Peace and Conflict Studies - Spring 2014

Peace and Conflict Studies Volume 21, Number 1 18 rationality and it proposed a way to end it (Ben Porat, 2008) which brought optimism to the public discourse (Oren, 2009) while the fictional texts told exactly the opposite story: no rationality, telling the story of the inability to understand it, showing no future hope and no Jewish-Arab relations that prevails in the conflicted land. While Israeli public opinion towards Arabs transformed, it included less stereotypes and prejudices (Smooha, 1998; Stone, 1983), Israel’s literature was Orientalistic even when trying to present a more balanced perspective of the Arab (Oppenheimer, 2008). The texts continued to present the Israeli-national narrative, even when the overall picture is not one of black and white. The texts deal with almost all of the topics that comprise the inter-group psychological repertoire and the ethos of conflict – security, self-identification, group belongings and more – but show them in a different light than the public discourse of the time. Why is it, then, that while Israeli society’s beliefs became more exceptive of other narratives and less pessimistic, the cultural texts became more confusing? Why is it that while the texts did become consistent with the public discourse by giving more voice to the Arab other, they at the same time told a story in which there actually cannot be any coexistence between Arabs and Jews, Israelis and Palestinians? How is it that these texts actually told a story that might not have been the story of Israeli public discourse of the 1980s but certainly reflects the Israeli discourse after the year 2000? These findings challenge the well-known concept that cultural texts are part of the narrative of societies in conflict. They show that while both cultural texts and political public discourse changed at the same time – they went in different directions. The cultural texts were more pessimistic and confused than the public discourse. Interestingly enough, although not completely in line with the discourse back in the 1980s, they – in a way – present a picture similar to what would become the Israeli ethos of conflict two decades later. After the year 2000, the Israeli perception and ethos of conflict included beliefs about the inability to have a dialog with the Palestinians; a perception that there is “no partner” in the rival side; belief that the conflict cannot be solved as Israel has done extensive efforts to do so but could not strike a peace agreement; total confusion about the question of how to end the conflict, as all the efforts done did not prevail; perception that peace treaties signed outside of Israel (Oslo or Geneva for example) can only last outside of Israel-Palestine but collapse in the middle-eastern reality; beliefs that people who were talking about a peace-agreement, a “new middle east” and a coexistence between Israelis and Arabs were day-dreaming or living in a