Brothers in Arms? Brothers at Arms?

In so many senses – and not for the first time either – am I seeing parallels between Israelis and Palestinians. First, there is their shared sense of victimhood, their sense of exile and the promise of return. Then there is their racial relationship as Semites, and their Biblical relationship as the tribes of two brothers, Isaac and Ishmael. On both sides there is militarism and the glorification of “freedom fighters.” And both sides call the other side’s freedom fighters “terrorists.” Both people promise themselves “never again” – never again a Holocaust, never again a Nakbah.

Then, as soon as I see the parallels, I am hit with all the opposites. Jews in Israel have been almost from the beginning, from the early days of the Yishuv, highly organized, with a well-defined leadership and much foreign support. In contrast, Palestinians have suffered from social, economic and political divisions, familial rivalries, and a fractured (and fractious) leadership. Paradoxically, the Yishuv was more ideologically homogeneous (it was a self-selecting group of those Jews who really believed in the dream of Eretz Israel, even if they differed on the details) but ethnically and cultural heterogeneous. Equally paradoxically, the Palestinians were ideologically heterogeneous but ethnically and culturally more homogeneous (with thanks for this distinction to Rashid Khalidi and his book The Iron Cage).

When we were at the University of Haifa during our 10-day seminar, Professor Yoav Gelber told us that the “right of return” – one of those final status issues that continues to rankle on both sides – was an historical custom in the Arab world. After wars, refugees were often allowed back into their homeland. From a Jewish/European standpoint, this was never the case. In Europe, when a conquering nation claimed territory, displaced persons had to resettle elsewhere. There was no right of return. Thus, here again we see how the past shapes the present, and how two different histories informed the legacy of 1948. In some ways, these are echoes of Huntington’s famous “clash of civilizations” thesis – East meeting the West and in large part losing out.

Then from a purely cultural standpoint – and a purely subjective and overly generalized one, I grant you – Jewish Israelis and Arab Palestinians could not be more different. While they are related genetically, their collective mannerisms are easily distinguished. Whereas Israelis are upfront and blunt in the extreme (some might say, “in your face”), Arabs prefer a more gentile and sophisticated manner (some might say “hard to read”). Traditional Arab culture is one of status and hierarchy, loyalty and kinship. Modern Israeli culture is more or less a meritocracy and a strange though struggling democracy. These are all, of course, cultural archetypes (not stereotypes since I am not applying them to individuals per se), but true insofar as differentiations go.

On the street, can I tell an Israeli from an Arab? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In personal interactions, can I tell? Yes, most definitely. In terms of the conflict, are Israelis and Palestinians more parallel or more opposing? This might seem like an obvious question. Of course they are more opposed! Oddly enough, though, while their claims are opposing, their narratives remain parallel. In another paradox (of so many I’ve begun to lose count), their identities are composed of the same basic clay – conflict, religion, exile, return – but molded into very different forms. (*Interesting addendum: I just had a long conversation with an old school friend and she reinforced this picture. She said that in order for there to be peace, both sides, both peoples, need to speak the same language. Right now, she said, both literally and figuratively, Israelis and Palestinians are speaking two very different languages. Can we at least have an interpreter please?)