Last July, seventy five Israeli and fifty American psychoanalysts assembled in Jerusalem to update Freud's letter to Einstein entitled “Why War?”. It was the first meeting of the American Corresponding members of the Israel Psychoanalytic Society with its regular members. A sense of excitement, of inspiration and of friendship prevailed among all of the participants. The ingredients for a rare experience were all there: a historic spot; an ancient capital where a vision of a world without war was poetically described; an island of tranquility only miles away from a savage battle; a first meeting of psychoanalytic colleagues who have known each other only through printed circulars and journal articles. New city and old; Jew and Arab; West and East; modern and ancient; war and peace — a series of contrasts gave one the feeling that in this meeting one was spanning centuries, reconciling opposites, and uniting friends and brothers long separated from each other.
I do not recall ever having attended a meeting in which each participant — and the majority of those who attended participated—followed the proceedings so earnestly. Half the presentations were made by the Israelis, and half by the Americans, and each paper was followed by a discussion prepared by an opposite member. Extensive general discussion was encouraged so that it became difficult to adjourn each session in time for the evening social activities.
Shimon Peres, Minister without Portfolio, opened the meeting with a fascinating and erudite review of the subject of belligerence from a historical and political point of view.
A comparison of the material developed here with the 1932 letter will demonstrate that some impressive new knowledge and approaches have been achieved. What was especially interesting was that war was treated throughout as a natural phenomenon, a consequence of the human condition, rather than a pathologic state. One might work out methods of limiting it or deterring it, but for the foreseeable future, it was not likely to be prevented. The view was naturalistic rather than moralistic or even melioristic.
The progression of topics from ontogenesis to individual to social; the growing friendship between Israeli and American colleagues and their respective families; the increasing intensity of involvement; and the accelerating drum beat of world-shaking events taking place all around one, led over three days to a climactic intensification of scarcely concealed excitement which reached its peak with the last paper of the program. At the brief business meeting which followed the scientific session, it was decided to encourage societies in other countries to promote corresponding membership in the Israel Society, to publish the proceedings of this meeting, and to plan another.