Some psychosocial and cultural factors in the Arab-Israeli conflict: a review of the literature BENJAMIN BEIT-HALLAHMI1 Institute for Human Adjustment, University of Michigan This review is offered as an introductory three groups: psychological-theoretical (Liff, guide to the literature on selected psychoso- 1971; Tamarin, 1968a), psYchologi~l-empiri- cial and cultural aspects of the Arab-Israeli cal (Newnham, 1967; Sanua, 1970, 1971), conflict. Its aims are to survey some of and historical-ideological (Cohen, 1970; the scientific and nonscientific efforts that Deutscher, 1968; Harkabi, 1967a, 1968). This have been made to understand the psy- group of overviews was used as a source chosocial bases of behaviors in this conflict, of propositions and hypotheses, and the and to clarify evidence related to major following three issues were selected as the propositions regarding the impact of those foci for this review: (1) cultural charac- bases. Its scope is limited by accepting the teristics and &dquo;national character&dquo; as param- basic caveats of Kelman (1965a) and Etzioni eters in the conflict; (2) the internal func- (1969). tion of external conflict as an impediment Kelman (1965a) makes clear that while to solution on both sides; and (3) optimism we can use sociopsychological data to con- and the uses of psychology in reaching for tribute to our understanding of a conflict, a resolution. It should be recognized that it cannot replace looking at the real issues the review deals with a limited subset of and giving due regard to historical and psychosocial aspects, and not with the full political contexts. Etzioni (1969) suggests range of psychosocial factors or specific that sociopsychological knowledge can help issues in the conflict. clarify specific subproblems, but psycholog- ical studies cover only a segment of the be- havior in international conflict. Cultural Characteristics and Attempts to deal with the history and &dquo;National Character&dquo; status of the conflict from a present psy- ARAB CULTURE AND PERSONALITY chological perspective can be classified into The idea that unique characteristics of ’ The author would like to express his thanks the &dquo;Arab personality&dquo; or the Arab &dquo;nation- to the following individuals, who have helped in al character&dquo; have affected the course of the preparation of this review: M. M. Beit-Hallah- this conflict has been widely expressed. One mi, J. D. Ben-Dak, J. E. Hofman, F. J. Khouri, implication of this idea is that we have to D. Peretz, V. D. Sanua, S. R. Silverburg, H. use an &dquo;Arab in order to ex- H. Smythe, and G. R. Tamarin. Any errors or psychology&dquo; misconceptions are of course the author’s sole plain the behavior of the Arab side in the responsibility. conflict. Both implicitly and explicitly writ- 270 ers dealing with the Arab &dquo;national charac- at avoiding or covering up the slightest ten- ter&dquo; have related their formulations to the dency towards the expression of difference&dquo; conflict between the Arabs and the West (1964, pp. 141-42). The thesis of &dquo;free float- in general, and between the Arabs and Israel ing hostility&dquo; in the Arab world may be in particular. used to explain Arab behavior in the conflict Sanua (1970, 1971, 1966) is the major pro- (Glidden, 1972). According to this thesis, ponent of the Arab personality as a major hostility may be seen as a basic part of factor in the conflict. Sanua’s main conten- close interpersonal relationships in the Arab tion is that &dquo;... the limitations of the Arab world, and not just the result of intergroup character have brought them (i.e. the Arabs) tension and specific conflicts. to their present predicament&dquo; (1970, p. 3). While most of the sources cited above He provides the most comprehensive survey contain personal observations and anecdotal on the use of psychological instruments with evidence, systematic psychological studies Arab populations. His overview of the con- of Arabs were performed over the last flict is quite ambitious, trying to generalize twenty years by Prothro and Melikian (1952) from empirical studies with small groups and Melikan (1959b) at the American Uni- to total Arab behavior vis-a-vis Israel. Sanua versity of Beirut. Melikian (1956) and regards the Arab position as more rigid than Prothro and Melikian (1953) described Arab the Israeli one, and therefore as the main culture as authoritarian, compared to the obstacle to a resolution. This rigid position American culture. Comparing a group of is seen as the result of specific Arab traits American students to a group of students related to culture, language, and thought. at the American University in Beirut, Meli- His approach is limited by lack of consider- kian (1956) reported higher levels of authori- ation given to the other party in the conflict, tarianism and hostility in the Middle East namely the Israelis. Similarly Sanua consid- group. Another comparison of American ers psychological factors, and especially and Egyptian groups (Melikian, 1959a) Arab characteristics, more important than showed similar results. Melikian (1959a) also the historical and political facts of the conflict. suggested that in Egypt an authoritarian A major Arab character trait, according Moslem may be more &dquo;healthy&dquo; psychologi- to Sanua (1970) and others (Adams, 1957; cally, because he is conforming to a general Feldman, 1958; Gillespie and Allport, 1955), cultural pattern. is extreme suspiciousness stemming from The concept of the &dquo;Arab imagination&dquo; child rearing practices (cf. MacLeod, 1959) or &dquo;lack of reality testing&dquo; is likely to be and directed towards fellow Arabs and for- used quite often in discussions of the con- eigners alike. Sanua (1966) also presents flict, and especially its military aspects conservatism and fatalism as major values iHarkabi, 1967b). &dquo;Blurred&dquo; perception and in the culture of the Egyptian fellahin (cf. &dquo;lack of distinction between truth and false- Racy, 1970). hood&dquo; were portrayed as Arab charac- Berger using personal observations de- teristics by Hamady (1960) and Hottinger scribed the interrelationship of hostility and (1963). Khatchadorian (1961) discussed the politeness in Arab society in the following quality of &dquo;as if,&dquo; which permeates Arab way. &dquo;Exaggerated hospitality and polite- culture, and attributed this lack of genuine- ness are reactions to exaggerated hostility, ness to the traditions of ntual and authori- at least in part .... Conflict is so much tarianism. which created masks instead of on the verge of breaking out that interper- men sonal relations seem to be largely directed A personality type embodying all the al- 271 leged faults of the Arab character from an in the Arab world. The five characteristics Arab point of view is that of the &dquo;fahlawi.&dquo; of Arabic, according to Shouby, are vague- The fahlawi person (al-Azm, 1967) is super- ness ; overemphasis on psychological signifi- ficial and vain in his approach to the tasks cance of linguistic symbols at the expense of reality. He constantly seeks the shortest of meaning; stereotyped emotional way to success, glossing over problems and responses; overassertion and exaggeration; errors. According to al-Azm, it was the fah- and two levels of life-ideal and real. All lawi mentality that played a role in Arab these are seen as related to Arab culture, military defeats in 1967. The fahlawi syn- religion, literature, and education. drome is related to what outside observers The issue has been discussed by other have termed &dquo;lack of reality testing&dquo; in writers, both Arabs and non-Arabs (Chejne, Arab perceptions. 1965; Harkabi, 1967b; Salem, 1958). Chejne Sharabi recognizes the problem of Arab (1965) points to the almost magical impor- credibility as a major one and calls upon tance of the Arabic language in Arab poli- Arab leaders to go beyond what he calls tics, and its central role in Arab nationalism. &dquo;crude manipulation of facts&dquo; (1970, p. 1). Sanua (1966) has produced the most thor- He suggests a process whereby exaggeration ough review of the literature on the psycho- and distortion are part of the feedback from logical properties of Arabic and their impor- recipients, which in turn reinforces any tance in interpersonal relations. He also con- original tendency to distort. Avineri (1970) siders the effects of Arabic to be among points out that a discussion of the &dquo;Arab the causes of the present &dquo;impasse&dquo; in the imagination&dquo; has to deal with wider societal conflict, and as one of the &dquo;limitations&dquo; of processes. We cannot discuss &dquo;reality test- the Arabs (1970). Prothro (1955), in the only ing&dquo; in this conflict without considering the experimental work on the subject, supports realities to be tested. A full understanding the notion that Arabs are given to more of the Arab use of fantasy in this conflict overassertion in speech than Americans, but has to consider not only cultural factors, most of the writing on the psychological im- but the value of fantasy as a functional pacts of Arabic does not go beyond the im- solution. Needs and values emphasized by pressionistic level. Glidden (1972) and Racy (1970) help us to One argument against the validity of most view the use of imagination instead of reali- research on the &dquo;Arab personality&dquo; has to ty testing as a solution to an impossible do with the populations studied. Most of situation, in terms of Arab national self-con- the anecdotal reports are based on village cept. This solution may seem baffling and populations, while most of the more system- dysfunctional to Western observers, but it atic studies, such as those by Melikian and may be a most satisfying solution in the Prothro, deal with well-educated, moder- face of experienced helplessness and fata- nized, and Westernized subjects.