The legal reform led by the coalition passed the first reading in the Knesset this week. President Herzog is calling for a compromise, and on the face of it it seems that parties such as Likud, religious Zionism, the state camp, and Yes Future are interested in reaching a compromise. However, the parties find it difficult to reach her and even sit down and discuss in an open manner.
● Yes, but: 3 statements about the legal reform that may confuse or mislead
● The Chief Economist at the Treasury warns: the legal reform may harm economic activity
In an attempt to understand what needs to be done to overcome these problems, we examined the issue with the help of two experts – a game theory expert, and a clinical psychologist who emphasizes the psychological elements that prevent reaching a proper dialogue and compromise. We asked the two experts to analyze the situation using only professional-behavioral tools as much as possible – and not political ones.
The entrenchment phenomenon: loyalty only to “mine” side
In the eyes of Prof. Ile Winter – a game theory expert from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem who was involved in the drafting of a letter by political scientists and game theory experts who warned against the consequences of the reform in its current formula – “There is a broader issue here than the legal issue that is being discussed now. Both from the supporters of the reform and from its opponents – There is group fortification. People show solidarity towards the members of their group, and this leads to extremism. This is an evolutionary trait that we cultivated and preserved for us as humans who lived in very small groups when we were hunter-gatherers that taught us that we need the protection of the group, and therefore we are required to be completely loyal to the group and discover solidarity towards its members”.
Dr. Eidit Gutman, from the Department of Psychology at Tel Aviv University, also says that “direct conflict between groups and cultures is almost always based on the same narrative – we are the moral side, a victim of harm from our opponents, who are fundamentally different from us and will always remain so. This is a concept that strengthens each side in its position, psychologically intensifies the differences and suppresses hope for change in the other. The mere existence of a dialogue is unnecessary in the face of people who ‘understand only power’, or who are ‘animals and not members of culture’.”
Dr. Eidit Gutman / Photo: Tel Aviv University Spokesperson
Regarding the importance of the enemy in building the group, Winter says that “the most beautiful qualities of the human race, such as giving and helping others,” says Winter in amazement, “come from exactly the same place of war, hatred and racism – this is the place of loyalty to the ingroup and opposition to the outgroup.”
Recently, there was an uproar regarding the photo of MK Boaz Toprovsky who returned to the Knesset with a brace on his neck after being injured for a long time – to vote against the legal reform in the first reading. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu came to congratulate him and shake his hand, and many members of the Knesset who were caught in the happy situation were photographed smiling around him. This image aroused great anger among the opponents of the reform, who felt that the members of the Knesset do not take the issue as seriously as they do, and “hug” with those who offend them.
But in Winter’s eyes, this is actually a very positive situation: “Such interactions are healthy. Even in football – there is violence even though there is nothing but ingroup and outgroup. When the captains shake hands, it is intended to put some sort of barrier on the conflict. It conveys to the fans that there is a red line and the side The other is not really ‘the enemy'”.
Winter tells about an experiment in which they let people play a kind of game that takes place in the atmosphere of the First World War, in which it is possible to make alliances and enter into conflicts with other countries. There is nothing intrinsic to the game that compels a player to choose these allies over others, yet it can be easily influenced: “We gave people a blue or green plastic token at the beginning of the game, and it determined exactly what alliances were made. This token was meaningless, but put people into A team atmosphere and the result accordingly.”
A mediator is needed: the way to solve the problem
In Dr. Gutman’s view, “the presence of an ‘external eye’ that is neutralized from the emotional flooding may broaden the perspective and free the dead end, if it reflects a more ‘objective’ reality in the situation. Such mediation also affects the moral position that each side claims as part of its narrative.”
President Yitzhak Herzog tried to take this place of the neutral mediator, but in Winter’s eyes, “in order for the president to promote something, he has to demonstrate a neutral position and he does not succeed. He is seen by the opponents as someone who sits on the side of the government. Also in terms of the late awakening and the leniency he shows towards the government which passes the law in first reading”.
So who does? According to Winter, the solution should come from outside the political system. “The interests of the politicians themselves are narrow, especially since the discussion is about their own power. It is precisely those outside politics who can achieve more. And once those people outside the system reach agreements, it will be very difficult for the politicians not to discuss it seriously.”
Gutman emphasizes the cognitive element, and notes that group dynamics deteriorate people’s ability to think rationally: “Due to psychological elements such as cognitive dissonance, bickering often pushes people to dig deeper into their minds, and the ability to absorb refuting facts drops right at the perceptual level.”
In her eyes, a reliable mediating factor is “something calming that injects a more intellectual analysis into the emotional situation and releases the explosions – the cognitive reduction that the current pressure dictates. That is, it opens the door to more creative solutions and softens the ‘black or white’ thinking that polarizes us and fuels escalation.”
Destructive things: not celebrating in front of the other party
In Winter’s view, we should avoid trust-damaging measures such as “the dinner that Rothman had after the passage of the law in the first reading. It’s a kind of revenge and exactitude that only distances the chance of a compromise. He could have raised a toast without taking a picture of it and spreading it everywhere,” and bring reinforcing measures -Amon like “a declaration by the coalition that it is entering into serious negotiations while delaying the procedure.” Winter sighs and adds: “The later they do it, the harder it will be.”
Prof. Ill Winter / Photo: Samdar Bergman
Winter points out that the dangers of the current situation do not end with the legal issue: “There is a total confiscation and it is devastating. Not only constitutionally, but in terms of cooperation in the future. The mental and economic resources that the protest invests – it may turn out that after this there will be no power to protest about much more important issues, such as the series of The relationship between the secular and the ultra-Orthodox. This conflict leaves us in a bad position to reach agreements on the way of life in the State of Israel. The legal issue is important, but it is only one issue.”