Op/Ed

Middle East Madness
by Paul Levy

The other night I was watching Dan Gillerman, the Israeli ambassador to the U. N. being interviewed on t. v. by Charlie Rose. Gillerman was incredibly articulate, and very brilliant. He spoke with the utmost authority and confidence. Here was someone who seemed truly empowered, I thought. Flawless in his logic, it seemed like no one had a chance to win the slightest point in any argument with him. And then, something revealing happened. At one point, Rose asked him whether Israel preferred a military or a political victory. The ambassador answered, “We prefer a MILITARY victory over a military victory.’ Rose immediately corrected him, saying he meant that Israel preferred a POLITICAL victory over a military victory. Gillerman responded by saying “yes, a political victory over a military victory,” as if that’s exactly what he had said. He had no idea that he had mis-spoken, and that his Freudian slip may have unwittingly revealed a deeper process that was playing out through his, and by extension, Israel’s unconscious. 

A Freudian slip is the voice of the unconscious. In his slip of the tongue, Gillerman unknowingly may have revealed what is going on inside the unconscious, whose intentions are the polar opposite of what he imagines or represents them to be (both to himself and to the world) at that moment. In his Freudian slip, Gillerman may have been unwittingly revealing what he was unconsciously dissociated from and hiding from himself, and hence, unconsciously enacting in the world. When we are not in conscious relationship with a part of ourselves, we are doomed to unconsciously give shape and form to it by acting it out in the world.

Once I began contemplating the ambassador’s Freudian slip, I wondered what it could have been revealing about his (and Israel’s) unconscious. If that was the voice of the unconscious, it is expressing the shadow, the darker part, of what Israel is playing out on the global stage. If it was a genuine Freudian slip, Gillerman is unknowingly revealing that Israel prefers a victory by force over anything negotiated via diplomacy. It is as if this voice that wanted a military victory was thirsting to assert its power and domination over its enemies. It goes without saying that this is the absolute polar opposite of the representatives of peace that Gillerman and Israel like to think of themselves as being. This unconscious dark side that the Israeli ambassador is revealing is none other than the underlying, un-integrated collective shadow of his nation which is being brutally acted out on the world stage.   

Gillerman’s Freudian slip seems to be revealing an urge on the part of Israel for revenge, an impulse to want to punish their adversaries. Wanting to destroy the “other,” Israel is unconsciously acting out the part of itself that has been abused. Israel’s knee-jerk, vengeful reaction is coming out of a deep hurt, a deep wound. Israel’s unconscious reaction to want to hurt and destroy the other is an expression of the part of it that has been traumatized by its enemies attempting to destroy it. And yet, Israel’s desire for revenge is what transforms it from being the victim of terror to itself becoming the terrorist.

The ambassador’s Freudian slip may be revealing that Israel, under the guise of being the victim, is actually playing the role of the victimizer disguised as the victim. By acting out of its wound and unconsciously acting out its trauma, Israel is actually doing the very thing it is accusing its enemies of doing. Accusing its enemies of perpetrating violence, Israel is perpetrating violence, thereby pouring fuel on the endless cycle of violence. Does Israel really think that enacting violence is going to make it safer? Doesn’t Israel realize that perpetrating violence is just going to inspire and create more enemies than it will destroy? Of course, I can’t help but notice the similarity between Israel’s (ultimately self-defeating) attitude and that of my own country, the United States.

In his Freudian slip, Gillerman may have been unwittingly revealing what he was unconsciously dissociated from and hiding from himself, and hence, unconsciously enacting in the world. When we are not in conscious relationship with a part of ourselves, we are doomed to unconsciously give shape and form to it by acting it out in the world.

Although there are deep, historical roots to this conflict, no matter who is to blame for what has been done in the past, the fact is the only place we have the power to make a genuine difference is in the present moment. Thus, the present situation is the place wherein effective action can be taken to resolve this crisis. From the point of view of the present moment, no one “started” the conflict. Either side, at any moment, can step out of the vicious cycle which is nothing other than an infinite regression and simply refuse to continue to feed the endless, self-reinforcing cycle of violence. Either side of the conflict can simply refuse to participate in perpetuating the cycle of reactive and retributive violence and the self-perpetuating cycle will be broken. This is the deeper meaning of Christ’s urging to “turn the other cheek.” This is the underlying meaning of both Gandhi and Rev. Martin Luther King’s teachings on non-violence. Only by not striking back can we become agents of peace.