The two-state psychosis: The Oslo Syndrome revisited

By Martin Sherman, JPOST

    There were many cogent critiques of the Oslo process. But none addressed why Israel’s leaders, supported by the nation’s academic and cultural elites and much of the broader population, were pursuing a course that was demonstrably placing the nation, including their own families, at dire risk… given the irrationality of Israel’s course, the explanation had to lie in the realm of psychopathology. Israel’s Oslo diplomacy reflected a self-destructiveness inexplicable except in psychiatric terms – Prof. Kenneth Levin of the department of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School.

Psychosis: Fundamental derangement of the mind characterized by defective or lost contact with reality especially as evidenced by delusions – Merriam-Webster Online dictionary.

April was a bad month for level-headedness, least as far as the debate on Israel was concerned, and particularly in reference to the Palestinian issue.

Common sense and rational thinking were abandoned in favor of feverish flights of far-fetched fancy, totally divorced from recalcitrant realities down here on Planet Earth.

Fanatic, frenetic, frantic

As the evidence against the feasibility of any two-state outcome to the conflict with the Palestinian Arabs continually accumulates, the rhetoric of evermore desperate two-staters is becoming increasingly fanatic, their behavior increasingly frenetic and their policy proposals increasingly frantic.

Forced to concede that virtually all the assumptions upon which the land-for-peace approach, and its derivative two-state paradigm, were founded, have been demonstrated to be totally without foundation, two-staters refuse to acknowledge error.

Rather than relinquish the conclusions they had drawn on the basis of disproven premises, they cling to them as if they were some divinely ordained dictate, preferring to find alternative arguments to justify them – even if these happen be to diametrically contradictory to those previously invoked.

The latter part of last month saw a flurry of some of the more fanciful expositions/exhortations of the two-state principle being aired on several prominent public platforms.

Perverse, pernicious prescriptions

The perverse procession of pernicious prescriptions began on April 23, with the presentation of the bizarre notion of “constructive unilateralism” (a.k.a. “the independent option”) at the annual conference of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. As I pointed out in my previous columns, this is a policy proposal championed by “a nonpartisan political movement” known as Blue and White Future and endorsed by INSS, and the two organizations cooperate intimately to promote it domestically and abroad.

Since I have critiqued the idea of “constructive unilateralism” over the past two weeks, I will limit myself to reminding readers that this is an approach that advocates a policy of “preemptive surrender,” prescribing not only that Israel acquiesce a priori to virtually all Palestinian demands for statehood, in return for absolutely nothing, but shoulder the burden of financing much of their implementation.

Despite its misleading rhetorical wrappings, it is – much like the 2005 disengagement – clearly an initiative whose immediate focus is far more on ensuring the dismantling of settlements rather than attaining – and sustaining – a durable peace.

Dershowitz’s feckless formula

Next in line came Prof. Alan Dershowitz’s feckless formula for two states, which he originally touted in The Wall Street Journal last summer (July 3) and was given an opportunity to re-espouse on April 28, at this year’s Jerusalem Post conference in New York.

Dershowitz seems to suggest we should go about solving the issues in dispute by… well, solving them; or at least by declaring the major issues solved, and negotiating – in “good faith” of course – those that remain “reasonably in dispute.”

Thus he proclaims with cavalier abandon that “the first issue on the table should be the rough borders of a Palestinian state,” apparently unaware that this has been the heart of the dispute for almost a quarter century – if not considerably longer depending on your historical point of departure.

He then goes on to declare blithely: “Setting those [borders] would require recognizing that the West Bank can be realistically divided into three effective areas:

    • Those relatively certain to remain part of Israel, such as Ma’aleh Adumim… and other areas close to the center of Jerusalem.

    • Those relatively certain to become part of a Palestinian state, such as the heavily populated Arab areas beyond Israel’s security barrier.

    • Those reasonably in dispute, including some of the large settlement blocs such as Ariel.

Just how “realistic” this division is, can be gauged by the recent uproar over the prospect of Israel developing the E1 region which lies considerably closer to the center of Jerusalem than the rest of Ma’aleh Adumim, which Dershowitz deems “relatively certain to remain part of Israel,” and in fact comprises the territorial link between them.

Puerile, prejudicial and paradoxical

Putting aside the thorny question as to which Palestinian leader would agree that communities such as “Ma’aleh Adumim and other areas close to the center of Jerusalem” are “to remain part of Israel,” and that Ariel is “reasonably in dispute” – indeed, would even survive making such a publicly binding commitment – there are many reasons why Dershowitz’s proposal should be dismissed as puerile, prejudicial and paradoxical.

I have given a detailed analysis of the flaws and fallacies of Deshowitz’s proposal elsewhere – see “Disputing Dershowitz – again” (July 12, 2012); “Mad hatters, flat-earthers and two-staters” (July 19, 2012). Accordingly, I will spare readers a detailed repetition of my critique and confine myself to perhaps the most glaring defect, which illustrates why the harsh epithets are indeed justified.

This relates to his attitude to the “disputed” areas. He says the “freeze [on Israeli construction] would continue in disputed areas until it was decided which will remain part of Israel and [which will be] part of the new Palestinian state.”

However, he then proceeds to prejudge the outcome of the “reasonable dispute,” by refraining from placing a similar freeze on the Palestinians. To eliminate any doubt about how he really sees the fate of the these “disputed” areas, Dershowitz declares: “An absolute building freeze would be a painful but necessary compromise. It might also encourage residents in the West Bank to move to areas that will remain part of Israel, especially if the freeze were accompanied by financial inducements to relocate.”

Clearly, if the Palestinians are permitted to build in these areas where the Jews are not only barred from doing so, but “induced” to leave, deeming them “disputed” is little more than a disingenuous ruse. For if Palestinian development is allowed, while Jewish development is not, the obvious intention is for them to be eventually transferred to the Palestinians.

See what I mean by “puerile, prejudicial and paradoxical?” While I might disapprove of the disrespect displayed toward Dershowitz personally at the Jerusalem Post conference, I can understand the derision with which his proposal was greeted.

‘Age of intellectual absurdity’

Then, on April 30, Intelligence Squared staged its first debate in Israel, featuring two zealous two-staters, Peter Beinart and Michael Melchior, former MK and currently chief rabbi of Norway.

In the past, I have pointed to the ignorance and arrogance that characterize Beinart’s self-righteous pontifications on Israel’s conduct, and the perversions, prevarications and platitudes that comprise his proposals for Israel’s policies – see “Perfidious Pete, treacherous Tom” – I & II (April 11 and April 20, 2012); “Richard Beinart and Peter Goldstone” I & II (May 31 and June 7, 2012).

But I cannot resist inserting here a caustic comment made by Prof. Barry Rubin in an article titled “Betrayal Glorified: The Bizarre Jewish Movement to Destroy Israel by Pretending to Save It.”

In it he dismisses Beinart, and the positions he espouses, with a withering barb: “We live in an age of intellectual absurdity in which someone who has no notion of Israeli reality and who is, at best, decades… out of date is treated as if he could possibly be of some relevance.”

As for Melchior, in a September 2012 interview, headlined “Islam is ready for peace with Israel,” he condemned Israeli rejectionism – or at least reluctance – for obstructing peace between Judaism and Islam, including the more radical extremist elements, thus, as one popular website observed, “placing the onus for lack of peace with extremist Islamic movements on Israel.”

One can only wonder whether the good rabbi realizes that by expounding such wildly unfounded indictments of the Jewish state, he is merely providing more grist for the mill of the Judeo-phobic elements that harass his ever-diminishing Nordic congregation.

Preserving democracy by promoting tyranny?

Both Beinart and Melchior espoused the well-worn theme that if Israel does not facilitate the establishment of a Palestinian state, it will “impair not only its democratic character but ultimately its Jewish character” (Beinart) and “empty the real content of what it means to be a true Jewish state” (Melchior).

We are thus asked to believe that the only way to preserve Jewish democracy is to facilitate Muslim tyranny.

After all, the Israeli withdrawals – whether negotiated or unilateral have made Sinai a lawless jihadi no-man’s land; resulted in Gaza becoming a Hamas-dominated theocracy; and allowed the ascent of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Even dedicated two-staters, such as Dershowitz, concede it is not “out of the question that someday Hamas might gain control over the Palestinian government, either by means of a coup, or an election, or some such combination of both. Israel cannot be asked to accept a fully militarized Hamas state on its vulnerable borders.”

The only way the putative Palestinian state will not become a haven for Arab terror organizations is for the Palestinians to behave in a manner entirely different – indeed, diametrically opposed – to the manner in which they have behaved for seven decades – arguably even longer.

But two-staters have yet to produce persuasive arguments – rather than fervent hopes – as to why this is at all likely. Until they do, they should not be surprised that many relate to their proposal – at best – as a wildly irresponsible gamble.

Or is it that two-staters believe that being nice is more important – and more Jewish – than being?

The Oslo Syndrome: Explaining the inexplicable?

How then can we account for this proclivity for self-destructive irrationality? Prof. Kenneth Levin of the department of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, has ventured an intellectually audacious explanation that should not be hastily discounted.

Apart from his MD degree Levin, who has hugely impressive and diverse academic credentials, including degrees in mathematics (University of Pennsylvania) an MA in English literature (Oxford), a PhD in history (Princeton), was at a loss to explain Israel’s behavior in rational terms.

Accordingly, in his book The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege, he turned to the psycho-pathological.

In it, he drew on his experience with children, chronically abused by their parents, who typically blame themselves for their fate, since this sustains a fantasy that if they reform, if they become “good,” their parents will treat them differently. To look at their situation more realistically would force them to acknowledge their inability to change their circumstances.

Adults, as well as children, prefer to fend off acknowledging such bitter realities and to preserve the illusion of control – even when no such possibility exists.

Likewise, people under chronic siege tend to deny the severity of the threat, to blame themselves or others within their community, for the danger or their enemies’ hatred toward them, and to delude themselves about the malicious intentions of their foes. Placing the onus on themselves, rather than on their adversaries, creates the hope that there is something they can do to end the enmity against them.

The distasteful alternative

Levin has come up with an original and, in many ways, compelling, thesis that is becoming ever-more relevant.

As he notes, “Israel has, at best, a capacity to respond effectively to attacks by its neighbors; it does not have the capacity to end the Arab siege, to force peace upon the Arabs.”

Indeed, it is becoming increasingly evident that Arab/Muslim hostility towards the Jewish state is not a result of what it does but of what it is – Jewish. It can thus only be placated by the Jewish state ceasing to be Jewish.

Accordingly, the Oslo Syndrome theory is one that deserves – indeed requires – urgent and widespread debate. Its validity needs to be carefully, but expeditiously, explored, for the only alternative is highly distasteful.

It is to assume that two-staters prefer to imperil the country, rather than admit the error of their politics, that they are willing to forgo the nation’s security rather than their personal and professional standing.

www.martinsherman.net

May 3, 2013 | 17 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

17 Comments / 17 Comments

  1. yamit82 Said:

    For I will take you from among the nations and gather you out of all the countries and will bring you into your own land.” (Ezekiel 36)

    Duhhhh! Someone doesn’t get it. Like the scottish church (of england) 🙂

  2. @ dionissis mitropoulos:
    Thank you, I especially found the Levin interview very interesting and was in agreement with much of his analysis. While reading the interview it suddenly occured to me that Islam may be the vehicle for arab imperialism and hegemony That the various conflicts which appear to be religiously based may really be about arab hegemony especially the arab elites(monarchies)l that the “ideological” cultism is just a tool and vehicle. Wherever Islam is, it gives the arabs the nod of authority. Hence we see russians shouting allahu Akbar. They have come up with the most successful mind control cult and I would not be surprised to see its adoption by western elites to control their own masses. As absurd as the notion seems one has to be in awe at its ability to reach into the very thoughts of the masses. Western elites must yearn in awe at the possibilities of complete, ultimate control and subservience. They haven’t seen such power since Henry VIII when divinity was wrested from the pope and the monarchical religion was created. Islam has certain attractions not only to its “useful idiots” but also to those who seek to rule without interruption.

  3. What about the fact (reality) that more or less one half of the Jews are not for Israel (if not against IL due to guilt, cowardice, ignorance, opportunity or anything else)!
    A DIVIDED PEOPLE!!!
    Then IL remains an easy target of quasi blackmail by the West!
    So many other countries, far smaller in seize and with little or NO CONTRIBUTION whatsoever to humanity are not targeted for destruction!
    AMAZING!

  4. yamit82 Said:

    Jewish concept of strict Monotheism. Jews cannot like the Pagans blame the gods for their misfortunes so they introspect and blame themselves.

    Dr Landes says something along those lines about Jewish self-criticism:

    http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/self-criticism/

    This purely human reluctance to self-criticize highlights an element of Jewish culture that most outsiders do not really understand, and that leads to a marked misreading of the Middle East conflict. In the comparative history of self-criticism, Jewish culture is probably the most self-critical. Jews are commanded to rebuke each other and to listen to that rebuke. Jews invented prophetic rhetoric. The Ethics of the Fathers (compiled ca. 200 CE) invoke as one of the traits of a great Torah scholar, “lover of rebukes” (6:6)

  5. Saw interview of Beinart by Yaron London, on Israel TV a few days ago. Even london who is farther old left than Meretz deridded him and mocked his positions, stupidity and naivety at best.

    Beinart is a fag which explains partly who he is and why he is.

    Melchior is a fool who served in Sharon’s 1st government as Head of Kadima. He was chief Rabbi of Denmark which might or might not explain him.

  6. @ Bernard Ross:
    @ dionissis mitropoulos:

    “If one person calls you a donkey, ignore him; if two people call you a donkey, buy a saddle.” …Yiddish Proverb

    Jewish concept of strict Monotheism. Jews cannot like the Pagans blame the gods for their misfortunes so they introspect and blame themselves.

    Jews sin G-d punishes them double because Jews are by Biblical definition G-d’s surrogate on earth.

    “And when they came into the nations, whither they came, they profaned My Holy Name, in that the nations said concerning them: These are the people of the L-rd and they are driven forth from the land! But I had pity for My Holy Name which the House of Israel profaned among the nations whither they came. Therefore say unto the House of Israel: Thus saith the L-rd, G-d: I do this not for your sake O House of Israel, but for My Holy Name… And I will sanctify My great Name which hath been profaned among the nations which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the nations shall know that I am the L-rd, saith the L-rd, G-d, WHEN I SHALL BE SANCTIFIED THROUGH YOU BEFORE THEIR EYES. For I will take you from among the nations and gather you out of all the countries and will bring you into your own land.” (Ezekiel 36)

    “Not for our sake, not for our sake but unto Thy Name give glory… Why shall the nations say: ‘Where is G-d?’” (Psalms 115)

    “Oh L-rd, what shall I say, after Israel hath turned their backs before their enemies… and what wilt Thou do for Thy great Name?” (Joshua 7)

    “Israel’s degradation is the desecration of the Name of the L-rd.” (The Biblical commentator Rashi, Ezekiel 39:7)

  7. As for Melchior, in a September 2012 interview, headlined “Islam is ready for peace with Israel,” he condemned Israeli rejectionism – or at least reluctance – for obstructing peace between Judaism and Islam, including the more radical extremist elements, thus, as one popular website observed, “placing the onus for lack of peace with extremist Islamic movements on Israel.”

    The Rabbi is living in an alternative reality.

  8. dionissis mitropoulos Said:

    Levin’s analysis is powerful and very persuasive.

    I have not read the book but another aspect of the Jews pathology is that they enable the continuing pathologies of their tormentors just like victims of addictive personalities. The tormentors are spurred onwards towards even greater liberties and even greater travesties, encouraged by the success of their prior torments. the tormentors are addicted to their torture of the Jews. The Jews encourage and enable their torturers to extract even greater punishments as a result of their acceptance of lesser torments. Those who sought to swindle the Jews land are now back to swindling the jews of their legitimacy and their existence. If it were up to the Europeans their next step, after embarking upon and being succesful in making the connection between Jews and Israel illegitimate, would be to again exile the Jews to Europe, make them second class citizens in Europe, humiliate and torture them in Europe, then rebuild the death camps and exterminate them in Europe. If they cannot exterminate the Jews in Europe they will continue to seek the extermination of the Jews by the Arabs and Muslims. The facts demonstrate that pretensions to the contrary are gratuitous fig leafs for a continuing cycle.
    Only the victim can break the cycle of his victim-hood, he cannot rely on the mercy or good will of his torturers. In Europe the great majority of the educated have again embarked on a program which, despite rationalizations to the contrary, can only lead in one direction. This European behavior demonstrates a pathology. Although I have stood for legal pathways it is only for strategic and tactical reasons. I do not believe that legal justice will be applied by those engaged in such pathologies. My suggestion to follow legal pathways is to convince those Jews engaged in the victim pathology and to confound those torturers engaged in the torturing pathology:
    E.G.1 The victim jew needs to be cajoled psychologically from his pathological state.
    E. G. 2 the torturer needs to be obstructed and confounded with his own fake game. You have probably notice my repetitious platform regarding legal and moral precedents for annexation, apartheid, transfer, etc. The purpose is not to convince the swindler and torturer to a different path it is rather to quote on a confounding basis to the swindlers after annexation and transfer as a justification after the fact of action under their own laws. As these cases will never go to court after annexation it would just be a matter states supporting their own interests. Israel could be in a position to multiply its power, and extension thereof, by using it militarily. We can see that Israel is becoming a player in the Sunni shia war. all the participants are aware, and in consideration of the fact that Israel can change the outcome of their struggles. I would like to see more of this approach of exerting power. So far Israel has been considered irrelevant because the jews have been expected to exert power only when their lives are directly threatened. I see change coming in this area. I see the road from victimhood evolving from the exertion of power. If this does not occur then Israel and the Jews will remain in the cycle of enabling victimhood.

  9. @ Bernard Ross:

    Levin’s analysis is powerful and very persuasive. And, yes, you have been arguing along those lines for as long as i can remember.

  10. Accordingly, in his book The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege, he turned to the psycho-pathological.

    In it, he drew on his experience with children, chronically abused by their parents, who typically blame themselves for their fate, since this sustains a fantasy that if they reform, if they become “good,” their parents will treat them differently. To look at their situation more realistically would force them to acknowledge their inability to change their circumstances. Adults, as well as children, prefer to fend off acknowledging such bitter realities and to preserve the illusion of control – even when no such possibility exists.

    Likewise, people under chronic siege tend to deny the severity of the threat, to blame themselves or others within their community, for the danger or their enemies’ hatred toward them, and to delude themselves about the malicious intentions of their foes. Placing the onus on themselves, rather than on their adversaries, creates the hope that there is something they can do to end the enmity against them.

    I have been saying for a long time that the Jewish people and Israel exhibit pathologies resulting from the continuing abuse of their detractors. the Jews function like victims of Stockholm Syndrome, abused children; making decisions and agreements based on a continuing fear of their insane tormentors. No agreements or understandings made to date can be considered valid because they all have been made, and continue to be made, under the threat of existential extortion by their so-called friends and allies. Israel should not feel bound by any agreements or understandings but instead should throw of the yoke of the compliant and subservient Jew and do that which is in her interests only without regard to the other actors in the drama. Doubtless, where Israel is powerless it must devise stealth strategies.
    My own view is that the chances any real peace is minute due to the backwards culture of the arab/muslims. It makes no sense to avoid reality. Any approach which sends them out of Israel is best, by hook or by crook.