Time for Reorientation: a Review of Recent Research on the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Discussions and Reviews

Time for reorientation: a review of recent research on the Arab-Israeli conflict

Ania Francos, Les Palestiniens Paris: Julliard, 1968. Pp. 318. Fr. 20.70. Yehoshafat Harkabi, Fedayeen Action and Arab Strategy London: Institute for Strategic Studies (Adelphi Paper No. 53), 1969. Pp. 43. 5s (75¢).

To Make War or Make Peace (New Outlook Symposium) Proceedings of the International Symposium on Inevitable War or Initiatives for Peace. Tel-Aviv: New Outlook, 1969. Pp. 288. I.L. 8.00 ($2.50). Hisham Sharabi, Palestine and Israel: The Lethal Dilemma New York: Pegasus, 1969. Pp. 224. $6.95. Nadav Safran, From War to War: The Arab-Israeli Confrontation, 1948-1967 New York: Pegasus, 1969. Pp. 464. $10.00.

JOSEPH D. BEN-DAK

Center for Research on Conflict Resolution. Universitv of Michigan

Voltaire’s somewhat facetious criticism of extension of traditional work on the Middle certain Biblical texts, &dquo;dans un livre saint un East. Orientalists, staunch adherents of the peu d’exactitude ne nuirait pas,&dquo; can be ap- historical-philological approach, wrote dic- plied to current writings on the Arab-Israeli tionaries and grammars alike, &dquo;through a conflict. A good amount of the work is an very considerable amount of additions and

~ ~ z translations of texts, to histories of wider or 1The author wishes to acknowledge his indebted- narrower scope&dquo; (van Nieuwenhuijze, 1965, ness to Ziva Reuveni and Rosalind without Daly, p. 1). The taste of a wider public was served whose this review would have been help impos- which into sible. Daniel Heradstveit and Johan Galtung (Oslo) by travelogues gradually expanded have been instrumental in suggesting the type of general descriptions of regions or countries: approach argued for in this review. descriptions in which a preoccupation with 102 politics in the Western sense of the term has (in the sense of possible generalization be- tended to increase and in which palatability yond language or culture area, etc.), and to the Western lay public has often but not quantitative in orientation. always been matched by accuracy or verifica- The main problem with this criterion, how- tion on the spot (ibid.). ever, is that in the service of peace one must also try to find value in any contributions l. Current Work on the Conflict: that deal with the Israeli-Arab conflict, inas- Some Lugubrious Thoughts much as the works can offer innovative redef- inition of the issues involved, strategies for The most typical and predictable trend in &dquo;defreezing&dquo; the situation, and perhaps more work on the conflict has been the present balanced understanding of the factors in- of a literature which over- growth polemical volved. The works under review make little emphasizes background dimensions, substan- progress in any of these directions, though: tive matters, and the value of social justice all of them are redundant to an extent and while buttressing the case for one party or only the last one has some qualities of the another. This has been particularly and pain- kind of work we envisage on the Arab-Israeli fully true for efforts entitled with supposedly conflict. However, each one of them carries &dquo;scientific&dquo; labels and originating from &dquo;re- with it certain advantages over earlier work, search&dquo; centers (e.g. Kadi, 1966; al-Khalidi, and I will attempt to extract a few of these 1958; Sayegh, 1961, 1965). The three wars points and interrelate them to a suggested and accelerated (1948, 1956, especially 1967) frame of reference for further research. Be- the rate of of in West- publications &dquo;quickies&dquo; fore doing this, I will briefly review each of ern countries and the Middle East. of Many the works within what we consider to be their the books which have been published since sociopolitical context. the 1967 war in the US, while not easily lend- ing themselves to the categories of research 2. A European Work in Search articulated above, have been more sophisti- of Social Justice catedly biased, the case being made more often than not for Israel (e.g., Love, 1969; Francos’ book is typical of the anti-Israel Prittie, 1968; Kimche and Bawly, 1969). left in France. Behind her entire argument Such streams of publications are not likely runs a thread of personal history. Quite often to dry up in the foreseeable future. Yet some in the case of Jews it is related to the Holo- gradual change has already been coming caust, and nearly always a resemblance is about in the broad picture of Middle Eastern found between US-dominated Vietnam and studies through the introduction of such dis- Israel. Francos is a Jew whose parents had ciplinary approaches as modern sociology as emigrated to Palestine in the 1920s only to well as some honest attempts to cope with return to Europe, disillusioned, several years questions of cultural relativity-typified by later. They were both killed at Auschwitz. Her the works of Berger and van Neiuwenhuijze immediate experiences before spending three (1962 and 1965). Thus one kind of difficulty years with the Fedayeen’ (in Syria and Jor- in our job is relating the five works in review to certain needs of inquiry in the field of con- 2I shall use Fedayeen interchangeably with Palestinians. The name Fedayeen (i.e., in Arabic, flict management, reduction, or resolution. "those who sacrifice themselves") was introduced It should be obvious that we are referring to the Israeli-Arab conflict by Egyptian authori- more interdis- essentially to even advanced ties in 1955 as the official label for irregulars dis- ciplinary approaches, comparative in nature patched into Israel on subversive missions. In this 103 dan) were in Algeria and Cuba. Hence her obtain a deeper insight into a much less psychological need to articulate the oppres- studied dimension, namely, the Palestinian sion of the Palestinians is understandable. interaction with the various host societies. Her position reminds one of Rodinson’s inter- A second important focus in Francos’ re- pretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict as &dquo;the search is on events shaping the history of struggle of an indigenous population against the Fedayeen, particularly the Karameh af- the occupation of part of its national terri- fair (in March 1968), suggesting implicitly tory by foreigners&dquo; (Rodinson, 1969). The that the steady increase of the Fedayeen de- book is a personal account with considerable pends at least partially on opportunities to frankness. It is valuable in that it captures the stand out, brave and able, against the Israelis. way that Palestinians think, and especially Galle (1968) dismisses Francos’ study as a their reality. She does not attempt to analyze &dquo;propaganda tract.&dquo; In my opinion he does the situation beyond suggesting that the Pal- so because of his preference for balanced pre- estinians have a case. It is precisely because sentations (see Galle, 1968 and 1969). Ob- of her bias that some of Francos’ criticisms viously, one cannot compare Francos’ work are valuable. For instance, she attacks some to Rouleu et al. (1967), a dialogue between Palestinian leaders for the luxuries they en- two much more informed journalists guided joy and evaluates Shukeiry’s tactics-notably by an experienced moderator (see Kapeliuk, through an examination of his Palestinian 1969). Francos’ book is more in the style and Liberation Organization and its manipulation the mood of Givet (1968), where questions of by Arab governments to control the Pales- anti-Israeli attitude are further expressed only tinian problem. Her revealing analysis of the to demonstrate the confusion as well as the friction between Arab bourgeoisie and Pales- difficulty in relating the complex Israeli-Arab tinian refugees, as well as tensions she de- relationship to Jewish consciousness in the scribes in Arab establishments vis-a-vis the European left. growing strength and salience of the Fedayeen -all of these discussions may help to clarify 3. An Israeli Strategical Perspective certain moods and strategies chosen by the If one takes Francos to be total emotional- Fedayeen. ity, Harkabi (1969) is nothing but rationality. There are nuclear points in Francos’ anal- Harkabi was the Israeli chief of military in- ysis that deserve more articulation and lend telligence from 1955 to 1959. Since then he themselves to more An il- systematic study. has been concerned with the lustration is her conclusion that Palestinians academically Arab-Israeli conflict. His doctoral disserta- have been developing ideological predisposi- tion (1968) is the most lucid, systematic study tions and social organizations different from of Arab ideology in the conflict. Western those of the populations and countries in readers, however, had already been presented which they reside. Beyond the simple proposi- with fragments of his analysis of the Arab tion that there are Nasserites in Egypt, Baath- collapse in the Six Day War (Harkabi, 1967) ists in Syria, etc., it appears that, concomitant and a general brief summary of the confronta- with the process of communicative &dquo;unifica- tion (Harkabi, 1965). More than anyone else, tion&dquo; Palestinians, one also needs to among Alter (1968) succeeded in putting both the background and the motivation of Harkabi’s discussion we do not deal with Palestinian refugees work in a nutshell. (actually the majority) who are not associated with the organizations currently active against Israel and There is an enormous lack of symmetry in the Zionism. positions of the two antagonists. The Israeli posi- 104

tion on the Arabs over the years has on occasion that criticize the chosen path of guerrilla war- been stupid, blundering, unfeeling, but it has also fare, and spell out the differences between showed aspects of common sense, even humanity, Palestine and Algeria (or other revolutionary especially since June, 1967, and, by and large, one wars)-an exercise not prevalent at all in can say that its guiding principle has been en- Arab for an lightened self-interest. The Arab position on Israel, present writing (see, exception, by contrast, has been blind, fanatic, self-deceptive, ’Alush in Harkabi, 1969, pp. 18-19). self-destructive, harshly inflexible, and in many Compared with Francos, Harkabi evi- respects morally obscene. dences more of an analysis, albeit impression- Harkabi is a true representative of the Is- istic, of political, psychological, and social raeli establishment inasmuch as he stresses dimensions of the conflict. He is particularly the articulation of problems and flaws in convincing in his detailed study of discrep- Israel’s enemies, while advancing the general ancies between the Fedayeen’s stated goals thesis that there is no chance for Israel to be and their implementation. Often, however, accepted by the Arabs or, conversely, any the study takes a polemical approach to the justification for coming to terms with Arab issues, as when its author declares that grievances so long as Arabs are not able to &dquo;Fatah knows that it cannot establish a perform as a responsible party to the conflict. defended base either in the occupied terri- Typical of his line of thought is a comparison tories or in Israel proper&dquo; (Harkabi, 1969, of the 1964 Covenant of the PLO (Jerusalem), p. 34). While this &dquo;reality&dquo; was certainly the that is, of its &dquo;shaping,&dquo; and the fourth case when Harkabi wrote the statement in London in he knew too well that meeting in 1968 when the Covenant was 1968, only changed. Harkabi’s analysis emphasizes the his assertion would be irrelevant to Fatah’s as well as in months use of the word covenant (and not charter) in strategy then, subsequent order to convey the sacredness of their nation- when Fedayeen activity intensified. In Harkabi’s hard does alism and the accompanying vows. An ob- effect, thinking vious deduction from this type of analysis is not transcend the imperative of Israel-Arab that the Palestinians’ stand does not allow peace, per se. Considerable correspondence with his assessments can be found in any possibility of reconciliation; one could many of further infer from this that their position is Arab literature, all the way from semi-official statements in an to more rigid than Israel’s and must be con- Egyptian daily scholarly works like Sharabi sidered a primary hurdle to peace. (1969). However, quite of all these but Harkabi is gearing a large amount of his typical statements, particularly effort towards educating Israelis about the intriguing, is the fact that even an Israeli Arab to such necessity of living with the conflict for a long such as M. Wated reacts vehemently time. An important corollary of this orienta- an analysis.3 Wated is closer to understanding tion is that there is little likelihood of Arab both Israel’s position and some of the Arab society progressing in the desired direction. inadequacies (see, for example, Wated on the In the work under review his emphasis is on role of the intermediary in the Arab world). ideology and strategy. His analysis is the op- &dquo;He did some research and came to the con- posite of Francos’, not only in that he shows clusion that the Arabs are first class liars and the immorality and extreme refractory strategies of the Fedayeen but that he also docu- 3Excellent statements and elaboration on this discussion can be found in the Israeli Daily, Maáriv. ments his argument quite skillfully, using such See the articles, "Reflections of an Arab Scholar sources as Fatah and primary pamphlets after the Six Day War," Nov. 11, 1969; "The Pales- Arab strategists’ work. An example of his ef- tinian Covenant and its Meaning," Dec. 12, 1969; fort is a presentation of early Arab treatises and "Reflections of an Israeli Arab," Dec. 5, 1969. 105 that their national consciousness is super- hazards the movement for Greater Israel ficial&dquo; ( New Outlook Symposium, 1969, p. represents, and therefore statements about 120). Hard thinking on this conflict, then, borders, expansion, and other aspects of ter- cannot be accepted by Arabs, inasmuch as ritoriality emphasize a minimalistic approach. they read humiliating elements into the Another concern shared by most participants literature. is how to deal with the Arabs, coexistence being the first goal-the second &dquo;stage&dquo; hope- 4. Symposia in Search of Peace fully leading to more cooperation. Manipula- tion of the situation so as to meet the Arabs Different from Francos, though also polit- at some acceptable point is precisely where ically left, and different from Harkabi, though most people in the symposium feel that very also mainly Israeli, is the New Outlook Sym- little can be achieved in the immediate future. posium. In the case of the Middle East it has Clearly most of them agree that escalation is been said that &dquo;A complicating and inhibiting not going to bring the participants together, factor in the quest for peace is that the search and in this respect the symposium is extremely is almost an exclusive monopoly of the leftist responsive to the kind of criticism generally groups&dquo; (Merlin, 1968, p. 237). This state- advanced against Israel in Arab circles. It ment seems particularly appropriate here in might prove difficult to elaborate on the vari- that it underscores the need for unorthodox ous opinions for solving the conflict beyond ways of achieving peace as well as the willing- these general descriptions, simply because the ness of some participants to take risks for the symposium reflects the entire political spec- very reason that they are objectively as well trum in Israel with the exception of the ex- as subjectively less committed to defending treme right and the Movement for Greater establishment positions and goals. Israel, which is, at most, a minute group. The New Outlook Symposium is a most in- In two areas the symposium appears to be teresting collection of statements from Israel. very distant from the Israeli majority. The It indicates not only the desire for peace but first area consists of the hazardous effects of the general awareness that peace requires con- the conflict on Israeli society. For instance, cessions, that the Palestinians have often been Arieli, a history professor in Jerusalem, com- mistreated by Israelis, and that the expectancy pares Israel in seclusion to Sparta ( New Out- has not been matched by comparable initia- look Symposium, 1969, pp. 83-84). Quite a tives on the Arab side. In view of our com- few participants make it clear that they view ments on Francos, it should be noted that the Israeli situation vis-a-vis the occupied ter- foreign contributors to the symposium appear ritories negatively, not only because it blocks much less informed and much less innovative, the chances for peace, but because they be- when compared with their Israeli counter- lieve that the values and realities of Israeli parts, about the real goals and the real con- society have been pushed far away from any straints. For instance, Horovitz, who notes moral or historical goal that Zionism ever that &dquo;understanding begins with children,&dquo; sought (for example, Yalin-Mor, New Out- completely ignores the many difficulties al- look Symposium, 1969, p. 192). ready encountered in Jewish-Arab coeduca- A fascinating final session of the symposi- tion in Israel (New Outlook Symposium, um deals with the Palestinian refugee prob- 1969, pp. 151-152). lem (March 30, 1969). Nearly all of the Amongst the Israeli participants several participants offered a diagnosis of the situa- issues seem to be paramount: one is in their tion based on acceptance of the Palestinian explicit awareness of the internal and external movement-which is probably the most 106

sound general agreement coming from the quacies, others such as Abu-Lughod’s article symposium. Most participants also support on Israel-Arab policy (pp. 31-39) and Cherif absorption of a certain number of Arab Bassiouni’s contribution on the international refugees in Israel. Apropos of this approach, legal aspects of the conflict (pp.41-51) convey Shamir’s statement concerning the immediate important points. need for the establishment’s formulation of a policy with a Palestinian orientation, to be 5. A Search for Grounds for in a proclaimed formal, serious, and sincere US Policy? manner, is probably the most convincing one (New Outlook Symposium, 1969, pp. 193- One of the participants in Abu-Lughod’s 99). It is encouraging to know that such a collection is Hisham Sharabi, the author of view is held by a person associated with the the next work under review (Sharabi, 1969). semi-official and very respected Shiloah Re- Sharabi, a graduate of the American Uni- search Institute of Tel-Aviv University. versity of Beirut and the University of Chi- It is too early to measure, let alone evalu- cago, is of Palestinian origin, and hence his ate, the impact that the symposium will have sympathies. His work on the Middle East has on Arab circles. There have not been any been in the field of contemporary comparative known symposia in Arab countries that re- politics, which he teaches at Georgetown sponded to the Israeli quest or, for that University and the John Hopkins School of matter, to any international organization Advanced International Studies. asking for similar efforts. In fact, in over The analytical tool which he uses in exam- 1,000 treatises on the conflict appearing in ining the May-June prelude to the 1967 war Arab countries, there is not even the slightest consists of a comparison of the negotiable acknowledgment of the symposium or efforts and the nonnegotiable categories in the an- like it. It appears that The Arab World, in a tagonists’ positions. He is not convincing in special issue, has provided somewhat of a his argument, which is that the crisis of 1967 deviant collection of statements by scholars, has been received by Arabs primarily &dquo;in most of whom are of Palestinian descent. This terms of fundamental human rights,&dquo; that is, is probably an embryonic extension to match the Palestinian Arabs’ right to their land and the progressive call from Israel. Though not home (Sharabi, 1969, p. 124; also in Abu- emphasizing peace as the goal, and with a far Lughod, 1968, p. 29). His contention is one of from balanced approach to the conflict, Abu- many squarely refuted by all the other works Lughod’s collection is a welcome contribu- on review (notably Francos). The assertion tion to the dialogue. Appearing in the United that Nasser wanted to achieve maximum States, this collection is no less consciously &dquo;easy&dquo; gains in the prelude, with the explicit directed to the public than the New Outlook assumption that the Israelis would not fight, Symposium. The focus is on Israeli abuse of escapes a fair analysis. Sharabi’s analysis of Palestinians as well as on legal issues deriving the basic assumptions and goals of Israeli from the recent confrontation, the lack of strategy and credibility and the gaps in its responsible attitudes, religious life, etc.- credibility are better formulated, though he clearly issues in which full agreement on ini- pushes his case too far with his suggestion of tiatives can be found with the New Outlook a &dquo;compulsion&dquo; in Israel (in terms of its hard participants. While some of the studies in the strategies) to engage in all-out defensive war. collection (for example, Suleiman, pp. 59-65) Likewise, Sharabi’s analysis is too heavily do not warrant a thorough reading due to influenced by the logic and frame of reference their methodological and statistical inade- of his Arab sources-in fact, to that extent his 107 work compares unfavorably with the analysis popular revolutionary force capable of sustaining of CBS correspondent Winston Burdett protracted warfare, would in part have Israel’s Zionist and its of domination to (1969), who has no command of the antago- leadership policy thank. nists’ languages. For example, the dilemma of going to war in Israel, especially the weight of 6. A to possible losses in civil and military popula- Sophisticated Approach tions, receives better treatment from a &dquo;non- Coercion professional.&dquo; More central to Sharabi’s Nadav Safran is the author of the most en- brief is his analysis of American foreign policy compassing work under survey (Safran, 1969). in the Middle East-yet it is not nearly as in- Born in Cairo, he spent several years in Israel. tensive an examination as the one Burdett Somewhat like Sharabi, he has been academ- offers. Sharabi dwells on &dquo;grave shortcomings ically productive in the United States, in an and failures of the policy decisions in differ- area related to his earlier experience: compar- ent administrations&dquo; from Truman to Nixon. ative Middle East politics. Previous work on Following Richard P. Stevens and others Egypt and Israel have made Safran particu- (Sharabi, 1969, p. 30), he advocates less larly suitable for the task of using effectively American military aid and diplomatic support the Ford International grant which he re- for Israel. He explicitly favors a United States ceived for this research. policy involving &dquo;a determination to resist Safran’s focus is on coercion in the context internal pressure and to act solely in accor- of inter-Arab and big power relations. The dance with the requirements of regional and most obvious aspect of his work (in com- global peace&dquo; (Sharabi, 1969, p. 217). His parison with the existing literature on the analysis falls short of specifying what this Arab-Israeli conflict) is the systematic search means but, since it is viewed as a condition for trends over countries and over time. Care- capable of effecting a &dquo;radical change and of ful to define each of the facets of coercion in inducing Israel to accept a settlement not terms of meaningfulness (toward different dictated by itself as victor&dquo; (ibid.), the impli- facets of coercion and other components of cation is clear. A closer look at the politics the analysis), operational definition, and and specifics of his suggested strategy regard- sources, the author offers us a replicable ing US policy and regionally-defined peace in study, which can of course be extended to the Middle East is necessary before we can later periods (see Appendix A in Safran, 1969, seriously consider Sharabi’s ideas. pp.421-34). Sharabi’s work is particularly interesting Safran’s analysis should be diametrically for his treatment of Arab society and its in- viewed against the above-reviewed &dquo;inter- ternal processes in confrontation with a tech- pretations&dquo; which fundamentally involve two nologically superior adversary. His in-depth sets of incompatible claims, attitudes, and study of decision-making in Arab countries points of view. In numerous places Safran and amongst the Palestinians parallels Har- demonstrates the necessity of a closer look at kabi’s and Francos’ analyses. It is, however, issues in order to answer such questions as precisely the question of the Palestinians that (1969, p. 146): eludes his understanding. When he seeks to elucidate the grounds on which the prospects 1. Who has been &dquo;responsible&dquo; for initiating the race between and Israel which for peace lie, he fails. He informs us, for Egypt has remained at the center of the accumula- that: example (1969, p. 220) tion of arms in the area? and Ironically, Palestinian resistance, if it did indeed 2. Who has been &dquo;responsible&dquo; for escalating escape destruction and succeeded in growing into a it at various points? 108

In essence, though, there is nothing new in his correlation analysis, as well as covariance, answer-which is that neither Israel nor are still open. Such trend-seeking work is Egypt has been responsible; rather, he con- badly needed if only to enable us to decipher cludes that the arms race derives from the dif- the fuller meaning of each point in the arms ferent perspectives from which they were buildup and the aggressive evolution of the bound to view things ( ibid. ). In terms of our conflict. previous discussion, Safran’s work demonstrates succinctly that efforts like Sharabi’s 7. Recommendations: Needed Types need more homework. Furthermore, Safran’s of Research type of analysis offers the frame of reference some for such necessary to pinpoint when antagonists en- Very briefly, suggestions are now in order. gage in military buildup. For example, we can groundwork see the spillover effect of the Egyptian-Israeli A. QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES TO THE race into the area as a whole (see Safran, Fig. CONFRONTATION IN SPACE AND TIME 21, p. 192) and the feedback effect of the arms An inherent in con- race on inter-Arab relations as well as in- assumption analyzing flict escalation in the to World War ternal ones. Safran explicates and interrelates prelude the United States’ involvement in aspects of the dynamics and strain of arms I, Vietnam, and the deescalation in the Cuban buildup, effects on the relation of forces, com- process missile crisis has been that conflict reduction parative sacrifices imposed by the arms race, is to a certain extent the reverse anticipation of war and the resultant &dquo;prepar- of conflict escalation and 1968 atory&dquo; patterns, etc. (Holsti, North, Brody, What makes Safran’s work even more and 1969; Milstein and Mitchell, 1968). This and other reasons a relevant is that the foregoing analyses are in- justify quantita- terwoven with an historical introduction to tive longitudinal analysis of the actions, and interactions of nation-states the conflict, focusing first on pan-Arabism, reactions, inter-Arab organizations, and problems of for the purpose of analyzing conflict reduction in the Middle East as a of the Arab unity-and then on the big power in- subsystem international An based on terest pressures and involvement in the con- system. example flict. Finally, he relates the specific events Azar (1969): to and the 1967 war. leading constituting In analyzing nonroutine, extraordinary, or Politically, almost every important item of in- newsworthy actions which international nation- formation is accurately presented and ana- actors have been taking, Azar specifically studied lyzed. However, precisely because of this lay- the interaction between Egypt, Israel, Britain, and France. The time period extended from January out, one miss some of the interrelations may 1956 through December 1957, thus covering the between the various parts of the analysis. period of the Suez crisis. The analysis explores the Safran leaves them &dquo;unhomogenized&dquo; in dynamics of conflict reduction when one party to terms of types of quantification, propinquity, a conflict is composed of a differentiated alliance which one actor is to be the most and definitiveness of conclusion. This seems (in postulated dominant one). to be partly because Safran measures GNP and defense expenditures that are readily This type of analysis can be extended to available but does not &dquo;extract&dquo; quantifiable social and behavioral aspects of the conflict, trends in his evaluation of inter-Arab politics that is, to communication systems, education or big power behavior-data which are and socialization for hostility or for coexis- harder to obtain or satisfactorily define. Thus tence, image-evolution, etc. A closer look at some promising avenues in regression and measurable trends can show the merit of cer- 109 tain hypotheses (for example, Francos’ deriv- these materials in the Middle East Record would be atives from the Karameh affair); it can ex- a recommended progression. plicate changing aspects of the conflict and Our previous discussion suggested that suggest common denominators and differ- accessibility of the local language, while being ences between and facets of the dis- among very important, would not necessarily free the research. Further, such analysis ciplinary analysis from bias. The more information should free at least from the us, partially, available to researchers in different centers, in the current many speculations existing the less the necessity to confine further work and enable us to relate the work on efforts, to existing authoritative and singular efforts. the Israel-Arab conflict to complementary This constraint, however, has generally been work on other intersocietal conflicts. the rule rather than the exception with research on the Israeli-Arab conflict. B. SENSITIVE EXTRACTION AND DIS- SEMINATION OF KNOWLEDGE ON TRENDS C. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN FOR BEHAVIORAL FACETS OF THE CONFRONTATION What is becoming critical is the lack of pre- requisites for trend analysis in the area of Many of the questions of language and social services, community development, liter- culture encountered at the level of cognitive ary production, and the like. What is needed style, such as frustration, types of hostility is an effort that will succeed in making data and its encouragement in institutionalized available by means of translation, extraction manners, adulation of violence, etc., are too of measurable dimensions, classification, etc. complex to be treated adequately in an im- Information on political events is relatively pressionistic way. Controlled work in these available: the Arab Relations Review (Lon- areas is needed, preferably of experimental don) and the Middle Easf Record (Tel-Aviv) design. Example: report events in terms of local significance, One area of study might be an isolation of the and therefore can be used for analyses that do five special &dquo;impacts&dquo; that Arabic language has had justice to Arab or Israeli event-perception.’ on the patterns of thought, that is, vagueness; over- the Good data appear also about the UN actions emphasis on the psychological significance of in the Middle East conflict (for example, linguistic symbols at the expense of their meaning; stereotyped emotional responses; overassertion and Mezerik, 1969, and In Higgins, 1969). light exaggeration; two levels of life, real and ideal-all of the obvious research problems encoun- of which Shouby relates to special canalization and tered in the first four efforts under review development of deeply-rooted habits, religion, here, one priority of research should be the Arab past, and Arab nationalism. His explanation does not account for the rich hatred and com- ability to account for other events as well. fully articulated Arabs in evaluating An example: passion readily by the conflict (Shouby, 1951; see also Chejne, 1960, 1965 and Such do not An interesting, ongoing attempt is being made by Harkabi, 1967). phenomena scientific the the periodical Hamizrah Hehadash ( The Near East, exclude publications (for example, Political Science Review ). Jerusalem) to extract information on the social life Egyptian Some work has focused on adher- of Arab countries (for example, newspaper dissem- experimental of stu- ination, university graduating classes, etc.). Broad- ence to reality in the personal perception involved ening of its frame of inclusion and incorporation of dents and military journals. Experiments Arabic-speaking students at the American Univer- sity of Beirut and American universities. Relation- 4This consideration has not been taken too ship between Edwards’ and McClelland’s measures seriously by most of the event-interaction research- of Achievement Motivation with (relatively) cul- ers of the conflict (including Azar’s work men- turally unbiased probing of imaginative stories tioned above). indicated some special traits appearing in Arab 110

language and personality which bear directly and of the antagonist, and that certain mutually agreed- indirectly on Arab behavior vis-b-vis the conflict upon considerations are necessary in order to reach situations (Melikian, 1958, and Ben-Dak, 1969). agreement on a solution (Peres, 1970, and Ben- Dak, 1969). In a game Arabs and Israelis, or for It became apparent in my review that the that matter participants who have assumed their personal history and current association of roles, have to find a solution mutually agreed upon; each author has influenced the selection of his or at least certain assumptions toward &dquo;creating&dquo; one. The very fact that the investigator can manipu- subject matter, and, more important, dictates late the situation as well as duplicate it with dif- at least the direction of his conclu- partially ferent participants allows him to reach a deeper sions. There is very little we can do to change understanding of constraints and inducements. In this phenomenon. However, by elucidating short, a range of possible, well-defined alternatives to end hostilities are available to him. exact and reproducible methodologies we can contribute to the validity and reliability of thus much of the emotion- research, removing Obviously such work is of a tentative, in discussions. ality present mainly theoretical nature, but once it is related to empirical testing or regarded as a D. THE SEARCH FOR AN INNOVATIVE sensitizing means for defining research prob- MANIPULABILITY lems, it can add considerable significance to The kind of research we need should be work on the conflict. When one looks, even typified by the opportunity to appraise the cursorily, at assessments offering a showdown situation before it actually occurs instead of of one kind or another (for example, Sharabi, allowing the blind process of competition 1969), or protracted and irreconcilable posi- between collectivities (and between individu- tions (as Harkabi, 1969), the potential value als) to take its toll (see Washburn, 1966). It of gaming is clear. has been argued that game-simulations can help the search for &dquo;new,&dquo; &dquo;unidentified&dquo; E. GEARING THE WORK TO A PERCEIVED patterns in intersocietal relations. Further- SOLUTION more, these are excellent teaching devices when participants demonstrate a good grasp of roles, images, strategies, empathy for the The suggestions presented above may have situation, and (what is especially crucial for particularly important effects on work on our purposes) a feeling of potency (see Abt, the conflict if more researchers begin to 1964; Boocock and Coleman, 1966; Guetz- (1) interrelate findings from various research kow et al., 1963; and Gamson, 1969). strategies, suggested here, in somewhat the One conclusion that we can draw from the same way that work in psychology could reviewed literature is that none of the authors relate testing, human factors engineering, and is able to conceptualize a scientific scenario leadership studies to cross-cultural studies of in which Arabs and Israelis will share senti- values; (2) to gear systematically their re- ments and norms and will exchange resources search to a closer look at options for a solution and services of yet unknown (or known) of the conflict. The very fact that a solution kinds. Some relevant ideas may come from must have grounds in any of the social sci- this gaming technique. Example: ences, be backed in time and space by knowledge of trends, have specificity in terms of and be Game-simulations were created on the assump- ecology administratively unambiguous tion that both parties lack any real sense of em- renders the current efforts ineffective. It is the pathy and knowledge central to the Weltanschauung contention of this article that we must free 111 ourselves from the atmosphere of a Greek Givet, J. La gauche contre Israel. 1968, 6, J. J. Pau- tragedy. vert (ed.), Paris: Libertés Nouvelles. Guetzkow, Harold, et al. Simulation in International Relations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, REFERENCES 1963. Harkaby, Y. Israel-Arab confrontation, Jerusalem Abt, C. C. War gaming, International Science and Post, Dec. 17, 1965. Technology, 1964, 32 (August), 29-37. —. Basic factors in the Arab collapse during Abu-Lughod, I. The Arab-Israeli confrontation of the Six Day War. Orbis, 1967, 11 (3), 677-91. June 1967, The Arab World, 1968, 14 (10-11), —. Emdat Ha-Aravim Bsikhsukh Yisrael-Arav 1-80. (The Arab position in the Israeli-Arab conflict). Alter, R. Rhetoric and the Arab mind, Commen- Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1968. tary, 1968,46 (4), 61-65. Higgins, R. United Nations Peacekeeping, 1946- Azar, E. E. The quantification of events for the 1967 : Documents and Commentary. The Middle analysis of conflict reduction. Paper presented at East, 1. London: Oxford University Press, 1969. the Seventh North American Research Confer- Holsti, O. R., R. C. North, and R. A. Brody. Per- ence, Peace Research Society (International), ception and action in the 1914 crisis. In D. J. 1969, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Singer (ed.), Quantitative International Politics. Ben-Dak, J. D. Dimensions of solutions to the New York: Free Press, 1968. Arab-Israel confrontation: a simulation analysis. —, R. A. Brody, and R. C. North. The man- Unpublished working paper from Center for agement of international crisis; affect and action Research on Conflict Resolution, the University in American-Soviet relations. In: D. G. Pruitt of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1969. and R. C. Snyder (eds.), Theory and Research on —. Adherence to reality principle and the ques- the Causes of War. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: tion of oriental imagination: a study of Arab Prentice-Hall, 1969. media. Paper presented at the Oslo Seminar on Hudson, M. The Palestinian-Arab resistance move- Comparative Aspects of the Israel-Arab Con- ment : its significance in the Middle East crisis, frontation, Vangen, Norway, September 1969. Middle East Journal, 1969,23 (3), 291-307. Berger, M. The Arab World Today. New York: Inbar, M. The differential impact of a game simu- Doubleday, 1962. lating a community disaster, American Behavioral Boocock, S., and J. S. Coleman. Games with simu- Scientist, 1966,10, 2. lated environments in learning, Sociology of Edu- Kadi, L. S. Arab Summit Conferences and the cation, 1966, 39 (3). Palestine Problem: 1936-1950, 1964-1966. Pales- Burdett, W. Encounter with the Middle East. New tine Books, 4. Beirut: Research Center, Palestine York: Atheneum, 1969. Liberation Organization, 1966. Chejne, A. The use of history by modern Arabic Kapeliuk, A. The view from both sides, New Out- writers. Middle East Journal, 1960, (Autumn), look, 1969,12 (2), 43-47. 382-396. Al Khalidi, W. Reappraisal, an examination of attitudes to Palestine Mid- —. Arabic: its significance and place in Arab- western the problem, Muslim society, Middle East Journal, 1965 dle East Forum, 1958 (Summer), 18-22 and 29. (Autumn), 447-70. Kimche, D., and D. Bawly. The Sandstorm. New El-Hadi, M. M. Union list of Arabic serials in the York: Stein and Day, 1969. United States (the Arabic serial holdings of sev- Laqueur, W. The Israel-Arab Reader. New York: enteen libraries), Occasional Papers, 1965, 75, Citadel Press, 1969. University of Illinois Graduate School of Library Love, K. The Suez Wars. New York: McGraw Hill, Science. 1969. Galle, W. Recent French publications about the Melikian, L. H. The relationship between Edward’s Middle East. The New Middle East (London), and McClelland’s measures of achievement moti- 1968, No. 3, 51-52. vation, Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1958, —. More French publications, The New Middle 22 (4), 296-99. East, 1969, No. 4, 52-53. Merlin, S. The Search for Peace in the Middle East. Gamson, W. A. SIMSOC: Simulated Society. Par- New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1968. ticipants’ manual with selected readings. New Mezerik, A. G. The Arab-Israel conflict and the York: Free Press, 1969. U.N. International Review Service, 1969,14 (101). 112

Milstein, J., and N. Mitchell. Computer simula- Rouleau, E. J. F., J. Held, and S. Lacouture. Israel tion of international processes: the Vietnam war el les Arabes-lee 3 Combat. Paris: Editions du and the pre-World War I naval race. Paper pre- Sevil, 1967. sented at the Sixth North American Peace Re- Sayegh, F. E. The encounter of two ideologies— search Conference, Peace Research Society (In- Zionism and Arabism. In The Arab Nation, ternational). Cambridge, Mass., 1968. Paths, Obstacles, and Fulfilment. Washington: van Nieuwenhuijze, C. A. O. Some thoughts on the Middle East Institute, 1961, 73-91. present state of the sociology of the Middle East, —. Zionist Colonialism in Palestine. 1965a, Der Islam, 1965,41, 1-17. Palestine Monograph 1. Beirut: Research Center, —. Social Stratification and the Middle East. Palestine Liberation Organization. New York and Leiden: Brill, 1966. —. The United Nations and the Palestine Ques- Oron, Y. The Middle East Record. 1960-1961. 1-2. tion, April 1947-April 1965. 1965b, Facts and Tel-Aviv: Shiloah Research Center. London: Figures series 2. Beirut: Research Center, Pales- Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1962-1963. tine Liberation Organization. Peres, Y. The Arab-Israel conflict resolution game. —. Discrimination in Education Against the Bulletin of Peace Proposals, 1970, Oslo (in press). Arabs in Israel. 1966, Facts and Figures series 3. Perlmutter, A. Sources of instability in the Middle Beirut: Research Center, Palestine Liberation East: two decades of nationalism and revolution. Organization. Orbis, 1968,12 (3), 718-53. Shouby, E. The influence of the Arabic language Prittie, T. Israel, Miracle in the Desert. New York: upon the psychology of the Arabs, Middle East Penguin Books, 1968. Journal, 1951 (Summer), 284-302. Rodinson, M. Israel and the Arabs. New York: Washburn, A., and J. Knight. Conflict in Society. Pantheon, 1969. London: J. A. Churchill, 1966.