סימפוזיון: "כיצד יכולות נשות ואנשי בריאות הנפש לתרום למאבק נגד רמיסת זכויות אדם?"

*הסימפוזיון התקיים בעברית, ערבית ואנגלית תוך תרגום סימולטני. הטקסט מובא בתרגום חלקי כאשר חלק מהתכנים מופיעים בשפת המקור שלהם בלבד.

Esther Rapoport:  Welcome everyone, we are about to begin. Noga Ariel Galore will say a few words in a moment about the Israeli Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy association and afterwards Tova Buksbaum will speak, also very briefly, about the journal "Crossings". These are the two organizations that jointly organized this event. After that I, Esther Rapoport, will introduce the panelists and we will hold this symposium. I will ask the panelists some questions and they will respond and discuss the questions among themselves. We will do that for about an hour and after that we will begin a discussion in which the audience will participate.

אסתר רפפורט: ברוכות וברוכים הבאות, אנחנו עומדות להתחיל. נגה אריאל גלור תגיד כמה מילים בעוד רגע על האגודה הישראלית לפסיכותרפיה פסיכואנליטית ולאחר מכן טובה בוקסבאום תדבר בקצרה על כתב העת "חוצות". אלו שני הארגונים שאירגנו במשותף את האירוע הזה. לאחר מכן אציג את חברי הפאנל ונקיים את הסימפוזיון. אשאל את חברות וחברי הפאנל כמה שאלות והן.ם יגיבו וידונו בשאלות בינן.ם לבין עצמן.ם. נעשה זאת כשעה ולאחר מכן נתחיל דיון עם הקהל.

استر ربابورت: أهلا وسهلا بكم، نحن على وشك البداية، "نوغا أرائيل غلور" ستقول عدة كلمات عن الجمعية الإسرائيلية للعلاج النفسي والتحليل النفسي، وبعد ذلك ستتحدث "توفا بوكسباوم" بشكل مختصر عن مجلة "عابرات" (حوتسوت). هاتين منظمتين قامتا بتنظيم هذا الحدث المشترك. بعد ذلك سأعرض عليكم أعضاء وعضوات المجموعة، وسنعقد الندوة . وسأسأل أعضاء المجموعة عدة أسئلة، وهم/هن سيجيبوا وسيناقشون الأسئلة بينهم وبين أنفسهم، وسنعمل ذلك تقريبا ساعة، وبعد ذلك سنبدأ نقاشا وفيه سيسأل الحضور الأسئلة.

Noga Ariel Galore: Hi everybody, on behalf of the Israeli Association for Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy. This evening is a very special evening for us and we're very happy about this collaboration with "Crossings" journal. This is actually a separate but related part of the lecture series on socially sensitive psychoanalytic psychotherapy that we're conducting the fourth year now, and you're all invited to our further meetings. So, thank you Esther and thank you everyone for coming.

נגה אריאל גלור: שלום לכולן.ם בשם האגודה הישראלית לפסיכותרפיה פסיכואנליטית. הערב הזה הוא ערב מאוד מיוחד עבורנו ואנו שמחים מאוד על שיתוף הפעולה הזה עם כתב העת "חוצות". הסימפוזיון הוא למעשה חלק נפרד אך קשור מהסדרה לפסיכותרפיה פסיכואנליטית רגישה חברתית שאנו עורכים זו השנה הרביעית, וכולכם מוזמנים למפגשים נוספים שלנו. אז תודה לך אסתר ותודה לכולם.ן שבאתם.ן.

نوغا أرائيل غلور: مرحبًا للجميع باسم الجمعية الإسرائيلية للعلاج النفسيّ والتحليل النفسيّ، هذا المساء هو مساء له خصوصية كبيرة بالنسبة لنا، ونحنُ مسرورون جدًا على هذا التعاون مع مجلة "عابرات" (حوتسوت). هذه الندوة هي جزءٌ منفردٌ لكنه ذو صلةٍ بمسلسل "العلاج النفسي والتحليل النفسي" الحساس والاجتماعي الذي نقيمه للسنة الرابعة، والجميع مدعوون إلى اللقاءات الأخرى لدينا، إذا شكرًا جزيلًا لك "إستر" وشكرًا للجميع على قدومهم

טובה בוקסבאום: ערב טוב לכולן, אני אספר קצת על "חוצות". ראשית חשוב לומר שאסתר היא הרוח החיה של כתב העת, על כנפי החזון שלה הוקם "חוצות" ולאסתר הצטרפו נשות טיפול שמחוברות גם לזהות המקצועית שלהן ובו בזמן לזהויות החברתיות, התרבותיות והפוליטיות שלהן. המטרה של הקמת כתב העת הייתה ליצור פלטפורמה ומרחב לחשיבה, לכתיבה ולקריאה לכל מי שהממשק הזה בין הטיפולי לחברתי מרתק אותו.ה. "חוצות" הוא כתב עת העוסק בממשק הזה. צירוף המילים "טיפולי" ו"פוליטי" נחשב עד לא מזמן לטאבו מוחלט בשדה המקצועי. לשמחתנו זה הולך ומתרכך בשנים האחרונות ואנחנו מבקשות להעמיק ולהרחיב את השיח הזה מתוך עמדה שזה לא רק לגיטימי אלא חיוני להתפתחות המקצועית והאתית. ביקשנו להפנות מבט ולתת מקום לאוכלוסיות מודרות ומוחלשות, לתת מקום למגוון התרבותי העצום בישראל, להביא למודעות את נושא יחסי הכוח במרחבים הטיפוליים ובחיי היומיום, ולחקור כיצד המציאות המסוכסכת והמדממת במרחב שבין הים לירדן, של היחסים בין ישראלים לפלסטינים בשטחים הכבושים ובתוך ישראל, משליכה על נפשם של הא.נשים החיים.ות במרחב הזה וכן גם איך היא מחלחלת ומשליכה על היחסים הטיפוליים.

Tova Buxbaum: Good evening to you all, I will tell you a little about "Crossings". First, it is important to say that Esther is the living spirit of the journal, on the wings of her vision "Crossings" was founded, by psychologists who are connected to their professional identity and at the same time to their social, cultural and political identities. The goal of establishing the journal was to create a platform and space for thinking, writing and reading for anyone who is interested in this interface between psychotherapy and society. The combination of the words "therapeutic" and "political" was considered an absolute taboo in the professional field until recently. Fortunately, this has been changing in the recent years and we seek to deepen and expand this discourse from a position that it is not only legitimate but actually essential for our continued professional and ethical development as mental health professionals.We wanted to give space to the populations defined as disadvantaged, to give space to the vast cultural diversity in Israel, to bring awareness to the issue of power relations in the therapeutic spaces and in everyday reality and to investigate how the conflicted and bloody realities between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan river, of the relations between Israelis and Palestinians in the occupied territories and within Israel, affect the minds of the people living in this shared region, as well as how these realities permeate and affect therapeutic relationships.

توفا بوكسباوم: مساء الخير للجميع، أنا سأتحدث لكم قليلًا عن "عابرات" (حوتسوت). في البداية من المهم أن نقول أن "إستر" هي الروحُ الحيةُ لهذه المجلة، وبحسب رؤيتها أقيمت "عابرات" (حوتسوت)، وانضم لإستر نساء للعلاج، ذوات صلة بالهوية المهنية الخاصة بهن، وفيها أيضًا صبغات اجتماعية وتربوية وسياسيّة خاصّة بهنّ. الهدف هو إقامة مجلّة من أجل خلق منصّة ومساحة للتفكير، للكتابة والقراءة، ولكل من يستهويه هذا الحقل بين العلاج والمسار الاجتماعي. "عابرات" (حوتسوت) هي مجلة تختص في هذا الحقل. وإرفاق الكلمات "العلاج" و"السياسي" تحولت منذ وقت لشيء مفروغ منه "طابو" بشكل كامل في الحقل المهني. لحسن حظنا، هذا خف وتيرته في السنوات الأخيرة، ونحن نريد تعميق وتوسيع هذا الحوار من موقفنا أن هذا ليس فقط شرعيّ وإنما حيوي للتطور المهنيّ والأخلاقيّ. أردنا لفت الانتباه وإعطاء مكانٍ للمجتمعات المقصاة، والضعيفة، وأن نعطيها مكانًا متنوعًا من الناحية الثقافيّة بشكلٍ هائلٍ في إسرائيل، وأن نستحضر الوعيّ في نقاطِ القوةِ في المساحات العلاجيّة، وفي الواقع في الحياة اليوميّة، وأن نبحث عن كيفية الواقعِ المتصارعِ والنازفِ في المساحة الواقعة بين البحر والأردن، والعلاقات بين الإسرائيليين والفلسطينيين في الأراضي المحتلة وفي داخل إسرائيل، وأثرها النفسيّ على الأشخاص والنساء الذين يعيشون/ يعشن في هذه المساحة، وأيضًا كيف لها أن تؤثّر ويكون لها تداعيات على العلاقات العلاجية.

טובה: אני אנסה לתת טעימה מהמגוון של המאמרים שכבר פורסמו. ממש התקשיתי לבחור מבין כל המגוון העצום והמעניין שכבר פרסמנו ואני מתנצלת בפני הכותבות והכותבים שאני לא מציינת את שמם, פשוט לא רציתי להציף. אני רק מקווה שהטעימה הזאת תעורר סקרנות, וכולן וכולם מוזמנות ומוזמנים להיכנס, לקרוא ולעשות מנוי על כתב העת שלנו.

Tova: I will try to give a taste of the variety of articles that have already been published. I really had a hard time choosing from all the enormous and interesting variety of texts that have already been published and I apologize to the authors whose names I am not mentioning, I just didn't want to overwhelm. I only hope that this sample will arouse curiosity; everyone is invited to read and subscribe to our journal.

אז באיזורים התיאורטיים היו מאמרים על מרטין ברו ועל פרנץ פנון וכיצד הם רלוונטיים עדיין למציאות האלימה של ימינו. יש לנו מאמרים שעוסקים בטיפול מודע הקשר, ניתן מקום לפרויקטים פסיכואקטיביסטיים, ואנחנו גם מנסות דרך מאמרי המערכת ומאמרים אחרים לתת מקום לרפלקסיה על אירועים אלימים כמו האירועים של מאי 2021. ולכן רק התבקש שבתקופה הזאת, כשהפיכה שלטונית מאיימת לפגוע בזכויות אדם ולחסל את הדמוקרטיה גם עבור היהודים - שהרי עד עכשיו הפלסטינים שחיים בישראל ועבור הפלסטינים שחיים בשטחים הכבושים המרחב לגמרי לא היה דמוקרטי, או היה דמוקרטי באופן חלקי – מתאים שמערכת חוצות יוזמת את הסימפוזיון הזה ומזמינה אותנו, נשות ואנשי טיפול לחשיבה על תפקדינו כאנשי מקצוע בעת הזו. אוסיף ואומר שנתמכנו על ידי פסיכואקטיב ובית הספר לשלום בנווה שלום.

So, in the theoretical zones, we have published articles on Ignacio Martin-Baro and Franz Fanon, whose thinking is still very relevant for the violent reality of our time. We have also published articles on context-sensitive psychotherapy and ones describing psycho-activist projects. We also try, through editorials and other articles that we publish, to create space for reflection on violent events, such as the “bloody May” of 2021. And that is why it made perfect sense that at a time like this, of the attempted coup that threatens human rights and aims to destroy democracy even for Jews – as for Palestinians, those living in Israel and in the occupied territories, the space has not been democratic at all or was democratic only partially – at a time like this, it made sense for Crossings to organize this symposium and to invite us all, mental health professionals, to think about our role at this time. I wish to add that we have been supported by Psychoactive and by the Neve Shalom School of Peace.

Esther: I’m very excited to finally introduce our distinguished speakers, and I’ll start with the guests joining us from abroad, from other contexts, to hopefully share with us their wisdom. Dr. Andrew Samuels, Jungian psychoanalyst, Professor and author, former chair of the UK counsel for psychotherapy, founder of Psychotherapists and Counselors for Social Responsibility in the UK, founder and member of UK Palestine Mental Health Network. His books include: "The Political Psyche", "Politics on The Couch" and "A New Therapy For Politics?". Welcome Andrew.

Dr. Sally Schwarz, Emeritus Associate Professor at the University of Cape Town. Dr. Sally Schwartz is a practicing psychoanalytic psychotherapist and the author of a number of papers on the critical importance of attunement to the ways in which society, politics and class fundamentally shape unconscious lives, and also all clinical encounters. She has a particular interest in the field of colonialism and decolonization in psychoanalytic theory. Her books include: "Ruthless Winnicott", "The Role of Ruthlessness in Psychoanalysis and Political Protest" and a recent book- "Psychoanalysis and Colonialism: A Contemporary Introduction". Welcome Sally.

Manal Abu Haq is a psychotherapist who works with children and adults in her private practice as well as in the public sector. She’s a psychotherapy supervisor. Manal is an activist against the occupation and for Palestinian human rights, including the rights of Palestinian children detained in Israeli prisons. This she has done through Psychoactive and other groups. Four years ago, she and her allies jointly founded the Palestinian Global Mental Health Network. She has authored papers on the Nakba and its effects on the Palestinian subject.

Dr. Offer Maurer, last but not least, is a clinical psychologist, the Director of the New Wave in psychotherapy program at the Reichman University and the co-founder of the Israeli Institute for Schema-therapy. He is the former chairperson of the Israeli Forum for Relational Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy and the founding director of the Gay-friendly Therapists Team, the first LGBTQ-friendly psychotherapy institute to operate in Israel.

Thank you so much everyone for being with us today.

So, at this time in Israel we are experiencing a particularly ferocious attack on human rights, notably on Palestinian human rights and also on the LGBTQ community - but not only - also on women, and others. Also, we are experiencing an attack on the public institutions that until today have been able to block or minimize some of these attacks, primarily the Supreme Court. As increasingly broader sectors of the society are feeling the threat, calls for civil disobedience are coming from public figures, protests are intensifying, and many in the mental health community are mobilizing, as well, in various ways: some are continuing to be active in organizations where they’ve been active before, while others are forming new groups. Still others are taking their protest to the streets with their fellow citizens.

So, what I am hoping to discuss with you this evening is the question, How can our professional community best contribute to this resistance? How can we help protect communities under attack? How do we organize? What are our superpowers as mental health professionals? How do we use these wisely? Is it best to act as citizens? Is it best to organize from within our profession? So, I welcome the panelists who have something to say about this to jump in.

Andrew Samuels: Of course, I am speaking from London in the diaspora. I have noticed that since the recent elections there has been an enormous change in the diaspora in relation to the developments in Israeli politics, and the Israeli society. I have never known anything like it. I mean, here in London I am so used to being a tiny minority amongst Jewish people. That has changed. I mean, it is not a transcendent epiphanic change, but there have been noticeable changes in attitude, and I would like to use that as the background for what I want to say in answer to Esther’s question about what can professional mental health communities do. I would say, Nothing - because on our own, we do not have much to contribute. The tactic, the necessity is to make alliances with organizations that have nothing to do with psychotherapy or psychology. This is very difficult to manage, largely because of the intellectual history, in which people who take a more materialistic viewpoint are not entirely happy with the world, and with the language, of the therapists.

So, the question is who are we, who are you making alliances with? That’s my first point. My second point is to say something that may seem a little bit surprising - about the use of theory. I’ve been writing at the interface of politics and depth psychology for 50 years, and I have become less and less enthusiastic and more and more skeptical as time passes, and I want to tell you why: ‏there is a general problem with therapists and analysts. We desperately want to be right. We desperately want our theories, our precious objects - I think they really are - to be the ones that prevail. This is, of course, completely disastrous when it comes to political efficiency. It’s very hard to control this tendency - I mean, I make this mistake all the time. I want to be right. But what I’ve developed, as a kind of haiku, is this: when you’re talking as a psychotherapist/ about politics/ it’s really very hard to be wrong. I mean, almost everything that’s said is right. So, in addition to my first point, which is – don’t do it alone, because it’s a waste of time, do it with other people - my second point is, Stop thinking so theoretically. Now, this is very difficult, because we see ourselves as deep, reflective, thoughtful people. Actually, this may not be the right approach.

Shakespeare makes Hamlet say that too much reflection - and you lose the possibility of action. Of course, he says it better than I did. But this is a very important idea. Too much reflection – no action. This brings us to the question of psychotherapists supporting political action. I expect there to be discussion about this, but I think that in certain moments and contexts, as Hannah Arendt once put it, political action is rational.

So my message is, Stop thinking. Do something.

It’s a very anti-Winnicott position. Well, that’s enough from the safe refuge of North London for the moment.

Esther: Thank you, Andrew, for challenging us. So, we’re off to a rough start. Would anyone else like to say something about this first question?

Sally: Maybe I can answer Andrew. I do agree with his major points. I think we’ve got

to see ourselves as allies. We’re not the main page, and sometimes, in our grandiosity, we think we can be at the front of the army somehow, and this is just omnipotence. On the other hand, and here is my quarrel with Andrew, I think we’ve got an important role to play around deep reflection. I think that it’s often us who, as a community, have to do the thinking, to hold on to the thinking function, to understand what the big picture is, to understand dynamics. And I am not talking about the broad political dynamics. I am talking about conflict in microcosms. I think that we can understand something about projection and splitting. So, I think that reflection and our capacity to use theory, and to keep on thinking even when our back is against the wall, is one of our super powers.

Two other brief points. I think that we have skills around communication and writing and putting things out into the public domain, especially around the effects of violence, trauma, and intergenerational transmission of trauma, and I think that this is something that we have to take very seriously – the fact that we can write and talk about what is happening and the long-lasting effects that we are enduring. So, I think that is our role as public intellectuals.

Where I would agree with Andrew is that we can’t take up that role unless we’ve also given ourselves credibility around speaking. So, to assume the privilege of speech, of putting into words the effects of trauma, for example, without having walked the path with the people experiencing it, is simply a way of wielding privilege, and that’s not helpful. But I think that once one’s been in the trenches, writing about that, as Andrew you’ve done in your writing, that, I think, is a useful task we can take up.

And one last thought: about Fanon and Winnicott. Winnicott, who is known for the concept of holding, was also very fond of collision, as a way of creating the subject, and of course Fanon was too. And here I agree with you, Andrew. Strong action is a necessity in some situations. It’s the only rational thing. But it doesn’t obviate thinking. Fanon and Winnicott did both. Fanon, particularly, advocated for a certain kind of acute action, but he kept on thinking all the way through about subjectivity, which I think is why his writing is so powerful. Thank you.

Esther: Would anyone else like to say something – Manal, or Offer? - before I move on to my next questions?

Manal:

لا أرى السؤال من منطلق منفعة(מה אפקטיבי)، انا اراه سؤالا أخلاقيا وان الموضوع يتدخل بأخلاقيات المهنة. ان الايمان بحقوق الانسان والحرية ومحاربة الظلم والاشارة اليه هم جزء أساسي من اخلاقيات المهنة لدينا كأخصائيين بالصحة النفسية، ومن هنا الجواب على السؤال هل لدينا دور ؟  الجواب هو طبعا  لدينا دور، علينا ان نشير الى هذه الأمور , لا يمكننا ان نتجاهل أوضاع تحمل خرق لحقوق الانسان  او ظروف قهر،  لا يمكننا تجاهل هذه الأمور ومهم ان يكون لدينا دور فاعل، بالذات اذا كنا جزء من شعب يعيش بظروف قهر،  وتحت احتلال يسلب من أبناء شعبنا ابسط حقوق الانسان.

This is not a question of the effect of conflict or anything else. The question is a moral question. When we talk about mental health, as professionals, we need to believe in human rights, we need to believe in freedom. That’s the main part of our ethics as psychologists. We need to validate those ethics. When we see violations of human rights in front of our eyes, how can we ignore that? We need to take up a role, especially if we are part of the people facing injustice, oppression and occupation.

Offer: I want to share what I was feeling when I was listening to your statement, Andrew. At first my heart sank. Like, what am I supposed to do when my best of weapons or my best of tools are deemed irrelevant for the task at hand? So, I felt an anxiety creeping in, but as I started regulating, I started noticing that there just might be a dichotomy here between the reflecting and maybe the interpretation, the thinking process and the action, and what I am hoping to achieve here together is maybe some sort of holding on to both, as not so dichotomous, but rather as complementing each other, or part of a continuum, interdependent, interpenetrating. I am not sure, but I am really interested in hearing from you and others on the panel about the different ways in which action and reflection can actually enrich one another.

Esther: My next question concerns the role of the professional organizations in our field. Lately we have seen a never-ending stream of public statements coming from professional organizations: we believe in human rights, we will continue to serve everyone, etc.. But it’s questionable whether these statements are strong enough to accomplish much, at a time when the extreme right government is intent on using all its power to enforce its will. What can our organizations start doing? What should we expect them to do? And to echo what Manal said about the moral call, I’d like to remind us that the ethics codes of our professions make a point that it’s the role of mental health professionals to be caring for the community and protect the community. For example, the Israeli ethics code for psychologists has a social responsibility clause. Clinical psychologists are obligated to be contributing to the well-being of the humans in the community in which they live. So, based on this very broad common denominator of the ethics code, what can we expect or demand - if anything - from professional organizations (that can arguably do more than individuals)?

Manal:

  كوننا مهنيات بمجال الصحة النفسية وكأخصائيات بالعلاج النفسي التحليلي يمكننا ان ننظر للوضع القائم اليوم كجزء من سيرورة ممتدة long process, وان ما نراه اليوم هو عارض (סימפטום) يعود تاريخه الى النكبة. هل يمكن  تعريف إسرائيل انها دولة ديموقراطية؟ هذا بحد ذاته سؤال, نحن الفلسطينيين نعلم ان إسرائيل قامت كدولة  استعمار استيطاني على أراض فلسطينية ولكي تضمن ان تكون لديها اغلبية سكان يهودية قامت بقتل وتهجير الفلسطينيين, سكان البلاد الاصليين. منذ قيامها وعلى مدى ال 74 سنة عرفت اسرائيل نفسها كدولة يهودية ديموقراطية, فهذه أيضا مفارقة فأما ان تكون يهودية  او تكون  ديموقراطية،  وبكل مفترق او وضع أجبرت على ان تختار أي الخيارين افضل, دائما كان اختيارها الأول بان  تعرف وتؤكد على كونها دولة يهودية وفضلتها على ان تكون ديموقراطية, لم تتردد الدولة وعلى مدى سنوات وجودها في ان تقوم بالاعتداء  بقتل و تهجير الفلسطينيين  ومصادرة أراضيهم من اجل الحفاظ على ان تبقى دولة اليهود, كل اليهود بكل مكان بالعالم وليس فقط اليهود المتواجدين داخل حدودها , لذا لا يمكن ان نقول ان دولة إسرائيل هي دولة  ديموقراطية. الأساس الديموقراطي لدولة إسرائيل هو أساس هش وضعيف, هنالك بعض القيم والمباديء  الديموقراطية  التي تحافظ عليها وتتبعها، لكن لا يمكننا القول انها ديموقراطية تامة. 

As psychoanalytic practitioners, who think historically, we can think of what is happening today as part of the long historical process that may be traced back to the Nakba. What we see today is only a symptom. Is Israel a democratic state? This in itself is a question. We Palestinians know that Israel established itself as a colonial state and to ensure the Jewish majority, it has killed and displaced Palestinians, the original residents of the country, for the past 74 years, all the while defining itself as a Jewish and democratic state. At every crossroads, when choosing between Jewishness and democracy, it chose Jewishness – to be a state, not only for its Jewish citizens, but for Jews everywhere in the world, and did not hesitate to commit aggressive killings of Palestinians as well as confiscate our land to preserve its Jewish character. The democratic foundation of the state of Israel is therefore fragile and weak. There are some democratic principles that it maintains and follows but we cannot say that it is a complete democracy.

Esther: Thank you Manal. I’d like to come back to my question. If no one has anything interesting to say about this, that’s ok, I’ve got other questions. It’s the question on the role of the organizations.

Andrew: I’ve been involved in so many petitions, letters, this kind of thing. They range from climate change, protect the national health service, institute a cultural boycott against Israel and stop conferences there - I’ve done a lot of these, and I think certain principles have emerged, over this tradition of public statements and so on. I think there are two things that are important. One is to try to get organizations to sign, not just dutiful lovely human individuals - so if we think of the psychotherapy field, we would like to challenge those organization that have not issued public statements – because while many have, I don’t know how many have not. Secondly, and this reprises what I said about not doing things alone, we need to find other organizations to co-sign the letters, so that you get what used to be called in the nineteen twenties and thirties a broad front, one that would include the psychological communities but would also include human rights people, people working in the torture field, people who are concerned with economic injustice. So, two points: Think organization not individuals, and the second point, don’t only think about psychotherapy organizations. Now I might be ignorant. There may be lots and lots of public statements in which lots and lots of organizations sign, including our own, but I’ve been asking people and the general answer I get is, “No, that’s not generally how it happens - it’s usually in silos, a little bit separated.” So, broad front is my answer. Can we be part of a broad front? Because we are so individualistic and our organizations are infected with this individualism.

Sally: I agree with everything that’s been said and I love the idea of us balancing between doing and thinking. Of course, they are interdependent. This is a note from our activist work in South Africa during apartheid on the ethics of organizations. It was very important at the time that we were doing activist work around detention and torture and the effects of the ongoing struggle on families and children, and talking about violence and oppression, to not only do that work clinically but to speak about it publicly, and that included organizing to refuse participating in certain nationalist conference venues, as well as disrupting the idea that there is a position of neutrality possible when you are in the middle of a violent struggle. There is no neutrality and that is just a retreat really. And I think that we did form a broad alliance and I think that it gave us strength. We also felt the risks and it was a giving up of privilege, which was also a gift. So, the speaking out is very important, but it’s also linked with the doing.

Esther: Thank you so much for this. My last question is-  What are the challenges that are inherent in clinical work at a time like this? Do we need a different technique for our clinical work at this time of an intense political crisis? Do we think of our clinical work as an extension of our activism, or of our activism as an extension of our clinical work, or do these spheres retain their autonomy? And anything else you can say about doing clinical work at this time. Offer, I know you wanted to address this question - so I direct it to you.

Offer: Thank you Esther. I want to comment on Sally’s words. I’m so pleased to hear you emphasizing the importance of not being neutral, and I am reminded of the words of Desmond Tutu, that choosing neutrality is actually siding with the oppressor. I think it’s important to give up delusions of neutrality. Coming from a relational stance, I gave it up a long time ago, but at times like this I think it is crucial.

Andrew: Obviously neutrality is out of the question, but when we are thinking of the clinic, one interesting thing comes to mind: how to work with people whose politics are very different from our own. This is not only an interesting question in itself, but also one that leads to many other interesting questions. I don’t know how to work with fascists, with racists, and with bankers actually, but I have all three in my practice. I think it’s very important to consider a new form of neutrality that respects the political monsters with whom we are confronted in our consulting room.  We work with people with all kinds of personalities, with all kinds of values and opinions, but when it comes to politics, we are out of our depths. So, I just want to say that this is worth considering when speaking to other psychotherapists – how to talk to people with whom we totally disagree.

Esther: I have an answer to this: you earn yourself a reputation of a political extremist - and then the people on the other side of the political map just never come in to see you.

Andrew: But you might work with someone you thought had similar political views -but when you drill down and have a sustained relational dialogue, you find that it’s not the case. I think the literature is totally silent on the question of how you work with someone who is the supporter of Boris Johnson or Donald Trump. I don’t think you can get out of it.

Manal: My experience working with fascists is that some of them cannot change but others can. People are not always aware that what they say is hurtful. Some people, once you help them become aware that their beliefs are damaging to others, feel bad and change their ways.

Esther: It’s really fascinating, but we need to move to the next part of our meeting and open up this forum for a discussion – in which, of course, the panelists will participate.

***

דיון בהשתתפות הקהל – סיכום*

*הדיון לא הוקלט, על מנת לשמור על פרטיותן.ם ובטחונן.ם האישי של המשתתפות והמשתתפים.

חברת מערכת חוצות נעמה הוכשטיין סיכמה את הנקודות העיקריות שעלו בדיון והן מובאות כאן.

משתתפת:  במה שונה התקופה הזו מתקופות אחרות, כמו האינתיפאדה הראשונה או הממשל הצבאי?

עופר: מה ששונה הוא שזה הגיע ליהודים.

מנאל: כפלסטינים החיים בישראל יש לנו נקודת מבט שונה. ישנה שאלה האם יש קבוצת יהודים פריווילגיית שמרגישים שהפריווילגיות הולכות להישלל או שהם מרגישים שיש כאן בעיה מוסרית, אתית?

משתתף: אנדרו סמואל ציין שיש פספוס אם נעבוד רק עם אנשים בעלי דעות דומות לשלנו, כי איך נהיה במעורבות עם אנשים עם דעות רחוקות משלנו? לא הייתי רוצה שפסיכותרפיה תהיה גטו. יש כאן גם שאלה של השלכות. גם אני צריך לעבוד בקאונטר-טרנספרנס שלי על הפשיזם שלי. כי אם רק האחרים פשיסטים ורק אני לא, אני לא יכול לעבוד עם אף אחד.

סאלי: אני מעוניינת במושג של הכנסת אורחים רדיקלית. שאינה דומה לנייטרליות. זאת תודעה שמאפשרת לאנשים להגיד את מה שהם צריכים להגיד. אני חושבת שאנחנו צריכות להגיד ברוכים הבאים למה שבא, אבל זה לא אומר שהם לא יחושו שאנחנו שונות. עבורי הבדל, שוני, הוא חלק ממה שמכירים בו כשיש הכנסת אורחים רדיקלית. האנשים שנמצאים בטיפול אצלי לא יופתעו מהעמדות הפוליטיות שלי לא בגלל שאני אומרת אותן אלא בגלל העמדה שבה אני נמצאת.

אנדרו: אני אוהב את המושג "סקרנות". יש שאלה פסיכואנליטית באופיה שיכולה להיות משמעותית – מתי התחלת להרגיש כך לגבי אנשים לבנים / שחורים / לגבי / לגבי המטפל הקודם שלך? זה דבר שאנחנו לא נכנסים אליו בדרך כלל – ההיסטוריה של העצמי הפוליטי, של האישיות הפוליטית.

עופר: אני רואה בקליניקה צונאמי של חרדה ופחד, ובעבר יכולתי לחבר חרדות של מטופלים.ות לאירועי עבר אישיים, ואילו כעת אני לא מצליח לעשות זאת, ואני חושב שיש מציאות שהיא אכן יכולה להפוך למסוכנת. אשמח לשמוע מאחרות על האופן שבו אתן מתמודדות עם המצב הזה.

טובה: אני רציתי לשתף בתחושה, ככל שאנחנו מתקרבים לסוף הסימפוזיון המרתק, שבחרנו לחזור אל תוך הקליניקה. אז אני רוצה לומר שאני שותפה למה שאנדרו אומר ואני פוגשת יהודים וערבים בקליניקה ושהחרדה והפחד מציפים וגדולים, ואני לא מהססת לומר לאנשים "תמצאו איפה להיות פעילים" כי כשאנחנו חסרי אונים החרדה מאד משתקת. אני רוצה להחזיר אותנו לשאלה מה אנחנו עושים / לא עושים, פועלים / לא פועלים.

משתתפת: אני מאמינה שפסיכותרפיה הופכת את המטופלים שלנו לפתוחים וסובלניים יותר כלפי אחרים.

משתתפת: יתכן שנמצא את עצמנו במצב של עימות או אלימות פוליטית. אשמח שנתייחס לכך.

מנאל: מה שמאפיין עמדה מוסרית היא דאגה לאחר, לשונה. יש שבר מוסרי שמדינת ישראל לא התמודדה איתו.

אנדרו: לשאלה איך מתמודדים עם המצב - אפשר לעזוב את המדינה. זה מה שעשו במקומות אחרים – לדוגמא, את דרום אפריקה רבים ורבות עזבו על רקע האלימות שהייתה שם.

סאלי: עזיבה היא הרבה פעמים אפשרות של הפריווילגים. השאלה היא גם ממה בורחים ואל מה בורחים? האם הקולוניאליזם והכיבוש יישארו מאחור או יבואו איתנו?

המלצות הקריאה של אנרדו:

Towards a professional ‘Magna Carta’ for psychoanalysis

Psychoanalysis, totalitarianism conference report – by Shaul Bar-Haim

The recent book on psychoanalysis under occupation by Lara Sheehi and Stephen Sheehi is excellent.

Check out the work of Nancy Hollander (on Latin America) and Gillian Straker (on South Africa.(

משתתפת: ה"פשיסטים" פחות מדאיגים אותי מהאדם הפשוט ההומני שחי עם הכחשה, פיצול וניתוק מהמציאות במרחק של כמה קילומטרים ממני.

אנדרו: אני מעז להגיד משהו פוליטי אולי מדי, בעצם לא מדי בכלל – צריך להמשיך לחשוב על דרכים לגרום לקהילה הבינלאומית להגיב למתרחש בישראל.