AI generated this summary from the Hebrew recording. No human has checked it, and it may contain errors. The recording is the authoritative source.
This episode of This Week in the Middle East hosts Professor Gad Yair, a sociologist from the Hebrew University, for a conversation about the connection between national traumas and constitutions or founding documents. The conversation, held against the backdrop of the October 7 events, examines how traumas shape the identity of peoples and their laws, and what the consequences of the current trauma might be for Israeli and Palestinian society.
Read the full episode summary
Trauma as a shaper of constitutions
According to Professor Yair, his research shows that many constitutions around the world were born out of cultural trauma. Peoples formulate their identity and their basic laws in response to subjugation, occupation, or massacre, out of a desire to ensure such events do not repeat themselves.
He provides several historical examples. The American constitution, for example, is a reaction to British colonialism and the denial of the settlers’ rights. The post-revolutionary French constitution is an expression of the trauma of the people’s exploitation under the monarchy and the aristocracy. More modern constitutions also reflect this principle. Ukraine’s constitution, written after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, expresses its desire to break away from the trauma of Russian rule and identify with the West. The German constitution after World War II places a strong emphasis on human rights and privacy, as a direct response to the Nazi regime and the actions of the Gestapo. Similarly, the Italian constitution prohibits the return of the royal house, which was seen as responsible for Italy’s entry into the world wars. According to Professor Yair, the identity of peoples often begins in “rivers of blood and sorrow.”
The return of the Holocaust
Professor Yair presents findings from a survey he conducted among Israelis living outside of Israel, immediately after October 7 and a year later. The most prominent finding is what he calls “the return of the Holocaust.” Respondents described how the events immediately evoked the memory of the Holocaust for them, whether from family stories or from the images of hidden children and piled-up bodies.
In the month after the attack, despite the terrible events, Israelis abroad still saw Israel as the safest place for Jews. However, a year later, this belief had cracked. The main reason for this, according to Professor Yair, is a complete loss of trust in the Israeli government, which is perceived as not acting for the security of its citizens or the hostages. The sense of personal insecurity among Israelis abroad was expressed by hiding Jewish and Israeli symbols, such as removing mezuzahs, stopping speaking Hebrew in public, and arming themselves personally, similar to the trend in Israel.
The implications for legislation in Israel
Boris Gorelik asks what laws might emerge from the current trauma. Professor Yair believes that a new trauma will not be created here, but rather that the events will strengthen the existing “Holocaust trauma” in Jewish and Israeli identity. The result, in his estimation, will be a strengthening of the “a people that dwells alone” perception and an understanding that Israel must look after itself and not be dependent on foreign powers, not even the United States.
In addition, he predicts that the basic suspicion toward the Palestinians, Hamas, and the Palestinian Authority will deepen and delay any possibility of a political process for at least a full generation.
The return of the Nakba
On the Palestinian side, Professor Yair argues, the current war is evoking a parallel trauma, “the return of the Nakba.” The fear of expulsion, of the Israeli army entering homes, and of losing property is returning with great intensity. The devastating situation in Gaza, as well as the deterioration of life in the West Bank, are returning the Palestinians to the experience of the Nakba.
However, Professor Yair expresses skepticism about the possibility that this trauma will lead to a change in the Palestinians’ founding documents, such as the Hamas charter or the Fatah charter, which call for the destruction of Israel. Unlike Germany and Japan, which lost the war and were forced to change their ways, the Palestinians do not acknowledge defeat. He mentions Egypt, which only made peace after it felt it had achieved a psychological victory in 1973. He does not see a similar process occurring on the Palestinian side, partly due to the absence of a unifying leadership capable of leading a change of direction.
What Israel can do
In Professor Yair’s opinion, the Israeli response to the trauma should be military and clear: the absolute prevention of the establishment of an armed entity on its borders. He does not expect the trauma to be translated into legislation immediately. He notes the difficulty that arose even in establishing a national day of remembrance for the October 7 events, which indicates the depth of division in society. According to him, it takes time for a trauma to mature into a collective and constitutional statement, and such a process requires leadership.
The original episode, in Hebrew: אומה בטראומה