public. I just returned from Italy where I toured and met with many, many people, had talks and interviews. When you look at the public opinion in Europe, which was coined through watching BBC, CNN, people think that this is a genocide. But even countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark did not announce a genocide. The process of recognition will start with governments. But it’s a very slow process. Israel until today – and I don’t know what will happen now with the new geopolitical rearrangement with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey in the region – has lost its superiority vis-à-vis the United States. We see a process of change. Maybe it will be faster than in the past, but I predict that it will take many years.
Question: I have a question regarding so-called moral injuries. Moral injuries are defined by a gap between a person’s moral or ethical values and conflicting acts, which can lead to significant symptoms of PTSD. In Israel now a debate begun about suicides among soldiers and typically such an inward-looking process starts for reservists and soldiers only after the war. Also the people reporting PTSD have risen significantly and the Army is more aware of the problem than it was in the past. What is your perception of this debate?
Dani Bar-Tal: I think about 30 people have committed suicide until now. I believe that the Army will further the issue of moral responsibility by demanding a state investigation of October 7th. Netanyahu wants to erase this possibility. There is a big fight going on, in which even the Supreme Court is involved. Just yesterday the court stated that it wants the government to explain why it wouldn’t launch a state investigation, while the government has already declined the possibility of such an investigation. This is a very important fight. We need a state investigation because of the people who were involved from army generals to ministers. I believe the question of moral injuries will be attached to this issue. The army in turns, where the most important positions were replaced by the government, is likely to redirect this question towards experiences of war.
Fear Orientation in Israeli and Jewish Culture
Question: My next question is related to your academic work. 25 years ago you wrote a groundbreaking article: ‘Why does fear override hope in societies engulfed by intractable conflict?’ The argument goes that fear is an emotion, physically deeply inscribed in the human mind to protect people from reoccurring dangers while hope requires cognitive and imaginative activities that are much more demanding. On a collective level, societies, which are embedded in intractable conflicts, are governed by fear orientation. This collective fear orientation is acquired and maintained through lifelong social and medial processes that prevent change from happening. Can you lay out this concept a bit and elaborate on it for the Israeli Palestinian case. What did we learn during the last 25 years in this academic field?
Dani Bar-Tal: We remain with the same conception. That hope requires cognitive skills, like planning and must be realistic in contrast to let’s say wishful thinking. You say can say I wish that there will be peace, but it doesn’t get you there. Hope requires planned activity to move towards realization of your goals. Fear, we know for much more than 25 years ago, is a pure physiological process, which overrules hope. The amygdala is the region in the brain where fear gets activated. And people are very quickly fearful. From our personal experience we know that people can be overwhelmed by fear. In Israel even now, I just look at a survey, 70% of the people believe that such an event like October 7 can happen again. That’s very high. I was here on 7th of October. I saw what was going on. The scale of the attack was very wide if you combine the festival with the kibbutzim and Moshavim, military bases, etc. Almost everyone knew someone among the killed or kidnapped people. It happened even to us. A friend of my daughter was closed in a safety room (mamad) in Nir Yitzchak, one of the kibbutzim close to the border. Her friend was calling us by phone. Our daughter went bananas. She could not help. Not like Jair Golan [former IDF General, now head of the party The Democrats; ME], who took a gun and went there. It touches everyone here and this is real. So, we are not talking about a possibility, we are talking about something that happened.
This became immediately related to holocaust. I went to an event of Mitvim, which is a kind of leftist, maybe center think tank in Israel. They were talking about the possibility of another holocaust, which I could not understand. And they did not talk about genocide in Gaza, of course. We, Israeli, learn fear from an early socialization, and I studied this early socialization, we are imprinted with this fear. I will give you one example.
As a social scientist, not only from the perspective of political psychology but also sociologically and historically, I decided to study the sources of this fear. I picked up 20 kindergartens, and with the help of my students, we went there during holidays. We wanted to hear what the kindergartener is telling 5 years old kids. I came to Israel at the age of 11 to Israel, but I have children who all went through the kindergarten, so I know it also personally. The first holiday they learn about is Hanukkah. This is the story of the Maccabean Rebellion against the Greek-Syrian, who desecrated the Temple and wanted to root out our religious identity. Then comes Purim. The book of Esther which is about the attempt of Haman to annihilate the Jews in Persia. This is followed by Pessach, where the Pharaoh wanted to kill all the Jews, before they fled into the desert. More recently you have Yom HaShoah, which commemorates the Nazi genocide in Europe, that is followed by Yom HaSicaron [Memorial Day] to honor the fallen in the wars with the Arabs since the inception of the state. One day my daughter came to me and said: I don’t understand. Why is there someone in every generation that wants to kill us. What does it mean? There you have the answer. This is the climate they grow up in. A soldier enters a kindergarten, and the teacher says, only because of our strong army, with the best technological equipment we survive. But now a disaster happened despite of the army. Therefore, we believe that another holocaust can happen, because the holocaust – and here is my summary – has become generalized. It doesn’t have one enemy. The situation has become generalized. It can happen anytime under any circumstances with anyone, and the Palestinians proved it for us.
Question: Okay, I understand your point. The general fear orientation gets translated or even promoted in the political field with the kind of narrative that we hear a lot from Netanyahu. Israel has to live by the sword forever.
Dani Bar-Tal: Absolutely. But not only Netanjahu. All the prime ministers, even Yitzhak Rabin on Yom HaShoah was talking exactly in the same way. Ben Gurion was the first one, Eshkol was second, and it goes up to Netanyahu. This is the message of Yom HaShoah.
Question: Let me shift the perspective a little bit. As you just mentioned, fears can be well-founded, especially here in this region. And during the war most Israelis, I think, were less afraid of another massacre from the Hamas, but of the missiles from Hezbollah or the regime in Iran. So, was it reasonable to be afraid because the reasons for fear were more grounded in reality? I would like to know at this point, how do you evaluate the relation between real and imagined threats in Israel?
Dani Bar-Tal: Okay, I have a continuous argument with two of my friends. One is very well known, Polish social psychologist, Janusz Reykowski from Warsaw University and the other is the American Sociologist of Judaism, Len (Leonard) Saxe from Brandeis University. They say, Dani, you know the historical narratives but you cannot deny that there is a real threat.
Well, here comes the point. What is the psychological vector and what is the reality vector? I developed a conception of security and insecurity. I argue, a political scientist needs to measure security and insecurity in terms of reality. Whereas a psychologist, hypothetically speaking, would come and say that this is bullshit. Why? Because you cannot measure the feeling of security or insecurity according to atomic bombs or number of artillery or tanks. I showed in a number of studies that generals of the same generation have different views on security. In the 1980s there was an interview with ten generals in Haaretz magazine, who were at that time in the same environment. But all of them gave different answers to the questions, what the dangers are, what is the meaning of security, and how it can be achieved. If they were 20 years in the same environment, they should have the same view. If it is psychological, so it’s psychological. So don’t trust anyone. The hawks will say that there are danger and insecurity and doves will be doves.
I claim and I wrote numerous pieces about the subject that security is in the mind. It depends on personal experience, on your socialization and other factors, if you feel insecure or secure.
Question: Okay, and yet we had to run into the safe room or to the shelter (Miklat).
Dani Bar-Tal: Right, right. Here you have another example. Some people went to the shelter and others did not, because they feel safe. They say the chances are one in a million probabilities that my house will get a direct hit. And some like my wife are very anxious. I collaborated with a friend of mine who studies personal security, which is a very basic factor in the socialization of young age. Some have a sense of existential security, some don’t have it, and it affects your behavior when you are an adult in the way how you perceive security? We found that people who don’t build existential security with their parents at a young age are insecure when they are adults. So how do you measure security, how do you decide? I personally feel that I have existential security because of the way my mother reared me up. For me the part of the real is small although there are atomic bombs, etc. The 7th of October showed something different. This personal conception of security, and Yom Kippur War showed it as well, may be wrong.
Discussing Antisemitism in Israeli Discourse
Question: Let me move on to another subject that is very important for Jewish and Israeli identity, which is antisemitism. A decisive reason for the fear orientation in Jewish culture is the long and very real history of antisemitism. Antisemitism and violence have risen considerably in the US and in Europe after October 7th. On the other hand, many state officials, including Netanyahu label any criticism of Israel during the war as antisemitic. It is portrayed as antisemitic to recognize a Palestinian state, to criticize the warfare of the IDF or to demand a stop of arms deliveries while the Israeli government blocks humanitarian aid to Gaza. So again, we have the same question. How do you evaluate this relation of antisemitism between a threatening reality and a hasbara [Israeli diplomatic] tool in the current situation? This tension manifests itself also practically on the ground. After October 7th many diaspora Jews are thinking of making Aliyah [emigration to Israel; ME] while in Israel quite a few people are leaving or thinking of leaving the country because they sense a rise of authoritarianism here.
Dani Bar-Tal: In Israel the use of antisemitism is very, very loose. It is a golden egg that we have. It works very well, when governments, NGOs, or international bodies like UNESCO criticize Israel, they are often labeled as antisemitic. Usually applying the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition from 2016, which was later criticized by the so called Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism. And countries are very, very scared to be labeled as antisemitic. Especially Germany, which bears the heavy burden of the holocaust. So, it’s a tactic used by Israeli leaders. Not only Netanyahu, also Golda Meir famously acknowledged that the Jews have a ‘siege mentality’, due to their historic persecution, in an interview during the 1970s. Netanyahu is using the allegation of antisemitism very freely. Just with regard to anyone who is criticizing Israel now.
There is antisemitism, and I can tell you from my friend (Len Saxe), who is a top scientist regarding antisemitism. At Brandeis University he stood until a few months ago at the head of a research institute for Jewish studies that deals with antisemitism. They conducted a large-scale study of students and faculty[2]. He just completed this survey. Only a very small number of faculty members expressed what I call a kind of rough antisemitism. That the Jews are stingy, collecting money, etc. The vast majority does not display signs of antisemitism.
Question: There are a lot of studies in this field. In Germany after the Second World War the Institute for Social Research, Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, conducted a survey that found antisemitic attitudes in around 15 to 20% of the population. These numbers have been confirmed in surveys until today for the German case. I think, it’s clear that antisemitism is a part of Western and Christian culture and society. These societies produce it from within and it’s not going to alter. Which doesn’t mean it is eternal, but it is certainly a reality that has to be taken into account.
Dani Bar-Tal: Yes, like islamophobia or prejudices against Roma people.
Question: Right.
Dani Bar-Tal: Just that antisemitism gets artificially increased in the Israeli discourse. I was in Paris this summer, and people told me, don’t talk Hebrew in public. I did not hear any Hebrew speaking in the streets. When I lived there, I used to hear it all the time. And now nothing. People did not go to Paris, because they follow what Netanjahu says.
Israeli Ethos and Zeitgeist
Question: Let’s come to the Israeli ethos. A collective sigh of relief could be heard and felt when the last living hostages from Gaza were released at October 13th. How do you experience this moment yourself? It was often said and argued that this release was the precondition to enter a stage of healing or coping in Israel with the whole story. Would you agree, and how does it affect the ongoing political divisions? After all, parts of the political spectrum were willing to sacrifice the hostages and continuing the war.
Dani Bar-Tal: There were continuously about 70% of the population who set the release of the hostages as the primary goal and about 60% who wanted to finish the war. But there were also about 20 to 30% of the population, the so called Bibi-ists and the extremists of the political arena, who did not see the release of the hostages as the most important goal. These are the followers of Netanjahu, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. When the hostages were released, a very important issue that divided Israeli society was solved. At the moment there are only the remains of three dead hostages left in Gaza. I think this issue, for which a majority of Israelis demonstrated, is over.
Question: Did you participate in the demonstrations?
Dani Bar-Tal: Yes, I participated, and I noticed that most of the demonstrators belonged to the 10% minority, which I mentioned at the beginning of the interview. Those who were also against the juridical coup. They came regularly while others felt that they should participate but didn’t fight for it. And there were always two demonstrations. The one in Kaplan Street or later in Begin Street in front of the Kirja and another one at the Tel Aviv Art museum, what became known as hostage square. They were politically quite different.
Question: Right, the demonstrations at the hostage square tried to avoid politics while the ones on Kaplan or Begin criticized the government. There were some situations during the war, when the political divide from the time of juridical overhaul came back to the forefront. Given Netanyahu’s legal predicaments, one might argue it never left the scene at all. How much did the internal struggle for democracy continue during the war?
Dani Bar-Tal: In my assessment it was reduced. The struggle and the slogans like ‘Together We Will Win’ united the people. A part of the people left the former struggles due to the war. The most important subjects during the war were the release of the kidnapped, ending the war, and the demand for equality regarding the military draft law for the Haredim. Only then comes democracy. Now the subject of the draft law has returned. Yesterday the Supreme Court demanded from the government to implement an enforcement policy within 45 days that clarifies what kind of punishment the ultra-orthodox should receive, if they continue refusing to be drafted. The second issue is a state commission of Inquiry for October 7th, which is very important. Netanyahu claimed a few days ago that a majority of Israelis does not want it. It is not true but just like Trump he says whatever pleases him. And only the third subject is the struggle for democracy.
Question: Why did the opposition block fail to hold the extreme, right-wing government accountable for the failure of October 7th. What went wrong here, if you look from the perspective of the opposition?
Dani Bar-Tal: The opposition is very heterogeneous in contrast to the governing coalition. Okay, on some issues like the draft law there are differences but relatively they are more homogeneous. The opposition reaches from Bennett, Gantz, Liberman, Lapid to Golan. The difference between Golan and Bennett is unbelievable. Bennett is more hawkish on most issues than Netanyahu. Gantz is very much on the right too. The opposition could not find common ground. Until today they didn’t exhibit unity and were divided among themselves. Some of the opposition supported Netanyahu regarding his war goals as well as on other issues. There was no determined opposition, and the demonstrations were not organized by them. They were organized by civil society. Moshe Radman, Shikma Bressler and others. There was no contact. I know this because some of my friends tried to connect and coordinate the protests with the opposition. It didn’t succeed except for a few politicians like Gilad Kariv and Naama Lazimi [both MK The Democrats/Avoda], who were very devoted at the demonstrations.
Question: I was wondering why at a certain point, let’s say in the spring of 2024, when Gantz was very high in the polls, he wouldn’t demand a state inquiry or threaten to leave the war cabinet.
Dani Bar-Tal: It’s stupid. I know him personally. He was chief of staff, and the chief of staff are usually quite mediocre. They have to climb up the career ladder in the IDF. And climbing up you have to be either brave and say what you think or – most often – being a conformist. Of course there are exceptions, but Gantz is not a smart person. He mismanaged his political career several times.
Chances for Healing and Reconciliation?
Question: Let me come to the points of healing and reconciliation. I understood from your latest essay which chronicles both a short history of escalations, as well as attempts to reconcile the conflict that you see chances for reversing the situation.
Dani Bar-Tal: If I compare it to the 1950s or 60s in Israel, there was no reconciliation group. Today we have about 10% of the population that has a different mindset. Among them some very known figures from academia and ex-judges, ex-officers, former heads of Shabak, etc. So, there is a lead to some extent. They have to start the reconciliation process, which is very important. In general, it takes quite some time to change a mindset. It’s a long process. To see Palestinians as partners, believing and trusting each other and so on. Now the great majority of Israelis do not hold such an attitude. They distrust Palestinians, they see them as terrorists and the current surveys do not predict any change.
Question: I want to quote from your latest book Sinking into the Honey Trap, which deals with the subject of changing the narrative: „A conflict ends when society understands that the price it is paying for a peace agreement is lower than the price it will pay for the continuation of the conflict in the future. This equation is particularly accurate in the Israeli case. The leadership’s refusal to divide the country into two states at present [This was written before October 7th in 2023: ME] may lead to a much heavier price for society to pay in the future. It will apparently have to deal with an impossible choice: to lose the democratic character of the state and remain Jewish by instituting an apartheid regime, or to lose its Jewish character by maintaining democracy”. In short, will the two-state solution only become a serious option when the one-state reality and the loss of the Jewish identity of Israel is around the corner? How close are we to this point?
Dani Bar-Tal: Okay, we are at a point that nobody predicted in March, when Trump came up with the stupid idea of Gaza as the Riviera of the Middle East. He made a dramatic change after the bombing of Qatar and reached the conclusion that only if he presses Netanjahu, it will work. This is the process we are in. Trump changed even the text of the UN Security Council resolution by inserting the two-state solution, which was not in the previous draft. I don’t know where it will go, but if he will insist on the collaboration with the Arab countries, Turkey, Indonesia etc., changes may happen because Israel itself is incapable of standing without the backing of the USA.
Did you know that the United States has a stock of ammunition in Israel, which was transferred to Ukraine before the war. When the war started the Israeli army had ammunition only for two weeks. Biden sent the air force to bring ammunition, otherwise Israel could not have survived. This is one side of the situation. The other relates to the inner Israeli reality. I just read a survey, which found that 41% of the Israelis support annexation, 37% want to leave the situation as it is and only 22% are for the two-state solution. Israel’s society is not ready for such a move today. I believe that change will not come from within but depends very much on what the world will say.
The Situation for Palestinians
Question: Let me come to the Palestinian perspective, because we haven’t talked about this point at all. The experience of various parts of the Palestinian population is not easy to describe. There is unimaginable death and destruction in Gaza, leaving thousands of children orphaned and a whole population homeless and traumatized. The West Bank has become a wild west under Finance minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir with land grabs and impunity for settler violence. The situation of crime and violence in Arab cities in Israel has deteriorated to an unprecedented low. So, no wonder the various sections of Palestinian society asking themselves is there’s a partner on the Israeli side. Do you see any starting points for a reversal of this situation?
Dani Bar-Tal: Right, the situation is very serious. Certain Palestinian groups keep contact with Israelis, like Combatants for Peace or the bereaved families of the Parent Circle, but in general Palestinians have stopped any contact with Israelis. In academia, for example, they don’t collaborate with us. They stopped. I got a call from a very dear and close friend: Danny, I have to stop contact with you.
There might be one solution. The Fatah under Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority] is not trusted, also the one whom he nominated for his succession is not. There is a rivalry between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, etc. There is one person that Israel knows and therefore refuses to release him. Trump has already hinted on releasing him. This is Marwan Barghouti. He is the one – like Nelson Mandela if I would compare – who can unite Palestinian society. 67% favor him as a leader, which is far more than any other public figure. I believe that such a development and releasing and turning him from a terrorist into a leader. Some terrorists become leaders. There is a small chance that it will happen, and when it will happen much depends on the leaders. He could become such a leader.
Question: There are also some civil society movements like Standing Together. Can they play a role?
Dani Bar-Tal: For the time being they are too small to have an impact. I myself belong to Standing Together and I am also on the board of Women Wage Peace. Maybe in the future they can influence the discourse but not in the next two, three years. Not on the level of leading the people.
Question: The Palestinians were also not involved in the drafting of Trumps 20 points plan. They were largely excluded from the negotiation in the diplomatic sphere. If we are looking at the people who are leading this project. From Trump and Erdogan to Bin Salman you see people, which are not exactly at the forefront of democratic developments. This makes me a bit skeptical when it comes to the fulfillment of this initiative, which is certainly very important. And maybe the only straw that we have at the moment.
Dani Bar-Tal: Yes, it is the only straw that we have. And look at the world, which becomes more and more autocratic. Chile is probably voting for a right-wing party. We see in Europe the struggle that is going on. People with money set the tone. This is a fact. When Bin Salman promises an investment of one trillion dollar, it is valid for Trump. And maybe it can facilitate some kind of normalization.
Jewish Identity and the Role of Leadership for Change
Question: The role of leadership is an important subject in your last book. The left or the peace camp has not developed a narrative which could fulfill the basic needs for the Jewish majority in Israel. The leftist narrative does not “answer needs for security. They are disconnected from Jewish identity, and they depend primarily on universal values, which are foreign to most of the Jewish public in Israel” (Sinking into the Honey Trap, 389). Whom did you think of when you wrote this? Which politicians did you have in mind? And it seems to me sometimes that the opposite is true as well. When I think of all the elections before the war, the Zionists left refrained from making the two-state solution a subject of their campaign’s and lacking in universal values. What is your take on this issue today?
Dani Bar-Tal: It’s a very good question. I’ll tell you what I thought. I conceptualized it in such a way that the psychological needs of the people have to be satisfied so they will be able to follow the leadership. Some of the issues that are dividing us, the liberals and the populist is that we do not respond to the issue of insecurity that came up with the rise of terrorism. The party leaders didn’t have an answer to the attacks in Madrid, Paris or other places. They did not provide a response to this fear of insecurity, which is so basic as we’ve discussed. The issue of belonging and identity are very primary needs of people. People want to belong to a group they identify with and have something in common. The general idea of immigration contradicts these basic needs, and the right is taking advantage of it.
What does this mean for Israel? Israel started quite autocratic, very anti-democratic. Ben Gurion was talking about a nation among nations. His slogans were about being a part of the enlightened world. But then in 1967, who started the Greater Israel movement? The Labor Party, influenced by a religious Zionist group – Gush HaEmunim [Block of the Believers; ME].
Question: The Labor party allowed it to happen.
Dani Bar-Tal: They allowed it to happen, and they started to move in this direction. Changing names of villages, eliminating the term occupation, erasing the green line between the West Bank and Israel. They moved towards a particularistic identity, away from universal values. And they succeeded. To endear oneself to the people [להתחבב אל העם] was the slogan of the religious Zionists. The labor party did not understand or did not dare to stand up against this minority, which really kidnapped the Israeli discourse. What is going on now, is not new. It started decades ago.
Question: Okay, I would like to get closer to the present. The quote from your book was written about three years ago. To whom, does it apply today. Did you think of people like Yair Golan?
Dani Bar-Tal: You know, I talked with Jair Golan. He wanted to be like Jair Lapid (Yesh Atid). Nobody wants to be a leftist. The Meretz party finished its mission, unfortunately. We don’t have people like Yair Saban, Yossi Sarid or Shulamit Aloni anymore. They were absolutely role models, how to address tradition and religious laws. Yair Saban, for example, whom I know personally very well, was very eloquent and knowledgeable about these subjects. There are stories in the Bible or Mishna, that are told by Ben Gvir as well as Yair (Saban) or Yeshayahu Leibowitz. It would have been possible to adapt this tradition for an open-minded part of society. It is the same with Christianity or Islam. The left did not fight for this or did not manage to transfer religious traditions into a liberal concept of the nation.
Looking Forward to the Next Election
Question: If we are looking at the next election, the only alternative to Netanyahu that is on the horizon could be Naftali Bennett. That is at least what the current polls indicate. Do you see any chance that with somebody like Bennett, who was in the past closer to the settler camp, a change towards a two-state solution is possible? When I speak with friends, who are voting for The Democrats they hope that Bennett could be such a figure. A leader who embraces the two-states solution and brings the right-wing block with him. Do you see any possibilities for this to happen?
Dani Bar-Tal: No, I don’t. I argue about this within the camp that is pushing for a change. There is no indication from Bennett that he wants to change or transform society. Lapid sometimes talks about it: Wait, let me return to power and I will show you what I can do.
Question: But what if the pressure from outside is strong enough, if we have this scenario that we talked about. Heavy pressure from Trump, who doesn´t care, what Israel wants.
Dani Bar-Tal: I believe, when Bennett will come to power that the inner Israeli conflict about democracy will be softened. We will not have the fight about every political nomination.
In general I think that the cancer in the society is occupation. In my latest essay [Between Reconciliation and Brutalization: The Israeli Case] I argue that there are two trajectories that are going hand in hand. Occupation strengthens authoritarianism and authoritarianism strengthens occupation. I identified this very early, already when Netanjahu first came to power in 1996 and saw the country moving necessarily in this direction, where we are now. It was written on the wall.
Question: Interviews and conversations like ours usually tend towards the end to the subject of hope and opportunities to improve the situation. But we don’t want to delude ourselves and use hope in the way you described it as wishful thinking. So, I close with a more cautious question. Can this turn to authoritarianism that we saw since this government came to power, be avoided? If there’s another term for Netanjahu together with Ben-Gvir, Smotrich in power, I am not very hopeful.
Dani Bar-Tal: Well, me too. I don’t know what kind of trick Netanjahu will play. He’s learning from Trump, who is talking about running a third time. It’s not a joke. In the long-term, I don’t believe that nations will allow Israel to be a authoritarian dictatorship with occupation. I tell people that the boycott in South Africa started in 1962, and it took almost 30 years until it worked. And people in South Africa I spoke with, say that the boycott was only part of the story. At the moment, only Morocco and Israel are carrying out an occupation without giving full rights to the occupied society. I don’t think that Europe will allow it. But it takes time.
Michael B. Elm: Thanks for the interview.
[1] Adenauer did not use the term genocide but acknowledged the crimes and moral responsibility.
[2] https://www.brandeis.edu/cmjs/antisemitism/ideology-classroom.html