ben- gurion university of the negev the faculty of humanities and

BEN- GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV
THE FACULTY OF HUMANITIES AND
SOCIAL SCIENCES
THE PROGRAM FOR CONFLICT
MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION
M.A. THESIS
Nobody Ever Told Us
Action research on an encounter of Israeli students
with Palestinian conflict narratives
MICHAEL STERNBERG
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF DR. TAL
LITVACK-HIRSCH
SEPTEMBER 2014
1
BEN- GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV
THE FACULTY OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL
SCIENCES
THE PROGRAM FOR CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
AND RESOLUTION
M.A. THESIS
Nobody Ever Told Us
Action research on an encounter of Israeli students with
Palestinian conflict narratives
MICHAEL STERNBERG
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF DR. TAL LITVACKHIRSCH
Signature of student: ________________ Date: _________
Signature of supervisor: ___________
Date: _1.10.2014_
Signature of chairperson
Of the committee for graduate studies: _________ Date:
__1.10.2014__
SEPTEMBER 2014
2
Abstract
The action research is part of an international and multi disciplinary research project
"Encountering the suffering of the other" [ESO]. The theoretical orientations that
guide the Israeli research team are foremost set by writings on identity complexity
issues, identity categorization, the roles of narratives and social identities, evolving
needs in the context of violent conflicts and the significances of asymmetric power
relations on conflict sides. A major element in the Israeli research design is an
academic year course with the participation of 24 B.A. Jewish students from the
department of education at Ben-Gurion University. In the academic year of 2013/14
the course design and facilitation created a learning environment in which participants
engaged in the exploration of us and them within the conflict. This was done by
introducing theoretical and research based concepts related to theories of conflict and
reconciliation, encounters with Palestinian narratives presented by lecturer, site visits
and intra group dialogue in which participants explored the significance of what they
encountered.
The action research aimed to create knowledge that relates to theoretical perspectives
that guided the course design, to a qualitative exploration of the evolving group based
learning process, and to the contribution and significance that the students themselves
ascribed to their experience and involvement in processes of learning and knowledge
development. The major action research question was: what do the processes in this
course reveal about the way Jewish Israeli students relate to narratives of the other,
and how do the course experiences contribute to: perceptions of self, of the other; of
3
the relationship between self and other within the context of the Israeli Palestinian
conflict and to positions towards reconciliation.
Learning about diversity within Palestinian society triggered a dynamic exploration
of the diversity within the group related to collective identities, narratives and power
relations. The growing capacity to address in reflexive manner diversity within the
learning group, to experience conflict and to explore conflict among participants
contributed to the growing capacity to address involvement in conflict relations with
Palestinians from a position of critical reflexivity. Collective identity became a fluid
concept, clarity and rigidity of who is the collective us and them gave way to the
acknowledgement of diversity and complexity of these concepts within Israeli and
Palestinian society and between Israeli and Palestinian societies. This perspective of
complexity contributed to the capacity of participants to encounter the suffering of the
other with increasing empathy and to cope with the emotional and cognitive
challenges of critical reflexivity within the context of an asymmetric conflict. The
significance of findings is discussed in relation to literature that guided the research
design. Moreover, I present interpretations of these findings by proposing a
conceptualization of major interrelated mechanisms that contribute to the social
construction of conflict reality that can be discerned throughout the course process. I
suggest that these mechanisms are an outcome of Israeli deep culture and embedded
in the given deep structure of violent conflict. Within the action research oriented
learning environment participants' responses to the diverse types of knowledge
became a major object of exploration and learning; I suggest that such a process
provides opportunities for experiencing an environment that contradicts many of the
4
premises of the deep culture of violence. Within such a learning environment
encountering narratives of the other becomes an opportunity to address conflict
relations from perspectives attuned to positions of reconciliation, such as the
acknowledgement of the diverse narratives involved, the diverse needs of all sides
involved, empathy for the suffering of the other, and to address violence as an element
that is inherent to the conflict and not necessarily attributed to the other only. At the
end of this thesis I propose questions that can be addressed at future stages of the
ongoing research.
5
Content
1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………...1
1.1. The ESO research project………………………………………………………..1
1.2. The Israeli ESO research …………………………………………………………2
2. Literature review……………………………………………………………………3
2.1 conflict theory……………………………………………………………………..3
2.2 Concepts of reconciliation and their implication to a reflexive exploration of the
Israeli Palestinian conflict……………………………………………………………..6
2.3 Dialogue models in the Israeli Palestinian conflict………………………………..8
2.4 Action research…………………………………………………………………...10
3. Action research question…………………………………………………………..12
4. Action research methodology……………………………………………………..12
5. Findings……………………………………………………………………………13
5.1 Participants' entry to the course: what do we know about the "other" and who are
"we"?............................................................................................................................14
5.2 Narratives and identities: are there "we" and "them" relations within national
identity groups? Can we perceive a sense of "we" beyond national identity
groups?........................................................................................................................16
5.3 The exploration of power relations within conflict sides: learning about them,
what does it teach us about us? Are our thoughts and feelings a direct outcome of our
positions in society?................................................................................................. 18
6
5.4 Encounter the other and encounter otherness: can we imagine being the other?
What in the other inspires fear? What in us inspires fear in the other? Is our ignorance
of the other a deliberate choice?.................................................................................21
5.5 Our conflict relations: once we know more about the conflict sides and the
conflict relations, what can we do about them? What to do with the growing gap and
contradiction between what we learn here and what goes on out there? What we think
and do in relation to the conflict does it matter?.........................................................25
5.6 Setting expectations for our field excursion: what will it be like to encounter
narratives of the suffering of the other? How will it affect us? Do we have agency?
Can there be hope?......................................................................................................28
5.7 Encountering the other in the conflict: What to think about the conflict?
What to feel about the conflict? What to do about the conflict?.................................30
5.8 Once more, encountering the other in the conflict: can we contain the pain of
the other? Are there "others" who are like us? Can we imagine and act towards
change?........................................................................................................................39
5.9 What did we experience in this course? The gain and pain of encountering a
reality we are not supposed to see and feel…………………………………………..42
5. 10 Conclusions of findings………………………………………………………..43
6. Discussion……………………………………………………………………….. .46
7. Conclusions and questions for future research……………………………………56
8. References…………………………………………………………………………60
9. Appendix ………………………………………………………………………….65
9.1 ESO research program…………………………………………………………...66
9.2 Course syllabus ………………………………………………………………….81
7
Nobody Ever Told Us
Action research on an encounter of Israeli students with Palestinian
conflict narratives
1. Introduction
The action research is part of a multi disciplinary research project "Encountering the
suffering of the other" [ESO], in cooperation between German, Palestinian and Israeli
researchers. In the introduction I will briefly outline the ESO research goals and
structure and the Israeli research program for 2013/2014; this will be followed by a
literature review in which I relate to conflict theories, concepts related to
reconciliation, dialogue models in the context of the Israeli Palestinian conflict and
literature on action research; I will then present the action research questions and
methodology that guided the action research, present findings, discuss findings and
present conclusions and questions for future research.
1.1 The ESO research project
"Reconciliation studies have developed rapidly over the past two decades to become a
very active interdisciplinary and international field of research. All the leaders of this
project have long experience with this very complex science, as the literature from
Dajani, Nadler, Leiner, and Sagy demonstrates. This project aims to capitalize on
that experience and further develop understanding and expertise through not only
interdisciplinary, but also transdiciplinary cooperation with a focus on the IsraeliPalestinian conflict." [Excerpt from the ESO research program proposal, full text of
this proposal in the appendix] The ESO project relates to reconciliation as a possibly
inherent dimension within the context of violent and protracted conflict as is the case
in Israel Palestine. The major research questions of the ESO project address the
possibilities and challenges for transcending the perpetrator/victim perceptions
8
inherent to violent conflict, and in specific address the obstacles and opportunities for
mutual empathy for the suffering of the other as a possible venue for the transition
from a vicious circle of mutual violence to readiness to engage in processes of conflict
resolution and reconciliation.
The ESO research team is multi disciplinary; the major disciplines are social and
political psychology, political philosophy and theology.
1.2 The Israeli ESO research
The Israeli research team is led by professors Shifra Sagy and Arieh Nadler; the
theoretical orientations that guide the research team are foremost set by writings on
identity complexity issues, identity categorization, the roles of narratives and social
identities, evolving needs in the context of violent conflict and the significances of
asymmetric power relations on conflict sides [Sagy 2002, 2006; Nadler 2006, 2008,
Schnabel 2008 , Brewer 2000 ; Brown 1998; Kelman 2004; Bar On and Kassem 2004,
Bar-Tal and Teichman 2005]. The methodologies employed are foremost quantitative;
the action research that I present is singular in its choice of methodology within the
Israeli team since it is based on qualitative research methods.
A major element in the Israeli research design is an academic year course with the
participation of 24 Jewish B.A. students from the department of education at BenGurion University. The course title in the academic year of 2013/14 was
"encountering the suffering of the other". The course was led by two facilitators, by
Yael Ben David, a PhD. candidate and member of the ESO research team and by me.
The course design combined "content and process" elements: part of the course
focused on theoretical concepts in which members of the research team and guest
lecturers presented and discussed concepts of group identities in the context of
9
conflict, the roles of narratives in conflict, power relations and asymmetric conflict
relations, reconciliation. Another part of the course was experiential and process
oriented, this included encounters with conflict related narratives of Palestinians, field
excursions to sites that relate to the Naqba within Israel and the Palestinian territories,
facilitated discussions in which students were invited to explore their cognitive and
emotional responses to the concepts, narratives and field excursions. Throughout the
course students wrote a diary in which they reflected about their experience of the
course. As part of the course obligations students responded to three rounds of
questionnaires designed by the research team and two rounds of interviews. At the
end of the course students wrote an assignment based on articles and personal
reflections of the course experience.
The action research aimed to create knowledge that relates to theoretical perspectives
that guided the course design, to a qualitative exploration of the evolving group based
learning process, and to the contribution and significance that the students themselves
ascribed to their experience and involvement in processes of learning and knowledge
development.
2. Literature review
Introduction
In this section I will review literature that relates to the major concepts that guided the
course and the action research design.
2.1 Conflict theory
Conflict is inherent to every day life whenever we discover incompatible goals within
ourselves and between us and others. On a micro level conflict evolves and may
10
escalate as a feedback cycle that involves incompatible goals, behaviors of conflict
sides in their pursuit of their respective goals and attitudes that reflect the experience
of conflict and which at the same time affect the way we act and react to conflict.
[Galtung 2009]. This basic model implies that conflict involves a structural dimension
which relates to incompatible goals that drive the conflict as long as incompatibility is
not resolved; at the same time conflict evolves also on the dimensions of behavior and
attitudes. In cases of conflict escalations the dimensions of behavior and attitude may
become so prominent to conflict dynamics between sides that the original source of
the conflict [goal incompatibility] becomes obscure and secondary to the way conflict
is experienced and develops. [Galtung 2009]. On a corresponding macro level this
basic model applies also to conflict on the societal level. The corresponding
interrelated concepts are deep structure which refers to the way power relations are
organized and patterned between different social groups and which have impact on
contradicting interests and contradicting goals; deep culture which relates to "taken
for granted" collective
assumptions, beliefs and values that reflect and drive
perceptions and responses to structurally patterned contradictions; and behavior that
relates to the socially patterned ways that conflict between social groups is expressed
in action. [Galtung 1990].
The school of thought most closely related to Galtung's analytic premises about
conflict can be broadly termed the conflict transformation approach. [Berghof
Foundation 2004 – 2012; Lederach 2011]. Within this approach violence is defined by
the degree to which basic human needs are violated either by actions which is termed
direct violence; or as a result of social structures that cause violation of basic human
needs and human rights of underprivileged populations within a given power
structure, which is termed structural violence. Cultural violence occurs when shared
11
cultural systems such as religion and ideology legitimize the violation of basic human
needs and rights of selected populations. [Galtung 1990].
Within a culture that legitimizes violence towards other national groups ethnocentric
mechanisms develop that lead to a focus on the experience of our suffering and
shared trauma as a result of severe injustice done to us while at the same time prevent
acknowledgement and empathy to the suffering of the other ( Staub 2003, Mack
1990). Suffering relates to the shared experience of deprivation of essential human
needs, such as the need for survival, well being, identity and freedom {Staub 2003).
In such a cultural context the more there is preoccupation with the history of our
suffering the less there is accountability and responsibility for suffering inflicted to
the other. In such context to relate to the other as human beings who are
fundamentally similar to us and who deserve empathy and concern for their basic
needs and rights is deemed to contradict the collective sense of justice and the
commitment to our collective existential needs [Mack 1990].
Within such a frame of conflict analysis violent conflict in general and the Israeli
Palestinian conflict in specific demands a multi dimensional approach in which the
sources of violence that need to be resolved are related to deep structures that
permeate systemic violence. Which means, for violence to stop deep structures need
to be transformed. But such a transformation cannot be achieved in a non violent
manner without addressing deep cultures that legitimize structural violence or at least
obscure the need and possibility for ending the systematic violation of human rights
and basic human needs within the context of power asymmetry as exists between
Jews and Palestinians in Israel and Israel Palestine. [Darweish 2010].
One of the major contributing factors for the difficulty of transforming deep cultures
that permeate deep structures of power abuse is the preoccupation with power as an
12
end itself. When violence is taken as a given element of societal reality we can expect
the evolvement of deep cultures within which power is considered a resource that
must be monopolized. This premise is based on the assumption that loosing in the
competition for sources of power [economic, political, ideological etc] will lead to
dire results. Such types of cultures of domination do not only guide attitudes and
behavior towards sides in an ongoing violent conflict but become an inherent
dimension in all types of relations between groups and populations, and foremost in
gender relations. The inherent challenge therefore is how to transform interrelated
cultures and structures of domination into cultures and structures of cooperation in
which "power over" is replaced by "power with" and "power for" thinking and action.
[Francis 2011, Lederach 1995].
2.2 Concepts of reconciliation and their implication to a reflexive exploration of
the Israeli Palestinian conflict
The concepts that are anchored in conflict transformation literature invite re/ thinking
the sociology of the conflict and the possible implications for being personally
involved in conflict related societal processes. The concepts that relate to processes of
reconciliation based upon social and political psychology invite reflection on identity
based needs which we as individuals share as an outcome of our experience of
ongoing violent conflict.
Conflict threatens different psychological resources of victims and perpetrators and
these threats contribute to the maintenance of conflict. Based on this general
proposition needs-based models of reconciliation suggest that being a victim is
associated with a threat to one’s status and power, whereas being a perpetrator
threatens one’s image as moral and socially acceptable. To counter these threats,
13
victims must restore their sense of power, whereas perpetrators must restore their
public moral image. A social exchange interaction in which these threats are removed
should enhance the parties’ willingness to reconcile. [Kelman 2004; Nadler and
Liviatan 2006; Nadler, Malloy, Fisher 2008; Nadler and Shnabel 2008]
The literature that discusses these propositions also states that in the context of
intractable conflict such as the Israeli Palestinian conflict all sides involved can be
seen at the same time as perpetrators and victims; and as has been observed the sides
involved employ narratives that nurture an intense competition for victimhood
[Adwan and Bar-On 2001]. Because of the extreme asymmetry of power between
Israelis and Palestinians a process of reconciliation has to address changes on a
structural level along side the socio psychological processes that relate to identity
based needs. [Nadler and Schnabel 2008] This implies that a shift towards positions of
reconciliation involves emotional and cognitive challenges: conflict reality has to be
addressed from a perspective of complexity, a reality in which the roles of victim and
perpetrator are blurred, while from a structural/political perspective Israelis need to
accept loss of privileges since severe power asymmetry is an obstacle in itself for
reconciliation [ Bar-On 1999, Bar-Tal 2013, Rouhana 2004] Central to the course
and the research design are collective narratives. The premise is that narratives
through the belief system underlying them play a crucial role in sustaining conflict
and related intergroup relations [Bar-Tal D2013]. Also implied is that collective
representations of historical narratives can promote effective communication and
behavior
congruity,
whereas
contradicting
representations
are
related
to
miscommunication and mistrust [Bar-On & Fatma Kassem 2004]. All of this leads to
the assumption that acknowledging and accepting the “other’s” narrative has the
potential to promote the capacity and readiness for re conciliation [ Sagy and Adwan
14
2006;.Sagy, Adwan and Kaplan 2002] The introduction of these perspectives on a
theoretical level as well as the actual encounter with Palestinian narratives may create
opportunities for students to explore their own shared narratives, to explore
corresponding and contradicting narratives of Palestinians and to develop the
readiness to perceive the conflict relations and roles from a perspective of complexity.
[Bar-On and Kassem 2004; Bar-Tal 1998, Bar-Tal and Teichman 2005; Litvak-Hirsch
2003, Bar-On and Chaitin 2003]. At the same time there is the question to what
degree students are able to move from an ethnocentric perception of shared trauma
and pain to a position which allows them to perceive and acknowledge the pain and
the suffering of the other while in the midst of ongoing violent conflict [Chaitin and
Steinberg 2008; Steinberg 2004].
What can be the affect of such an experience? For a constructive encounter of
contradicting narratives four interrelated dimensions need to be addressed: justice,
historic truth, facing historic responsibility, and social and political restructuring
[Rouhana 2004]. In so far an encounter with historic narratives of suffering of the
other is much more than a challenge for developing empathy for the "other", such an
encounter challenges perceptions of historic truth, justice and moral obligations
towards the other. Ultimately this may very well raise questions about the costs of
empathy and the attribution of legitimacy towards narratives of the other.
2.3 Dialogue models in the Israeli Palestinian conflict
Planned dialogue encounters in the context of the Israeli Palestinian conflict
especially since the post Oslo period have become well established within the sphere
of civil society and have also drawn academic research interest.[Bar-On and Kassem
2004, Harmat 2011, Maos 2012, Sonnenschein, Halabi and Friedman 1998, Steinberg
15
2004]. Two recent publications made an attempt to identify the different types of
dialogue models that evolved and to categorize their theoretical assumptions, their
relative advantages and disadvantages in the specific context of the Israeli Palestinian
conflict. [Maoz 2012, Harmat 2011]. Both studies stress the inherent challenge of
constructive work within the context of ongoing violent conflict and power
asymmetry. The major dialogue approaches that are put to practice are related to
contact theory, confrontational or conflict models, narrative models, psychological
process oriented models and the cognitive knowledge model. [Harmat 2011]. The
complementary design of the "content – process" course and the action research
includes elements that can be attributed to the different models of dialogue; I suggest
that this design may also address some of the short comings of each approach that
Maoz and Harmat discuss in their respective studies.
Similar to contact theory we assume that the immediate encounter with the other may
serve to assist in breaking down prejudice and stereotypes inherent to conflict. The
additional introduction of knowledge serves as an input that might assist in the
transition of one sided perceptions and assumptions. Even though much of the process
is in what can be termed a single identity group [a Jewish Israeli group in a self
reflexive dialogue] conflict is directly addressed, based on the assumption that the
conflict context is a deeply political one and therefore cannot be reduced to
interpersonal and intergroup dynamics only. At the same time, throughout the course
attention is given to individual and group based psychological dimensions of conflict
experience, not only through the introduction of conflict theory but as an orientation
that guides the facilitation of group processes as they evolve throughout the course.
The study and encounter of narratives serves as an invitation to explore ours and
others' experience of conflict and as a source for the discovery of social constructions
16
of conflict experiences and positions. The setting of an Israeli intra identity group
exploring conflict with the "other" who is not a direct partner in the evolving dialogue
may create opportunities for addressing fault lines, distinctions and differences within
the group. In many conflict situations collective assumptions as well as internal
differences and conflicts on the intra group level have to be addressed in order to
create favorable conditions for constructive conflict engagement on the inter group
level. The absence of the other may create an opportunity for a processing of
differences on the cognitive and emotional level of the conflict experience and might
even be a pre condition for creating capacity to engage with the other side in the
conflict. [ Bush 2004, Kelman 1983, Dovidio, J. F., Saguy, T., & Shnabel, N. 2009,
Gorman & Bornstein 2004].
2.4 Action research
Action research in the literature is also called participatory action research or
collaborative inquiry and is intended to describe the central process of observation
plus understanding derived from that practice. The assumption underpinning such
research is that knowledge is something to be sought from people, and that people
have the ability to create, evaluate, and utilize it [ Francis 2001]. The roots of action
research may be found in the work of social scientists like Kurt Lewin and others
during the period of the Second World War, in liberal perspectives like that of Paolo
Freire in the 1970s and in human social theory that relies on feminism, civil rights
movements and anti-racism movements. [Francis 2005, O' Brien 2001]
Action research is useful in facilitating two types of processes: Launching a goaloriented learning process that addresses, and seeks to understand and overcome,
obstacles as they arise, and producing knowledge. Accomplishing this dual purpose
17
demands the committed involvement of all members of the group and continuing
cooperation between the researcher and the group. Only through full cooperation can
the group achieve a process of continuous improvement and learning, hence the
emphasis on shared learning as a critical condition for the success of the research. The
advent of action research manifests the desire of groups in society to cultivate
foundations of knowledge that can motivate and support processes of change.
Through these groups, we have the opportunity to create a link between theory and
action, to learn about spheres of dispute and conflict, and to develop a deeper
understanding of relevant social and cultural structures and their influence. A
successful study in this context is one that, by constructing a supportive process, helps
the group to discover and create new ways of understanding reality with its manifold
risks and complexities, and also helps the group to generate new partnerships that can
contemplate possible alternatives and act capably to promote them. (Reason &
Bradbury 2000; Francis 2005)
The methodology chosen for a given research project is assessed according to its
ability to contribute to positive change and to further learning, by means of an action
reflection cycle; in other words, gathering data, processing it, and reintegrating it.
Data gathering methods include observation, analysis of texts, in-depth interviews,
focus groups, archival materials and theoretical sources. All of these give the
researcher access to the knowledge that individuals have and enable her or him to
gather it and process it. When this has been completed, that same knowledge is
returned to the group which can then verify it and deal with the obstacles it poses. In
this recurring cycle, both original goals are achieved– launching a process while
coping with obstacles, and producing knowledge [Francis 2005].
18
In summary, action research is created in the field. The approach it embodies includes
the conviction that the researcher does not have ownership of the knowledge and that
the research subjects are active partners in it. Beyond the learning process as such, it
facilitates empowerment of the group’s members who share in that learning, so that
the social contribution of the process is made manifest. In an immediate way, action
research awakens the ability to lead changes in complex environments, and over time
it builds knowledge of complex environments and of how to promote change [FalsBroda & Rachman 1991, Gergen & Gergen 2001].
3. Action research question
The major action research question is: what do the processes in this course on
encountering narratives of the other reveal about the way Jewish Israeli students
relate to the other, and how the course experiences contribute to:
-
perceptions of self and the other;
-
perceptions of the relationship between self and other within the context of
the Israeli Palestinian conflict;
-
positions towards reconciliation.
The action research aims to identify opportunities and obstacles for learning as a
process of change on the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral level [learning in the
sense of change]. Change implying here a change in the readiness and capacity to
encounter narratives of the other and to develop readiness for reconciliation in the
midst of violent conflict.
4. Action research methodology
The action research methodology is based on:
19
-
A research diary in which I related my observations, experiences and
reflections as a co facilitator and ESO research team member throughout the
course process.
-
Written documentation of the course and the field excursions. Throughout the
course two M.A. students recorded the meetings and created a verbatim
documentation of the conversations.
Throughout the course we created additional research data, foremost students'
assignments, interviews with a number of students and the documentation of a
discussion with students on the significance of the quantitative data the research team
produced after the end of the course. In order to remain within the scope of a master's
thesis I will not directly relate to these data sources, but to the best of my
understanding the analysis of the documentation I focus on here is supported by the
other data as well
The course had a number of distinct stages: in the winter semester weekly classes, in
the winter vacation field excursions, and in the summer semester a number of
meetings in which we reflected upon the learning experience in the course.
Throughout the course facilitators attempted to conceptualize observations on the
learning process and to share these with students for discussion and shared
assessment, hereby creating ongoing action reflection cycles [Reason & Marshall
1988]. In such manner the research process was action oriented and participatory on
two levels: students shared in the development and assessment of the knowledge as it
evolved throughout the process and at the same time students participated in the
exploration of the significance and impact of the shared evolving knowledge on their
learning process as individuals and as a group [Kemmis & McTaggart 2000, Gergen
& Gergen 2001].
20
5. Findings
Introduction
In this section I present the evolving findings [in relation to the research questions]
that can be discerned in the development of the course process and at the end of this
section I summarize and focus the major findings.
5.1 Participants' entry to the course: what do we know about the "other"
and who are "we"?
The first two course meetings were an introduction to the course, in the first meeting
participants introduced themselves and shared their expectations and prior knowledge
about "Palestinians and our conflict relations", the second meeting introduced an
experiential exercise in which we explored the concept of collective identities and in
specific explored perceptions and assumptions about "being an Israeli".
It appears that for students this course was an exceptional opportunity for
encountering [narratives of] the other since, as participants noted, within the given
societal reality of which we are part the other is not accessible beyond what we
encounter in the media and/or in the army, or through accounts of friends and family
members who relate their experiences in the army. Only two out of 24 participants
personally encountered Palestinians asides encounters within army service. Others did
not meet Palestinians. This might imply that for most participants the perception of
'them' is mainly influenced either by public discourse largely influenced by the media
and diverse social institutions such as the school system or by a specific conflict
related framework, the army.
".‫ "האינטראקציה הראשונה שלי הייתה בצבא בנח"ל בחברון והייתה לא נעימה‬:‫משתתף‬
21
‫ "אני מרגישה בורה בנושא הזה כי חברים שלי ואחים שלי היו במחסומים והכירו‬:‫משתתף‬
".‫את הנושא ולי לא יצא‬
In the second meeting we explored the significance of collective identities using an
exercise in which students had to chose between "I am foremost Israeli" or " I am
foremost a citizen of the world". The large majority of students chose "Israeli" as the
major identity category and this led to a tense conversation between the majority and
minority in the group. The major themes in this conversation were:
To be "Israeli" is something to be proud of; it is a "natural" and significant collective
identity, even though students find it difficult to create a precise and agreed upon
definition of what an Israeli is.
‫ תחושה רגשית‬.‫ תחושה רגשית שאכפת ממה שקורה כאן‬.‫ "רוצים להקים בית בארץ‬:‫משתתפת‬
‫ יש לנו הרגשה שזה אינטואיטיבי יותר‬.‫ אכפת לנו ממה קורה בארץ ברמה אישית‬...‫חשובה‬
.‫ שרוב הישראלים הם יהודים‬.‫ דת יהודית‬.‫ ההגדרה עצמה כישראלי‬,‫מהקבוצה השנייה‬
".‫ תחושת צורך בהסברה ישראלית‬.‫סולידריות (לא ברור) לעומת בסולידריות כללית‬
The alternative category, "world citizenship", is counter intuitive, it demands a
deliberate choice and it raises speculations that this choice expresses individuality as
opposed to collectivity. One participant described her preoccupation about what could
be termed "hybrid" identity, identity that contains the complexities of being a woman
of oriental origin, of religious orientation, of considering herself to be of more than
one national identity, and most of all, she described her position as exceptional since
she unlike others cannot place herself firmly within one dominant category of
collective identity.
‫ אבל אני יכולה‬,‫זה לא קבוצת תמיכה‬...‫ "אני רואה את עצמי כבעלת זהות מורכבת‬:‫משתתפת‬
.‫ מאד קשה לי לשייך את עצמי לקבוצה אחת‬. ‫להגיד שאני מאוד מסובכת עם עניין הזה של זהות‬
‫ וקשה לי לשייך את עצמי‬.‫ כי אני מזרחית‬,‫אני לא דתייה לאומית‬...‫ולפעמים אני קצת דתייה‬
.‫ אבל גם שייכת למקום אחר‬,‫ ואני שייכת לפה‬.‫ ואני גם ישראלית‬.‫לדתיים לאומיים אשכנזים‬
‫שאלת הלאומיות היא מאד‬...‫ אז אני גם‬.‫הווית ההגירה של ההורים שלי טבועה בי מאד חזק‬
22
‫ אבל אני לא רואה את עצמי יותר ישראלית מלאום אחר‬,‫ אני ישבתי כאן בישראלים‬:‫קשה‬
."...‫שנמצא פה‬
It appears that most students share the assumption that to be an Israeli implies a
coherent sense of national identity that is more significant than other types of
identities [such as gender, generation, other…] that could contribute to a sense of
affinity with others who are not Israeli, and at the same time, there appears to be an
expectation that we should able to organize our sense of self within a hierarchic
structure within which identities related to categories such as
religion/secularity and gender are
ethnicity,
secondary to national collective identity. To
present an identity perspective that is based on principles of complexity and fluidity is
an exceptional position.
‫ " עכשיו כאשר אתם מדברים על זה אני פתאום חושבת ביום יום אני לא הרבה‬:‫משתתפת‬
‫כן אני יהודייה וסטודנטית‬...‫עוסקת האם אני רואה את זהות שלי מורכבת או ישראלית‬
‫ כי‬.‫זה הגיוני כשמי שהו מצליח לראות את עצמו כיותר מורכב יותר קל לו להבין את האחר‬...‫אבל‬
‫ אז יש מה שהו‬,‫ וגם אני סטודנט‬.‫ הוא גם סטודנט‬.‫" ואו‬: ‫אז אתה רואה פלסטינאי ואומר‬
"... ‫ כאילו‬."‫ גם אני בכורה‬,‫ הוא בכור‬.‫משותף‬
5.2 Narratives and identities: are there "we" and "them" relations within
national identity groups? Can we perceive a sense of "we" beyond
national identity groups?
In the third meeting of the course we had a Jewish and a Palestinian [citizen of Israel]
guest lecturer who presented and discussed the concept of collective narratives with
specific focus on Palestinian narratives related to the Naqba; narratives that reflect
diversities within Palestinian society, diversities related to Islam and Christianity. In
the discussion on the relationship between narratives and social identities students
were invited to explore narratives related to significant events in Israeli history.
23
In the fourth meeting we invited students to reflect on the lecture we had the week
before. Students shared and explored their learning experience, they specifically
related to what they heard about differentiation and fragmentation within Palestinian
society and the significance of the Naqba as a narrative that contributes to Palestinian
collective identities.
This led to a conversation about differentiation and fragmentations of collective
identities within Israeli society, the interrelation between collective identities and
narratives and the inherent power relations that exist between different types of
narratives.
In this conversation the concept of "we" gained complexity, students explored the
significance of collective identities within Israeli societies related to ethnicity and
religion/ secularity.
‫ הייתי מלמדת אותם היסטוריה‬.‫ בצבא הייתי משקית בקרס חג"ם‬.‫" יש לי דוגמה‬:‫משתתפת‬
.‫ שיעורים וכל שיעור היינו מלמדים אותם את כל תולדות ארץ ישראל‬15 ‫והייתה תכנית של‬
.‫התחלנו בעליות והיה שיעור על העלייה הראשונה והשנייה ועל החלוצים שהגיעו מאירופה‬
‫ואני הרגשתי כל השיעורים שבלב שלי אני מתקוממת כי לא מדברים איתם או שואלים אותם‬
‫ אז הלכתי למנהלת ואמרתי שצריך ללמד אותם גם על‬.‫מאיפה הסבא שלהם או ההורים שלהם‬
‫ קיבלתי אישור ובניתי שיעור ואמרו לי שזה יופי אבל שיעור העשרה שלא נכנס‬.‫מרבד הקסמים‬
".‫ פשוט הנרטיב האירופאי הוא אגוצנטרי‬.‫לסילבוס‬
The discussion about the significance of diverse collective identities led to another
discovery: according to participants' own position in relation to ethnic and
religious/secular identity there was disagreement on how to define the conflict we
have with Palestinians. Is the Israeli Palestinian conflict foremost about resources,
political power or religion?
‫ "אולי בגלל שאני מאוד רחוקה מהדת בהשקפה שלי אני פחות מסכימה עם מה שאת‬:‫משתתפת‬
‫ אולי‬.‫ על מקום‬,‫ הסתכלתי על אדמה‬,‫ כי מעולם לא הסתכלתי על הסכסוך כמשהו דתי‬,‫אומרת‬
24
‫ מהבחינה שלי הסכסוך הוא לא דתי הוא יותר על משאב מאשר על‬.‫מהצד שלהם זה יותר דתי‬
" .‫דת‬
The conversation turned into a dispute, there was a sense of deep disagreement and
emotional tension, especially when some of the students addressed the possibility that
within Israeli society there are identity based conflicts with contradicting assumptions
about conflicts within and between Israeli and Palestinian society.The discovery of
diversity between participants and within society at large led to suggestions that we
have intra societal conflicts which need to be resolved even before we address the
Israeli Palestinian conflict. It appears that participants found it difficult to imagine a
societal reality in which the individual and the social groups at large can contain
diverse and contradicting identities, foremost in relation to ethnicity and positions on
religion. At the same time the group confronted the possibility that the concepts of us
and them in terms of national identity [Israelis and Palestinians] are less binary or
polar than was assumed so far in the evolving group discourse.
‫ אבל אולי יש אצלנו יותר‬.‫ "אנחנו מחפשים את מה שדומה בינינו ואז הולכים לאחר‬:‫משתתפת‬
‫ אני הרבה פעמים מרגישה במשפחה שלי יותר‬.‫דברים שדומים לאחר ממה שאנחנו חושבים‬
‫ השיח בין הדתי והחילוני‬,‫ בכלל‬,‫ גם בעניין הדתי‬.‫ פחות לאשכנזים‬.‫דומה ומזדהה עם הערבים‬
".‫יכול לפתוח מקום לדיאלוג‬
In terms of evolving dynamics of learning, in this meeting the exploration of the
'other' and the exploration of 'us' are interrelated and feed back into each other, the
more the group allows for a complex perspective on one, the more the perspective of
the other identity group gains in complexity as well.
5.3 The exploration of power relations within conflict sides: learning about
them, what does it teach us about us? Are our thoughts and feelings a
direct outcome of our positions in society?
25
In the fifth meeting we had a Palestinian [citizen of Israel] who presented her research
on gender, religion and conflict. The lecture and the discussions she conducted with
the students related to hidden power structures that affect Palestinian society in the
context of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The presentation about the Palestinian case
led students to reflect about their experience of power mechanisms within Israeli
society.
‫ אני המומה מכמה החצאית‬60‫" כשאני מסתכלת על תמונות של אימא שלי משנות ה‬:‫מרצה‬
‫ אם את רוצה לכבד את‬.‫שלה הייתה קצרה ופתאום המעבר החד הזה של אחותי המוסלמית‬
‫ זה אחד הדברים שהשתמשו בהם החמאס באינתיפאדה‬.‫הלוחמים הפלסטיניים תתכסי‬
".‫הראשונה‬
".‫ "זה מעניין כי גם בחברה הישראלית משתמשים בזה‬:‫משתתפת‬
During the lecture students showed much interest in learning from a Palestinian
woman and academic about her perspectives and understanding of processes within
Palestinian society, students discussed gender relations within Israeli society and this
led to a discussion about the affect of hidden power structures on our thinking and
decisions.
."‫ מסתייג ולא ממש מסכים‬,‫ "אני חושב שזה מוגזם ושיש לנו זכות ויכולת בחירה‬:‫משתתף‬
‫ אני לא הייתי הולכת להנדסה ואני לא בטוחה שבגלל‬,‫ "תבין שיש דברים מוכתבים‬:‫משתתפת‬
‫ יש דברים שהחברה מכתיבה לנו וזה‬.‫שאני לא הייתי טובה במתימטיקה או מה שזה לא יהיה‬
."‫פשוט ככה‬
In the sixth meeting we invited students to reflect about their learning experience in
the previous meeting and to further explore their perceptions and involvement in
power structures. Once more explorations about Palestinian society and Israeli society
interrelate within the conversations that evolved.
Throughout this reflection meeting we had very involved discussions; emotions ran
high when students discovered their contradicting perceptions of values, symbols and
26
related power structures. Students addressed two "cultural idols" whose recent death
created preoccupation with their conflicting symbolic roles in the Israeli national
discourse, Arik Einstein who represents Ashkenazi/western secular values within
Israeli society and Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef who represents Mizrahi/oriental religious
traditional values.
‫ "אם מתייחסים למוות של אריק אינשטיין ולכל מה שקורה בעולם ומדברים על‬:‫משתתפת‬
‫ הבלורית והתואר שכותב שירים על‬,‫ זה מנגנון כוח שמשמר את דמות הציוני החלוץ‬,‫מנגנוני כוח‬
‫ בגלל שהוא‬,‫ ולמה זה מנגנון כוח ולא פשוט מישהו שהוא ציוני‬.‫המדינה ועל החברה הישראלית‬
‫ זאת אומרת שהיא משתייכת למגזר ספציפי ולמעמד מסוים‬,‫מייצג דמות מאוד מאוד ספציפית‬
‫ ממעמד מסוים והחברים שלו הם מאזור גאוגרפי‬,‫ ספציפי הוא אשכנזי‬.‫והוא לא מייצג את כולם‬
"...‫ זה הכל חלק‬,‫בארץ‬
‫ "אני כבר ככה מתבשל בזה הרבה זמן ואיך מדברים על מנגנוני כוח אז כאילו עצם זה‬:‫משתתף‬
‫ מי‬,‫ עצם זה שזה קיים בכלל‬,‫שאת מהללת את עובדיה יוסף ומזכירה אותו כאו איזה בנאדם הוא‬
"??‫צריך את השטות הזאת תגידו‬
...........‫רעשששש בכיתה‬
The emotional tension that students experienced also became a venue for exploration:
‫ אי אפשר שיהיה‬.‫ או ממש לאהוב או ממש לשנוא‬-‫ "ובמדינה הזאת חייבים לשנוא‬:‫משתתפת‬
‫ אם אי אפשר לאהוב אותך או לשנוא אותך אז אתה לא‬.‫ ככה אני מרגישה‬.‫פשוט משהו באמצע‬
".‫קיים בישראל‬
In meetings 5 and 6 conversations moved from the analysis, presented by the guest
lecturer, of cultural manipulation of women as objects within conflict drama directed
by men to an exploration of cultural and structural divides within Israeli society. The
group questioned to what degree our positions, thoughts and feelings are outcomes of
where we are in society and to what degree a result of individual choice. And as
happened in the previous meetings, the added complexity in perceptions of Palestinian
and Israeli society adds complexity to perceptions on the conflict relations that exist
between the two societies:
27
‫ דקות החילונים היו מפתח הרבה יותר מרכזי בפתרון שלי‬5 ‫ "בתפיסה שלי עד לפני‬:‫משתתפת‬
‫עם האוכלוסייה הפלסטינית כי יש יותר קווים דומים ביניהם אבל באידיאולוגיה וביום יום‬
‫החרדים והפלסטינים מאוד קרובים בנושא של הדרת נשים ובנושא של ללכת אחרי רעיון‬
‫ המרחק ביניהם הרבה יותר גדול‬.‫ יש הרבה שלא אוהבים את הארץ כמו הפלסטינים‬.‫מסוים‬
‫ אבל עדיין אפילו שהם הרבה יותר דומים הפתרון בעיני נמצא‬.‫מאשר בין חילונים לפלסטינים‬
".‫דווקא בהקשר בין החילונים לפלסטינים‬
5.4 Encounter the other and encounter otherness: can we imagine being the
other? What in the other inspires fear? What in us inspires fear in the
other? Is our ignorance of the other a deliberate choice?
In meeting 7 we had another Palestinian guest lecturer, a senior lecturer from east
Jerusalem, his lecture addressed the role of religion in the Israeli Palestinian conflict
and the possible role of moderate Islam in contributing to conflict resolution. The
lecture drew much attention, towards the end of the lecture participants asked about
his perceptions of the conflict. In his response he shared personal experiences which
caused him to become an outspoken moderate in relation to the conflict. Most of the
questions related to the discussions we had in our meetings, such as position of
women in Islam and the role of religion and religious people in the conflict.
Meeting 8 is another reflection meeting. At the start of the meeting facilitators shared
as an input the major themes that came up in the assignments [personal reflections]
about the course experience so far:
"Our discussions on mechanisms of power, power structures and cultures create
preoccupation with questions of individual freedom:
To what degree are our
positions, attitudes, emotions an outcome of individual choice; to what degree are
they an outcome of our position in society?
28
Another question that is raised relates to "truth": the way we perceive the "other", our
relations with the other, especially in context of conflict, is it an outcome of
manipulation and indoctrination? What about the value of personal experience and
exposure to others? Can we transcend the stories we are raised on in relation to
religion, ideology, gender, ethnicity, nationality?"
The conversation that developed in this meeting was the so far most dramatic in terms
of authenticity and depth of exploration of the themes that evolved so far.
For the first time fear of the other and otherness is directly addressed, for some the
ultra religious are the source of deepest fear, because for the secular students they
endanger their sense of identity; for others Palestinians are worst because of the
assumption that they want to kill us. Which types of otherness are more threatening
became a discussion with diverse positions.
‫ "אני מאוד מסכימה איתך שזה נורא מוזר שדווקא מי שטיפה דומה לי הוא דווקא‬:‫משתתפת‬
‫ שהפלסטיני‬.‫מפחיד אותי יש כאן סוג של תחרותיות הוא עשוי לשבת איתי על אותה משבצת‬
‫הוא רחוק שלא אומר עליי יותר מידיי ולא מייצג אותי אז זה מעניין ואני מאוד מסכימה עם‬
"...‫זה‬
The conversation escalated when students addressed fear as an outcome of the
experience of terror, and related to this asked if both sides in the conflict contribute to
injustice and violence? Is moral judgment of violence an outcome on which side of
the conflict we are? Can we imagine ourselves in the position of the other, in terms of
pain experienced and producing violence? These questions signify a new aspect to the
evolving learning process. In previous meetings, we witnessed the dynamics of added
complexity in the way students explored the concept of we and them, in this meeting
the conflict relationship that exists between Israelis and Palestinians gains additional
complexity as well. For the first time the group addressed violence as a key factor in
the conflict relationship, violence that is attributed to Palestinians and violence that is
29
‫‪inherent to Israel's role as an occupying force, violence to which students who serve‬‬
‫‪in the army actively contribute.‬‬
‫משתתף‪".......:‬ברור לי שאם הייתי בצד שלהם‪ ,‬הייתי בחמאס‪( ,‬רעש בכיתה וצחוק‪ )...‬ברור לי‬
‫שהייתי קיצוני‪ .‬אנחנו גם היינו בארגון שלנו‪ ,‬לדעתי כולנו או רובנו התגייסנו לצה"ל זה לא שונה‬
‫ממה שהם עושים‪ ,‬הם אומרים‪ ,‬שמעו חרא פה איך אני יכול לשנות את זה‪ ,‬עם כסף עם‬
‫ארגון‪"...‬‬
‫משתתפת‪" :‬מתפרצת לדבריו‪ -‬אבל הם עשו פיגועים!!"‬
‫משתתף‪" :‬מתפרץ לדבריה‪" :‬ומה אנחנו עושים?! אנחנו עוצרים אותם בלילה‪ ,‬את יודעת כמה‬
‫עצורים לקחתי בלילה??? אני הולך בלילה לוקח אותו מהמיטה ומוסר אותו לשב"כ והשב"כ‪....‬‬
‫יכול להיות שהוא אפילו סבבה‪ ...‬מה!!! אנחנו עושים דברים נוראיים‪".....‬‬
‫‪It appears that at this stage of the evolving learning process the group attempted to‬‬
‫‪explore us and them and our conflict relations from a perspective of potential‬‬
‫‪empathy. There were attempts to imagine being in the role of the other and experience‬‬
‫‪fright and anger as a result of living under occupation.‬‬
‫‪This was an exploration that addressed otherness as a result of chance, to whom and‬‬
‫‪when was I born, and not in terms of intrinsic differences based on group identities‬‬
‫‪and the attribution of characteristics to different identities.‬‬
‫משתתף‪" :‬אני חושב שההבדל הכי מהותי וההבדל שבגללו אנחנו מעלים סיפורים על צבא או על‬
‫מצב חיים הוא פשוט‪ .‬קודם לטעמי דיברנו יותר על מה קורה בעצם בואו נבין מי נגד מי‪ ..‬עכשיו‬
‫כשהבנו‪ ,‬זה אנחנו נגדם‪ ?...‬הם נגדנו‪ ?...‬אנחנו נגד עצמנו? בואו נציף‪ ,‬נדבר‪ ,‬נעלה‪ ,‬נראה מה‬
‫ההבדלים‪ ,‬אם אפשר לגשר? אם אפשר בכלל לגשר? ואז פה עלתה הסוגיה שהיא אם הסוגיות‪-‬‬
‫מה המצב שלנו? איפה אנחנו חיים? מה ההבדלים הכי משמעותיים בינינו? השאלה היא‪ -‬מה‬
‫הייתי עושה בנעליהם? ז שאלה קשה‪ -‬שאלתי את עצמי את השאלות האלה הרבה פעמים‪ .‬אם‬
‫הייתי מוצא את עצמי שם‪ ,‬אם הייתי הולך לפיצוץ באוטובוסים‪ ,‬או למשל‪ -‬האם הייתי מוצא‬
‫את עצמי בקום המדינה באצ"ל מפוצץ את מלון דויד המלך‪ .‬יש שם הרבה אם ואם ואם‪ ...‬ואני‬
‫שואל את השאלה הזו בלי להיכנס למקום מאוד אפל‪ .‬האם אנחנו נמצאים איפה שאנחנו‬
‫נמצאים אך ורק בעקבות מזל‪ .‬האם זה נטו סביבת הגידול שלנו ואנחנו יכולים לצאת ממנה‪ .‬אולי‬
‫‪30‬‬
‫ האם אנחנו יכולים לפרוץ ואם אנחנו יכולים לפרוץ אפשר עוד‬-‫זה מתחבר למנגנוני הכוח‬
" .‫איכשהו לעזור לצד השני לפרוץ זה שאלות שכל הזמן עולות וקשה לי מאוד לענות עליהן‬
Another significant exploration related to fear and pain that preoccupies our
experience of the conflict and our understanding of the conflict relation ship [they =
cause of our pain]. In the conversation that developed students asked if pain is
something that can be measured, they examined if we can perceive their and our pain
without entering a zero sum game in which our experience of pain necessarily erases
our capacity to acknowledge theirs. They also inquired to what degree we use our
pain and fear as a mechanism that prevents us from perceiving their pain and fear. It
appears that this conversation addresses the possibility to contain both, our and their
pain and fear.
‫ "השאלה בהקשר הזה לדעתי היא עד כמה אני שופטת את האחר באופן שונה משאני‬:‫משתתפת‬
‫ כמה הסבל שלי והכאב שלי הוא כזה גדול ומפחיד ואני התחלתי כמוך אבל עד‬.‫שופטת את עצמי‬
‫ מידיעה ממקור ראשון ממישהו‬,‫כמה הסבל שלי הוא כל כך הרבה יותר מהסבל של האחר‬
‫ מתים מפחד!! ולהגיד את מה‬,‫ כשנכנס ג'יפ סיור צבאי לבית לחם הם מתים מפחד‬-‫פלסטיני‬
‫ אני חווה‬.‫ זאת דעתי‬.‫שאנחנו אומרים כי לא חווינו את הפחד של להיות בבית לחם זה לא הגיוני‬
.‫את הפחד של עצמי וזה לא עושה אותו יותר חשוב ויותר גדול מהפחד של מישהו אחר‬
"....‫רעש בכיתה‬
In this discussion the group once more addressed the role of media in influencing our
conflict perceptions and its contribution to our limited and one sided perception of the
conflict. But here another significant observation was being voiced, an observation
that our ignorance about the conflict reality as perceived and experienced by the other
side is not only an outcome of public discourse and the media but a deliberate choice
by each individual, a choice that is related to the readiness or capacity to perceive our
conflict relationship from both sides:
,‫ הם פה כל הזמן‬,)‫ בבית הסטודנט שוברים שתיקה (ארגון‬,‫ "אתה בוחר לאן להסתכל‬:‫משתתף‬
,‫ יש מלא דרכים להגיע לאן שרוצים עם בוחרים לראות את זה‬,‫ וכאילו‬.‫אז תמיד אני רואה אותו‬
31
‫ ואם אתה‬.‫וזה קצת איך שאתה בוחר להסתכל על המציאות ואיך שאתה בוחר להתמודד איתה‬
‫בוחר להתבונן על המציאות וחושב איך זה מתפרש בשני הצדדים אז אתה לא חייב שישב לידך‬
.‫ אני יכול להגיד אם אני הייתי בצד השני איך הייתי מרגיש‬.‫פלסטיני ויספר לך איך הוא מרגיש‬
".‫כמו שאני יודע להגיד שאם הייתי פלסטיני הייתי בארגון טרור‬
5.5 Our conflict relations: once we know more about the conflict sides and the
conflict relations, what can we do about them? What to do with the growing
gap and contradiction between what we learn here and what goes on out
there? What we think and do in relation to the conflict does it matter?
In meetings 9 and 10 with had guest lecturers who introduced social psychological
concepts relevant to the exploration of the conflict relations between Israelis and
Palestinians; the 11th meeting was a reflection meeting.
In meeting 9 our guest lecturer presented research on reconciliation in the context of
power asymmetry, and discussed needs based models of reconciliation. This led to a
reflexive conversation about the feasibility of reconciliation between Israelis and
Palestinians. Participants explored the concept of reconciliation, what are our and
their needs involved, the obstacles and opportunities for reconciliation.
The significance of power asymmetry incited a discussion about the feasibility that
the Israeli side will contribute to a conflict resolution in spite of the benefits of being
the more powerful side in the conflict. And related to this, the difficulty we as Israelis
have in acknowledging the needs and rights of the weaker side in the conflict. In this
meeting students attention moved to the feasibility of conflict resolution. In the
discussion students reflected on the contribution of narratives and cultural context to
our perceptions of the other, and related to this, our contribution to keeping the
conflict unresolved.
32
‫ אנחנו היינו‬,‫ השבריריות שלנו הייתה במשך שנים‬,‫ "אולי במקרה שלנו זה הפוך‬:‫משתתפת‬
‫ זה קצת נובורישי מצדנו להתנהג‬...‫קבוצת המיעוט ועכשיו פתאום יש קבוצת מיעוט שנהייתה‬
‫ עכשיו אנחנו חזקים ומצד אחד לא להיזכר בזה שאנחנו תמיד היינו‬,‫ זהו‬,‫ כי אומרים אה‬.‫ככה‬
,‫החלשים כי אם נישאר בתודעה הזאתי תמיד נהיה בתודעה של גלותיים אבל מצד שני אנחנו‬
‫ כי דווקא במקום של קונפליקט‬.‫כאילו זה שאנחנו שוכחים את זה לטובתנו ובעוכרנו בו זמנית‬
‫ אבל בתור מדינה לא כדאי‬.‫אנחנו צריכים לזכור שאנחנו גם היינו פעם קבוצת המיעוט הנרדפת‬
" .‫ זה ממש בעייתי‬,‫לנו להיות קבוצה כזאת‬
Meeting 10 introduced the concepts of honor and dignity. Similar to the previous
meeting the introduction of theoretical concepts was a trigger for exploring our own
culturally and politically based biases and concerns and implications in terms of
obstacles for introducing change in the conflict relations.
We explored the shared cultural context of lack of trust in the other, the illusion that
we know the other without actually perceiving the need to create opportunities for a
direct encounter with the other.
‫"הבעיה הכי גדולה זה שיש איזושהי סטריאוטיפ שאני חושב שאני מכיר כי אני‬.... :‫משתתף‬
"...‫יודע מי הפלסטיני האלה אני חי במדינת ישראל ואני יודע‬
This exploration addressed our shared discourse of security concern and the costs of
this discourse in relation to our capacity to engage in concepts of fairness, dignity and
respect in relation to the needs of the other.
At the outset of meeting 11 students observed that they were waiting for the
opportunity to discuss among themselves the last two meetings, that unlike before we
had two lectures in a row without a reflection meeting in between. Shared sense
making at this stage of the course became a need for course participants.
The conversation that developed for the first time dealt with the difficulty of bridging
the gap that students experienced between the thinking that evolved in the process of
the course and the experience of ongoing political reality. The atmosphere was tense
33
and full of frustration when discussions turned to the negotiation processes that took
place at this time.
‫ אנחנו‬,‫ ואחרי הפיגועים וכל הבלגן הזה‬.‫ "היה פיגוע בקו בבת ים שבוע שעבר‬:‫משתתפת‬
‫ כאילו אני לא מרגישה שיש‬..‫ ולא יודעת‬.‫ אנחנו משחררים אסירים‬,‫משחררים רוצחים‬
‫ בנאדם‬,‫ כמו שהיה לגלעד שליט‬...‫ וזהו‬.‫פרופורציה בין מה שאנחנו עושים למה שאנחנו מקבלים‬
" .‫ וזה קצת חורה לי‬,‫ מחבלים ואסירים‬1000 ‫אחד על‬
"..‫ " אני לא חושב שיש קשר בין כל התהליכים האלה לבין תהליך של פיוס או של‬:‫משתתף‬
‫ זה כאילו יוצר עוד יותר קונפליקט ועוד יותר התרחקות‬...‫ דיברנו על להכיר את האחר‬:‫משתתפת‬
" .‫מלהכיר באחר כשדברים כאלה קורים‬
‫ כדי‬,‫ "אני מסכים איתך ואני חושב שזאת המטרה שבגלל זה הדברים האלה נעשים‬:‫משתתף‬
".‫להביא את הכל לידי קונפליקט ולא לפתור אותו‬
The most dominant theme that was being expressed was the sense of futility, the
experience that the conflict is something that is beyond the capacity of students to
influence. The conflict is in the hands of political powers whose actions are difficult
to comprehend while the conflict dynamics are dangerous to each of us, a conflict that
contains terror and fear.
‫ זה‬..‫ כל פעם שאני קוראת את זה או שמדברים איתי על זה אני פשוט‬...‫ "זה בעיני‬:‫משתתפת‬
,‫ זה פוליטי מעוות‬.‫מעוות אני מרגישה שאנחנו כמו חיילים קטנים באיזה משחק של השלטון פה‬
‫ אולי אני מגזימה אבל‬...‫ זה נורא בעיני‬,‫זה לשחרר רוצחים! ולהמשיך לבנות בהתנחלויות‬
"...‫באמת‬
In this meeting the concept of us and them became vague. Within the atmosphere of
frustration and doubt that dominated this meeting the most dominant division was
between us as citizens who have difficulties in relying on them, which are the
politicians in general and the government in specific. One of the questions that
preoccupied students in this meeting was the value of what we learn here in the face
of the ongoing political processes.
34
‫" אני לא יודע למה מלנכוליה עלה פה אבל אני יכול להגיד שגם ברפלקציה כתבתי את‬:‫משתתף‬
‫ הרגשתי ששתי התיאוריות האחרונות הן בגדר התיאוריה וכשמנסים להביא לאקטואליה‬-‫זה‬
‫ יש אינטרסים פוליטיים של אחד ושל אחר ולכן לי האקטואליה היה‬,‫זה הרבה יותר מורכב‬
".‫ התיאוריות נשארות שמה בצד‬,‫הרבה יותר מעניין‬
Ultimately, the major theme in this meeting was the question of agency. To what
degree can we perceive of ourselves as individuals who are capable of reaching
decisions on how to act within the ongoing conflict reality? To what degree is
individual agency a matter of relevance and significance?
‫ "את אמרת שנוח לנו לחשוב שהכל מחוץ לידיים שלנו ונמצא בממשלה ברור שזה‬:‫משתתף‬
‫בידיים שלנו זה הכל מה שאנחנו בוחרים לעשות אם אני הולך למילואים במרץ אז זה איך אני‬
‫ צריך להיות אנשים יותר טובים אז הכל‬.‫מתייחס לפלסטינים ואם אני קונה מוצרים מהשטחים‬
‫ אני לא‬..‫ אם אני אמשיך להגיד שהאסירים הם רוצחים ואנחנו סבבה אז וואלה‬.‫יהיה יותר טוב‬
‫ ומי שמתוחכם יותר‬.‫חושב שצה"ל לא רוצח אבל אנחנו הורגים אנשים וככה זה עובד בקרב‬
‫מנצח במקרה הזה יש לנו מלא כסף ומלא דברים משוכללים שלהם אין ואם יום אחד זה יתהפך‬
‫ אם יום אחד אם יהיו חזקים יותר אז‬.‫אנחנו נרצה שאם יסתכלו עלינו כבני אדם ולא כרוצחים‬
".‫אנחנו נרצה להיות בני אדם ולא פלסטינים שיושבים בכלא‬
5.6 Setting expectations for our field excursion: what will it be like to
encounter narratives of the suffering of the other? How will it affect us?
Do we have agency? Can there be hope?
The next two meetings, 12 and 13, were a reflection of the learning so far and an
opportunity to examine expectations towards the second semester in the course in
which we will leave the class room and visits sites and encounter Palestinian
narratives of suffering.
In the beginning of the conversation the group discussed the significance of
encountering the suffering of the other; will we be able to contain both, ours and
35
theirs without experiencing competition of who suffered more? Can we relate to
suffering as inherent to the conflict and not as our conflict experience only?
‫ "כי יש פה משחק מי סובל יותר אז אנחנו נגיד להם על השואה והם יגידו על‬:‫משתתפת‬
"?‫הנכבה‬
‫ אנחנו לא בתחרות מי יותר סובל‬..‫ "למה לא לשבור את המשחק? זה לא מאבק כוחות‬:‫משתתף‬
‫ אבל יש משמעות לזה שיש עוד‬,‫ המשחק הוא שכולם סובלים‬,‫אבל יש משעות לזה שיש עוד סבל‬
"..‫סבל של מישהו אחר לאו דווקא מי סובל יותר‬
As was discussed in the group, the emotional challenges are related to feelings of guilt
and to challenges of the narratives we grew up with. As the group discovered, this is a
challenge of containing complexity, of acknowledging ours and the others'
perspective at the same time.
Another and related concern that preoccupied students was the feasibility of
symmetry between our acknowledgement of their suffering and their readiness for
reconciliation with us. As was discussed in this conversation, for many Israelis
Palestinian refusal to resolve the conflict is a given, the participation in an exploration
of the suffering of the other in itself challenges this premise.
‫ " אני חושבת שזה גם כוח וקבלה אם אני רוצה לפתור את זה והם בקטע של אנטי‬:‫משתתפת‬
‫ אני נמצאת בקורס‬,‫ מה שאגב‬.‫ מה זה משנה מה הם חושבים‬.‫ אי אפשר לנטרל את זה‬,‫וקבלה‬
‫ ואני רוצה להגיד‬.‫הזה ורוצה ללמוד ולהכיר והחברים שלי אומרים שהם בחיים לא יסכימו איתך‬
".‫ זה מאוד משנה מה הם חושבים‬.‫זה לא נכון אבל אני צריכה לשמוע את הזה‬
This conversation was an attempt to examine the feasibility of changes in the
relationship with the other. If we cope with the challenge of approaching our conflict
relationship from a perspective of complexity, taking into account our and their
perspectives and needs, will this contribute to a change in the conflict itself? In this
conversation students expressed diverse emotions; fear, apprehension, doubt but at
times also hope, while at the core of this is the question that was raised in the last
36
meeting: can we conceive agency based on our own perspectives, positions and
decisions?
Some of the frustration of being a young person who experiences conflict that was
created by others, in our and in their society, was dramatically expressed when
towards the end of the meeting one of the participants read out the letter of the
"children of Gaza", a letter that in blunt language blames Israeli and Palestinian
leadership for the ongoing daily experience of unbearable violence. At least in this
part of the conversation "we" became a category of those who are suffering a conflict
that was created by previous generations and for which the current generation pays a
dire price.
Agency and change towards the end of this meeting acquired a deeply personal
quality; agency and change were attributed to the capacity of the individual to gain
awareness of our and others complexities and act upon our own moral judgments.
‫" אני חושבת שאם הבנתי עכשיו מה החוויה שלי בדקות האחרונות או בשעה‬:‫משתתפת‬
‫ האמונה שלי ומה אנשים‬,‫האחרונה זה שיש רצון שתהיה תחושת השלמה עם העשייה שלי‬
‫ הצד‬.‫ ואני לא באה לבאס אבל נראה לי שזה יקרה כי זאת לא סיטואציה פשוטה‬.‫אחרים רוצים‬
‫האופטימי זה שאני חושבת שזה גם בסדר כי זה מאפשר להסתכל על דברים בצורה שהיא יותר‬
‫ כאילו נראה לי גם אתם אני יודעת על עצמי שאני‬.‫מורכבת כמו שאנחנו גם מסתכלים על עצמנו‬
‫בחורה שקשה לי להיות שלמה עם כל מיני דברים בחיים שלי שוב זה מצד אחד לקבל קושי‬
‫שאתה ממשיך לחיות איתו אבל יחד עם זה עכשיו דברים אחרים שהם לא פשוטים זה לא דרך‬
‫ זה יכול להיתפס‬, ‫ זה שאתה פועל למשהו אבל אתה לא שלם עם זה‬.‫חיים זה לא אורך חיים קל‬
" .‫כמוציא רוח למת‬
.........‫שקט‬
5.7 Encountering the other in the conflict: What to think about the conflict?
What to feel about the conflict? What to do about the conflict?
37
The group visited the towns of Ramle and Lod with a Palestinian guide who presented
an account of the Palestinians' experience of the war in 1948, including the hardships
suffered in the aftermath of the war.
These were narratives of suffering in the course of violence, including accounts of
mass murder, expulsion and life within segregated ghettos following the war.
At the end of the day students had a conversation with the guide; the weeks after we
have two consecutive meetings in which we processed the experience of this day.
The conversation with the guide at the end of the tour had two major parts. Initially
students questioned the information they received during the day; as the conversation
continued they addressed the question of what does the narrative of the Naqba imply
in regard to political solutions of the conflict.
In the first part of the conversation with the guide some of the students expressed their
difficulty of hearing a one sided narrative of violence without taking into account both
sides' contribution to the war at that time. They also asked what the agenda of the
guide is, does he wish us to feel guilty and ask for forgiveness or is his sole intention
to add to our knowledge?
These questions can be understood as expressions of apprehension, are we being
targeted for emotional manipulation, are we supposed to feel guilt for crimes done by
former generations, but they probably are mostly an expression of the emotional
challenge of encountering narratives of 'us violating them', of us being in the role of
perpetrators while they are our victims.
Other questions related to the given the context of the war, could events have been
different? Shouldn't we differentiate between our own values now and the context of
actions then, violence at that time are horrendous to us now, but maybe within the
context of the war such violence had to be expected?
38
The second part of the meeting focuses on the implication of the Naqba for the future.
‫ איפה הפלסטינאים כרגע עומדים‬,)‫ (עומאר צוחק‬:‫ "אני אשאל אותך כמדגם מייצג‬:‫משתתף‬
"?‫ מה‬,‫ החזרת פליטים‬,‫ החזרת רכוש‬:‫מבחינת לתקן עוולות‬
At this stage of the conversation the guide created another significant challenge to the
group. He is an outspoken advocate of an all citizen state in which Jews and
Palestinians share equal citizens' rights, from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River.
His perspective to most participants in the group was completely beyond the
acceptable for a Jewish citizen of the state of Israel, a perspective counter to the
narratives most in the group share.
‫ "כאילו דיברת על עניין ההכרה שהוא באמת מאוד מאוד שוב גם באמת התחלת בזה‬:‫משתתף‬
‫שכל הנושא של הסיור הוא להכיר בסבל של הנכבה ואני באמת חושב שזה מאוד חשוב אבל אני‬
‫חושב שכאילו ללא הכרה בצורך במדינה יהודית באמת אני בטוח שאתה איש שמחפש שלום לפי‬
‫הדברים שאני רואה ממך אהה ואני יכול להגיד לך שגם אני כזה אבל אני יכול להגיד לך במבט‬
‫סובייקטיבי כי כמו שאמרת אין דבר כזה מבט אובייקטיבי כבנאדם יהודי לא דתי בכלל כאילו‬
".‫אותי מאוד מפחיד לחשוב על הרעיון של מדינת כל אזרחיה‬
Following this encounter with narratives of the Naqba with had two reflection
meetings, meetings 14 and 15. In the first reflection meeting discussions were tense,
their focus was mostly on the rational/cognitive level; in the second meeting there was
a shift to a more emotional level.
In the first reflection meeting we had an exploration of conflict narratives and
perspectives, an exploration of opportunities and obstacles for changing given conflict
reality. It was a significant conversation with abundant insights and deliberations. But
towards the end we realized that there was an underlying emotional process that was
mostly unspoken yet, a process related to the deeply upsetting experience of
encountering narratives of suffering of the other, narratives we were not aware of
before, narratives that contradict our narratives and sense of self and other.
39
The conversation started out with accounts of diverse responses to the narratives we
encountered. For some it was a wake up call, how come we didn't hear before of these
accounts? Others were afraid of manipulation by the Palestinian guide, was he trying
to manipulate us by presenting one sided accounts of what happened? And there were
those for whom the encounter with the others' narratives was significant but they were
ill at ease with what to do with what they encountered. We can relate to the suffering
of the other with sincere empathy, but where exactly does it leave us in relation to the
other, in relation to what needs to be done about the conflict?
‫ "לי זה דווקא לא מה שהיה מוזר אתה אומר שאתה מצפה לשמוע אמת אבל זה אמת‬:‫משתתף‬
‫ ומשהו שנה לא ציפיתי שהוא ידבר על‬20 ‫נרטיבית ואת הסיפור שלנו אנחנו כבר מכירים כבר‬
‫ יצאתי מתוסכל כי הצלחתי‬. ‫שחרור העיר אני הרגשתי כאילו עכשיו אני שומע סיפור אחר‬
‫ גם לפני זה‬.‫להרגיש אמפטיה אבל מה אני עושה עם זה והשורה התחתונה היא שאין מה לעשות‬
‫שדיברנו על ועדות הפיוס והאמת שאפשר פשוט להכיר ולבקש סליחה וזהו אבל גם בדרום‬
‫ וגם שדיברנו על עומאר מבחינתו לשמוע את הסליחה זה לא מספיק‬.‫אפריקה עשו את זה אחרי‬
".‫ולעשות משהו זה לוותר על המדינה היהודית‬
Of specific concern was that the political position presented by the Palestinian guide
threatened the students' sense of identity, identity that is anchored in narratives of
Zionism. The conversation gained complexity when participants explored their
involvement in collective narratives of victimhood and deep fear, the affect on our
perceptions and needs, on our difficulty to relate to the other beyond power relations
and to relate to the other in terms of shared history and future.
‫ "היה איזה שלב שהוא אמר בשיחת סיכום אתם יהודים יש לכם תסביך עם שליטה‬:‫משתתפת‬
‫ואני חושבת שהוא צודק שהוא אמר את זה שאם תבינו את זה אולי תוכלו להיפטר מזה ואני‬
‫ והמפעל היהודי ציוני מאוד קשור‬..‫חושבת שהוא צודק ואני חושבת שהוא צריך גם להכיר בזה‬
.‫ ולי מאוד הפריע שהוא אמר את זה בתור משהו שאנחנו צריכים להכיר בו ולצאת ממנו כבר‬,‫לזה‬
‫ תסביך השליטה שלי הוא לא בשביל לשלוט על מישהו‬,‫וזה מפחיד להגיד מדינת כלל אזרחיה‬
40
‫ לא בגלל‬.‫הוא בשביל לשלוט על עצמי ועל החיים שלי ולא בשביל לשלוט על מישהו אחר‬
..‫שאיראן יכולה לעשות לי שואה כל שבוע אבל אני‬
Participants debated diverse positions in regard to a future in which national identity
becomes less dominant in our perceptions of self, a future in which we are able to
consider us and them in a more complex manner, beyond our fear of losing control of
our collective destiny. For some this was a deeply frightening proposition, for others
an exciting and hope inspiring opportunity.
Towards the end of the meeting the conversation moved into a reflection about
unheard voices in the group, about the difficulty of many in the group to have a
conversation about conflict, identity and conflict resolution while the experience of
the site visit is still a deeply upsetting experience, the narrative of us in the role of
murderers of them is something that still needs to be processed.
‫" אני מרגישה שמתחילת הדיון השיח הוא קצת מורחק בגלל שקשה לנו להתמודד‬:‫משתתפת‬
‫ למשל הטבח במסגד זה משהו שהו להכיל אז אנחנו מתרגמים את‬.‫עם מה שעומאר אמר בסיור‬
".‫ כלל אזרחיה והשיח הוא כאילו מרחף למעלה ונשאר שם‬,‫השיח הזה לזהות‬
As was expressed at the end of this meeting, the emotional significance of
encountering narratives of suffering of the other needs to be acknowledged and
processed in order to enable the group to fully engage in an exploration of the
significance of was encountered.
Meeting 15 was initially planned to set expectations and explore thoughts in relation
to the upcoming field trip to east Jerusalem. In the first part of the meeting facilitators
presented the upcoming program and invited participants to respond and explore
thoughts and feelings towards this site visit. But after a while the conversation moved
to an exploration of the emotional dimension of the learning process, an exploration
that in a direct manner continued the conversation that took place the week before; the
41
exploration of the emotional impact was a need that the group had to respond to for
the learning process to further develop.
At the outset of the meeting facilitators presented the agenda of the upcoming site
visit, which focuses on life under occupation and will be guided by an Israeli and
Palestinian.
In the conversation that evolved students expressed their hope for guidance that
creates space for both narratives, something that many found missing in the previous
tour, some commented that narratives cannot be objective by nature because they
always contain subjective perspectives.
As was being expressed there was much interest but also tension in the face of a site
tour that is close to where many participants live, but also close in the sense that for
those who do and did army service in the occupied territories this is an encounter with
the experience of the other of life under occupation. A very significant observation
that was being made related to the expectation of gaining proximity to the conflict. In
Israeli daily life conflict appears to be both, never ending, but also distant, a reality
that takes place in the now and out there. At least on a purely human level, especially
the violence that the other experiences is a reality which is not accessible within
Israeli discourse.
‫ ברמלה הרגשתי מורחקת בגלל המדריך ושזה לא‬,‫ "כל העניין של רחוק וקרוב‬:‫משתתפת‬
‫רלוונטי אלי ושזה מנגנון הגנה והסיור בירושלים אני מצפה לו כי אולי זה יגרום לסכסוך להות‬
‫ אולי יגרום לי‬.‫יותר קרוב ראלי כי שם אני חיה ולשמוע צדדים שונים של מה שיהיה שם‬
".‫להקשיב או להתקרב‬
The conversation from here on was about the emotional dimension of conflict
experience and the emotional impact of our learning experience. For probably the first
time in this course emotions were less "acted out" or part of a subtle subtext within
the ongoing learning process, emotions were shared and explored, even though the
42
emotions shared were so diverse that the experience within the group was at times an
intense conflict experience.
Initially students described how they felt during and after the last site visit. There was
guilt and shame upon hearing about the violence our grandparents did; a deep sense of
tragedy and/or anger and/or fear and anxiety as a result of discovering what we were
never told; anger, fear and anxiety both as a result of discovering the depth of the
conflict and also in response to the guide's outlook on what is a just resolution of the
conflict, a justice that contradicts our sense of Israeli identity.
Much of what was expressed at this part of the conversation can be described as the
costs or pains of learning, learning in the sense of encountering dimensions of conflict
reality that in the course of daily life, of dominant conflict discourse is strongly
avoided by most.
This led the group to inquire about the relationship between emotions, political
thinking and action. Is our emotional disposition towards the other and towards the
conflict a reflection of our political position, or maybe is it the opposite, political
position as a result of what we feel? But all appeared to agree that political positions
in terms of right and left relate to the types of emotions more dominant; empathy for
the other and possibly guilt is associated with leftist positions, suspicion and fear of
the other is associated with rightist positions..
From here on the atmosphere became tense, initially on the questions of agency in the
sense, what can we do with what we experience, especially when we expose ourselves
to empathy for the pain of the other, and possibly experience guilt.
‫ לי יש כבר עשרים שנה רגשות אשמה אבל אני‬.‫ "אני מנסה לחשוב לאן לקחת את זה‬:‫משתתף‬
‫חי אותם ולקיחת אחריות המון המון זן וזה מלווה אותי כל הזמן ואני יכול הלבן את הפחד של‬
".‫ זה חרא להרגיש את זה ולא בטוח שזה נכון‬.‫מישהו אחר להבין את זה‬
43
?‫ "אני יכול להרגיש מה שאני רוצה אבל אז אני מקבל צו מילואים אז איך אני מפריד‬:‫משתתף‬
".‫נראה לי לא הגיוני בישראל בכלל‬
Even though some assumed that the experience of pain can be a generator for political
involvement it appears that deep down conflict remained a reality that we cannot
actively change. Active agency within the conflict appeared to be much more feasible
as part of the ongoing institutions such as army service which ultimately sustains the
given conflict reality than agency aimed at changing or transforming conflict reality.
At this stage the group addressed a division that so far remained unacknowledged, a
division related to what participants categorized as political and non political
positions.
‫ זה נראה לי קצת‬..‫ "אני לא סולד מהם [הלא פוליטיים] אבל אני חושב שכאילו‬:‫משתתף‬
".‫אדישות‬
‫ אני חושבת כל מיני מחשבות אבל אני אף‬.‫ לי אין עמדה פוליטית מגובשת‬.‫ "לא נכון‬:‫משתתפת‬
"..‫פעם לא יודעת למי להצביע‬
........‫רעש‬
Once this intra group split was in the open the conversation became tense, the
experience was of conflict and the exploration of this tension might be one of the
most challenging ones we had in the learning process. What does the categorization of
political and non political participants imply to learning on conflict reality as
experienced within the group and Israeli society at large? One of the "non political"
participants suggested an interpretation that might indicate a possible course of
discovery:
‫ "אני מרגישה שיש פה פיצול בין דיבור פוליטי לדיבור לא פוליטי יש ממש קו מפריד‬:‫משתתפת‬
‫ אנחנו פה מדברים על הסבל של‬.‫שהוא שרירותי אבל הוא בא מתוך מנגנון בחברה שמייצר אותי‬
"?‫אנשים שחיים בתוכנו בחברה ואוטומטית הדיבור הזה מוגדר כפוליטי אבל אני שואלת למה‬
It appears that for participants emotions that we experience and express in relation to
the other within the conflict reality we experience is foremost a political statement, by
44
the type of emotion that is presented we place ourselves within the categories of left
or right.
This implies that emotions within the context of conflict discourse are
subject to political rules, which implies there are politics of emotions. The types of
challenges that are implied: can I express fear of the other without becoming a
rightist? Can I express pain for the suffering of the other without becoming a leftist?
Can I express any emotion without becoming categorized politically? Can I have
diverse emotions toward the other without complicating my political position? But
foremost, I suggest, that these types of unwritten rules prevent us from directly
encountering the other, because an authentic encounter with the other within conflict,
as we discover throughout the course, gives rise to diverse introspections and related
emotional experiences.
One of the participants suggested a very striking analysis of how our shared political
climate prevents us from relating to the other as a human being with needs and rights
we must respect:
‫ "הכרתי מישהי שממש חשוב לה צער של בעלי חיים אבל היא הייתה מאוד ימנית‬:‫משתתף‬
‫קיצונית לגבי הסכסוך הישראלי פלסטיני ולא הבנתי איך אפשר ליישב את זה היה לי ממש‬
‫ דווקא בחברה שלנו יש ניסיון להפריד בין הרגש לפוליטיקה כי‬.‫קונפליקט בראש לגבי העניין‬
‫ במקום לחפש את ההשלכות יכול‬.‫אנחנו נגד סבל של בני אדם אבל במקרה הזה זה היה הכרחי‬
‫להיות שאם ערך חיי האדם היה החשוב ביותר אז יכול להיות שלא היו הורגים את מי שנהרג‬
‫ ודווקא ההפרדה הזאת שאנחנו עושים זה דווקא לא דבר טוב כי אנחנו שמים את‬.‫במחסום‬
".‫הדעה הפוליטית מעל הערכים ואי אפשר לנתק בין השניים‬
This observation lead to introspection, a number of participants expressed their
apprehension and experience of difficulties once they are aware of what conflict
implies, once they acknowledge the pain of the other, such as serving in the army in
the occupied territories, or of living in a settlement. At this stage of the process the
45
atmosphere in the room became quiet and thoughtful. The major question that
remained was on what to do with what we discover in this course.
‫ "אז אולי התעסקות בפוליטיקה זאת הדרך להרגיש לא כי אני רוצה להחזיר את‬:‫משתתפת‬
.‫השיח לפוליטיקה כי חזרתי מהסיור מאוד מתוסכלת וחשבתי מה עושים עכשיו למי מצביעים‬
‫ לא היה לי נוח עם מה שעומאר אמר‬.‫הרגשתי שיש לי אחריות ואני לא יודעת מה לעשות עם זה‬
" .‫וחיפשתי לי תרגום חיפשתי דרך שבה אתה הולך עם הרגשות ולא מחביא אותם‬
5.8 Once more, encountering the other in the conflict: can we contain the
pain of the other? Are there "others" who are like us? Can we imagine
and act towards change?
The site trip to east Jerusalem included a meeting with three generations of refugees,
first, second and third generation, who today live in a refugee camp near Bethlehem; a
search for the home village of the Palestinian guide which disappeared underneath
buildings of a settlement; a visit of a school in a refugee camp in north Jerusalem,
which includes crossing a checkpoint and the wall, and at the end of the day a visit to
the east Jerusalem offices of the Palestinian professor students met in the course with
a concluding discussion with the guides.
In meetings with refugees and conversations with the Palestinian guide much interest
was focused on questions of their sense of identity as Palestinians, their perspectives
on Israelis, their expectations towards conflict resolution. The entrance and exit
through the check post at the wall and the visit of the school was en encounter with
misery and poverty, students responded to the severity of poverty and undignified
living conditions.
At the end of the day we had a conversation with the guides, and questions were
directed to the Palestinian guide. Questions focused foremost on his perspective of
what is the type of solution needed to end the conflict, is it one state, two states, and
46
what is his view on the Palestinian political leadership. There was a sense of relief in
the room when he stated that even though in his view a just solution has to be in the
framework of one state he assumes that this will be an eventual outcome of an
extended process starting with two nation states, and when he admitted that
Palestinians so far lack leadership capable of leading towards conflict resolution.
In our reflection meeting processing of the experience of the day in east Jerusalem
there were a number of challenges that participants shared. The conversation related
to empathy with the suffering of adults and children who lack so much on the material
and non material level, the contradicting narratives related to refugees, Naqba and
holocaust, the political context of conflicting interests between us and them as sides in
the conflict. How to make sense and identify coherent positions in relation to us, them
and our conflict relations? Within the group we had diverse voices that contributed to
a process of complexity in this meeting, probably more so than ever before in the
course.
Participants struggled specifically with the implication of acknowledgement and
empathy for the suffering of the other within the given context reality. Experiencing
empathy for the suffering of the other, what does it imply in terms of our narratives,
our identity and what does it imply in terms of responsibility. For some empathy had
to be resisted, it implies an attempt to manipulate my feelings, turn me into a leftist
whose mission is to "convert" others in our society to "switch sides" at the cost of our
own identity.
‫ "כשמדברים פה על אחריות זה כמו ששני הדודים של מנאר הרגשתי שהם רצו‬:‫משתתפת‬
‫ הרגשתי שאני צריכה להיות שגרירה של השמאל ולהעביר את‬.‫שנהיה השגרירים שלהם‬
‫ אני מרגישה אחריות כלפי‬.‫הסיפור של הצד השני הלאה ואני לא מרגישה טיפת אחריות כזו‬
".‫עצמי לשמר את הנרטיב של המשפחה שלי הלאה‬
47
In the course of this conversation the group discovered additional options asides the
experience of either/or between competing narratives and related identities. For some
the sense of shared responsibility between sides for the conflict and the suffering it
implies helps to contain the pain of empathy. For others empathy and
acknowledgement of the suffering of the other apparently created an opportunity for
agency. Agency in the sense of sharing what I learned with those around me, or in the
sense of creating for me a more complete understanding and position towards the
conflict.
‫ אוקיי אני‬.‫ "אני חושבת שזה בעייתי להגיד שאני צד בעניין ולא לקחת אחריות‬:‫משתתפת‬
‫מכירה בזה אבל מה הצעד הבא? אני הרגשתי אחרי הסיור הראשון זה להגיד טוב זכות השיבה‬
‫ אני חושבת שעצם זה שיש מחנה פליטים זה חותם‬.‫מדינת כלל אזרחיה ולא היה לי נוח עם זה‬
‫ מה זה מעניין אם אנחנו מבינים ומכירים‬.‫על מפת המדינה שעל זה אנחנו צריכים לקחת אחריות‬
"?‫ולא עושים עם זה שום דבר‬
Towards the end of this meeting the group discovered a possible venue of hope, hope
as an outcome of recognizing the diversity among the other, foremost in terms of
generations; the older generations in the role of hardliners who lose their relevancy
while younger generations may still respect the narratives of the elder but are guided
by the capacity to face today's reality in a more pragmatic manner. This theme was
quickly translated also into the context of "us" as a young generation, as occurred a
couple of times before: the older generations created for us conflict and violence, can
we the young possibly go beyond what they, the elders, created for us?
‫ הרגשתי שאני רוצה שילכו כבר כדי‬,‫ "הזקנים שדיברו הרגישו לי כל כך תלושים‬:‫משתתפת‬
".‫ המבוגרים לא היו בשפה שלי ויפנו לי את הדרך כדי שאעשה שינוי‬.‫שאנחנו נעשה את זה‬
‫ ואולי עוד כמה עשורים‬,‫ "גם אנחנו כביכול מתמודדים עם ניצולי השואה שמתים‬:‫משתתף‬
".‫שנתאושש מהאסון שלנו נוכל יותר להיות פנויים לפיוס אמיתי ופתרון‬
48
This meeting addressed the obstacles and opportunities for a significant
acknowledgement of the suffering of the other, the contradiction or challenge was:
how can we encounter the suffering of the other while our shared narratives and
premises imply that we need to resist empathy, the acknowledgement of violence and
our contribution to this. The capacity to contain empathy and to acknowledge our
contribution to violence appears to be related to the emergence of a sense of possible
agency, agency as a concept that slowly evolved in recent meetings: agency that is
based on the acknowledgement of diverse narratives and identities, a complex view of
us and them [generations, destructive and constructive voices among us and them], a
secure sense of our own identity, and the capacity to position myself towards the
conflict in coherence to my thoughts, feelings and judgments..
5.9 What did we experience in this course? The gain and pain of encountering a
reality we are not supposed to see and feel.
The last course meeting provided an opportunity to explore participants' perspectives
on the experience of the course.
In the first of half of the meeting each participant presented his and her experience.
There was a consensus about the value of discovering a conflict reality beyond the
scope of what we know about the conflict. Related to this most students expressed the
pain of this discovery; since encountering the pain of the other is an encounter with
the violence they endure and we contribute to the conflict. But at the same time there
was consensus that this experience is of intrinsic value because it strengthens our
capacity to create an understanding of the conflict reality beyond what we are taught
and told. For some this creates hope, especially in relation to the discovery that some
Palestinians are moderates who wish to end the conflict not necessarily at our sole
49
expense, for others hope is remote because of the inherent complexity of the conflict.
Another significant observation that students shared is on the value of diversity within
the learning group. There was deep appreciation of participants who contributed
positions and perspectives that challenged what students identified as hegemonic
voices in the group, perspectives that challenged secular leftists positions, and at the
same time there was apprehension that possibly this group was not diverse enough
because convinced rightists will not join a course that is titled encountering the
suffering of the other.
The second half of the meeting was a conversation in which students further explored
the significance of this course to them. At this stage the conversation related to
diverse types of fear that apparently are very central to both, the experience of conflict
and the experience of learning.
Fear is associated with the other, and the course experience contributed to some in
their capacity to liberate themselves from the automatic response of fear of the other.
‫ אנחנו מאוד מונעים‬,‫ גם אם נמחוק את מה שהיה בעבר‬,‫ "אני רוצה לשתף משהו‬:‫משתתפת‬
‫ ישנתי אצל אח שלי בירושלים ושמתי‬.‫מפחד ואחד הדברים שהפתיעו אותי זה שלא פחדתי‬
"...‫ הלוואי שיום אחד נפסיק לפחד‬.‫ווייס לב"ש והוא הסיע אותי דרך השטחים ואז כן פחדתי‬
Fear was also associated with the discovery of hidden facets of conflict reality and
implications to challenges on how to retain a coherent sense of self and justice. Fear is
also a result of expressing emotional responses that within the evolving discourse in
the course appear to be illegitimate, such as expressing fear of Arabs.
In the discussion on the influence of the course on their positions towards the conflict
most students emphasized their increased capacity to address the conflict from a
position of openness towards the other and their capacity to contain their and the
others narratives and needs; for some the result of the course was a position they
50
termed as more rightist in the sense of being more focused on their own narratives and
interests within the conflict.
.
5. 10 Conclusions of findings
In this section I will summarize major findings that can be discerned throughout the
course process that is presented here, with specific attention to the learning dynamic
and its impact on the evolving perceptions of us and them and the conflict relations.
The course design and facilitation created a learning environment in which
participants engaged in the exploration of us and them within the conflict. This was
done by introducing theoretical and research based concepts, by creating encounters
with Palestinian narratives presented by lecturers, guides and site visits, and of utmost
significance in terms of the evolving learning process, intra group dialogue in which
participants explored the significance of what we encounter. The learning
environment encouraged reflexivity in an exploration of our involvement in shared
narratives, in societal power relations, an exploration that involved the cognitive and
emotional dimensions of learning as a process of change.
A most striking discovery in this process is the dynamic interrelation between
exploring the other and exploring ourselves. The more participants encountered the
other, in lectures and site trips, the more the exploration gained complexity; foremost
in terms of containing knowledge about us and them, of containing contradicting
narratives, and diverse and at times painful emotions. Learning about diversity within
Palestinian society triggered a dynamic exploration of the diversity within the group
related to diverse collective identities, related narratives and power relations. The
growing capacity to address in reflexive manner diversity within the learning group,
51
to experience conflict and explore conflict among participants correlated to the
growing capacity to address involvement in conflict relations with Palestinians from a
position of critical reflexivity. Especially when we left the class room and
encountered on site narratives of the Naqba and the occupation the group engaged in
the extreme challenge of acknowledging and processing in authentic manner the
experience of diversity and contradictions between them and us and within us. And
foremost the group coped with the challenge of containing the pains of learning about
us and them in the context of violent conflict, pains inherent to an empathetic
encounter with the pain of the other in the context of asymmetric conflict.
This process of discovery ultimately led the group to questions of what to do with
what is discovered. For some this implied how to contain my sense of self within
Zionist narratives which in this course apparently were challenged. For others the
challenge was on how to share with others, such as family what I discovered about a
conflict reality that contains not only our narratives and perspectives, what position to
take towards the conflict and our role within the conflict, and possibly how to act as
an involved and aware citizen of this state. For all, the experience of learning implied
an increased sense of awareness of us and them within the shared conflict. The
learning dynamics were transformative in as far as the inter identity approach to the
other in the course of the learning process became a trigger for discovering and
acknowledging the diversity and complexity within our own society, the complexity
of relations between us and them as partners to a prolonged and ongoing conflict, and
the diversity and complexity within the society of the other. Collective identity
became a fluid concept, clarity and rigidity of who is the collective us and them gave
way to the acknowledgement of diversity and complexity of these concepts within the
Israeli society and between social groups in both societies, related to factors such as
52
religion/secularity, ethnicity, generations, gender. This perspective of complexity
contributed to the capacity of participants to encounter narratives and suffering of the
other with increasing empathy and to cope with the emotional and cognitive
challenges of critical reflexivity within the context of an asymmetric conflict.
6. Discussion
In the previous section I presented major findings on perceptions of "us"; "them" our
"conflict relations" and the evolving changes in these perceptions throughout the
course process. In this section I will discuss the significance of findings in relation to
literature that guided the research design. Moreover, I will offer an interpretation of
these findings by proposing a conceptualization of major interrelated mechanisms that
contribute to the social construction of conflict reality that can be discerned
throughout the course process and discuss obstacles and opportunities for change in
the construction of conflict reality that we discovered in the course. This will allow us
to discuss the possible contribution of
encountering narratives of the other to
positions on reconciliation.
The social construction mechanisms that I propose are an attempt to identify
unwritten, taken for granted principles or assumptions that are implied throughout the
evolving discourse in the group. I suggest that these principles are an outcome of
Israeli deep culture as related to collective conflict perceptions, a deep culture that is
deeply embedded in the given deep structure of the conflict. [Galtung 2009]. These
mechanisms serve to adjust our perceptions of ongoing conflict, the violence
involved, and our role in the conflict relations with the other. [Adwan and Bar-On
2001, Bar-Tal 2007, Darweish 2010]..
53
We must not know too much! [‫[שלא ניידע‬
Throughout our course students took notice how little knowledge they have about the
history and the complexity of the conflict, and foremost how little they know about
our partners to the conflict, the Palestinians. As students discussed on a number of
occasions, what we know about the other and the others' experience and perceptions
of the conflict is not common knowledge due to Zionist narratives in the education
system, the immediate social environment, and the mainstream media. The legitimate
sources of knowing about the other are our collective narratives. To learn about the
other through personal encounters with the other, or by encountering the others'
narratives is deemed illegitimate and/or misleading; illegitimate and/or misleading
because we suspect that the other will manipulate us and distort the facts we belief in.
When students explored their limited and one sided knowledge about the other their
insights actually resonate literature on the political psychology of conflict, literature
that describes the role of hegemonic narratives in defining what is legitimate
knowledge on the conflict, foremost in relation to questions of historic justice which
is "ours only" [ Adwan & Bar-On 2001; Bar-Tal 1998; Litvack Hirsch, Bar-On &
Chaitin 2003; Saguy, Adwan & Kaplan 2002]. Of interest is the observation made by
some that lack of knowledge about the other cannot be attributed to lack of
opportunities only. Students are aware of alternative sources of information, such as
civil society initiatives that address the conflict from a critical perspective. The
reluctance or resistance to actively gain information from such sources appears to be
related to the assumption that to expose ourselves to knowledge that might counter
our perceptions of us and the other within the conflict raises questions about loyalty to
our side. As students mentioned, as long as the course title is "encountering the
suffering of the other" students who consider themselves rightists committed to the
54
value of a Jewish nation state endangered by Palestinian resistance, might doubt the
legitimacy of the knowledge and learning in this course. Also the students who
decided to join the course were at times concerned if they are not being manipulated
by Palestinian guides, lecturers and guests who presented accounts of the conflict
history that contradict what students assumed. Why is it so important to not know
about the other and the multi facets of conflict reality? A major challenge that
students discovered in their conversations relates to what the literature identified as
challenges related to identity needs in conflict [Kelman 2004; Nadler & Schnabel
2008; Rouhana 2004]. The discovery of suffering of the other involves questions of
justice and perceptions of self within the conflict. [Bar-Tal 1998; Saguy & Adwan
2002; Litvack Hirsch, Bar-On & Chaitlin 2003] At the same time, students attributed
much value to their encounter with new types of knowledge. On a number of
occasions participants described the realization that their knowledge and perceptions
of the other are so firmly rooted in one sided narratives as an important wake up call.
This discovery turned out to be deeply upsetting and even painful, for many of the
students it felt like a breach of their trust in social institutions such as schools and
media. But at the same time this learning experience proved to be liberating as well in
the sense of increased individual autonomy. But more on the dynamics of coping with
the costs and benefits of change in the discussion of the next mechanisms, which of
course are all interrelated.
The other must be feared!
The fear that students share towards the other side in the conflict, the Palestinian, is
deep and powerful. Throughout the course fear of Palestinians is a predisposition that
to all involved is natural and self understood. At times it can be related to formative
55
experiences, such as a childhood in which the danger of suicide bombers [during the
second Intifada] was imminent. Also the rocket attacks from Gaza in more recent
years nurtured the experience of terror in association to the other. From a narrative
perspective fear of the other is obviously linked to the assumption that violence is
mostly or at least initially directed against us, which serves as a powerful justification
for our part in wars and other acts of violence. [Bar Tal 2007; Galtung 2009, Rouhana
2004 ].
Significant turning points within the course process were testimonies by students who
serve in the army and who shared their direct involvement in acts of violence against
Palestinian civilians. These created intense debates and discussions in which the
group addressed the possibility that we are not the only ones who experience immense
fear within ongoing conflict reality. In intra group discussions, in meetings with
Palestinian lecturers, and probably most powerful in its emotional impact, during our
site visits the "natural" assumption that we are mainly victims of violence while they
are mainly perpetrators of violence was deeply challenged. Especially towards the end
of our course students explored the emotional impact of realizing that fear of the other
as an outcome of experiencing violence is inherent to being Palestinian. Students
discovered two related challenges. One related to justice, can we possibly perceive
that throughout the conflict we abused and still abuse military and other types of
power and still regain our sense of collective self anchored in shared humanistic
values? Another challenge relates to the realization that our fear of the other is not
necessarily an outcome of individual experience and sense making only. As the group
discussed, it appears that our fear is nurtured and even manipulated within a societal
discourse that attributes violence to the other only. These realizations do not
necessarily result in losing fear of the other. As was expressed by some, fear of the
56
other is deeply seated, but learning about the pain and fears of the other contributes to
the capacity of differentiating between fear intrinsic to our experience of conflict and
the capacity to learn and relate to the other beyond the attribution of violence. In this
context the course similar to other research on narratives of suffering indicates that
encountering the suffering of the other is an experience that potentially contributes to
the capacity to change our perception of the other and relate to the other with
empathy. [Adwan & Bar-On 2001;
Chaitin & Steinberg 2008; Steinberg 2004;
Saguy & Adwan 2006;] The more students learned about the suffering of the other the
more they developed the capacity to contain the possibility that even though we
experience fear towards the other, the other does so as well. As we saw in our
findings, this discovery causes pain on a number of levels. There is the immediate
pain of experiencing empathy for the other based on our sense of shared humanity.
There is what we might call pains of learning, which relates to the shocking
realization that what we have been told is not necessarily true, which is an experience
of manipulation and even betrayal. Another cause of pain is the realization that our
perceptions of self are possibly incorrect, since in the history of the conflict we as
Israelis contributed and still contribute to violence. The coping mechanisms with
these types of pain were diverse. All of them dealt with identity needs related
challenges, such retaining a sense of coherency and just position within the conflict
context [ Kelman 2004; Maos 2012; Nadler, Malloy and Fisher 2008; Nadler and
Schnabel 2008] Examples are assumptions, that if the other suffered there must have
been a reason, we caused them suffering because they must have done something to
provoke our violence to them. For some the realization, or assumption, that without
the Naqba we could not have created the state of Israel as a Jewish nation state created
a sense of balance, the violence done to Palestinians is terrible but the creation of a
57
Jewish nation state is of intrinsic value. For some the discovery of the interrelation
between the Naqba and the foundation of the state of Israel caused radical rethinking
about what could be a just solution of the conflict, taken into account our and their
needs, such as an all citizen state. It appears that for most students fear of the other as
a guiding principle for how to relate to the other gave way to more complex
perspectives. The group developed doubts about fear as a justification for structural
violence as was witnessed in east Jerusalem. The natural assumption that we need to
monopolize power and relate to power as a rare resource that cannot be shared
because otherwise it will be used against us [Francis 2011] is being questioned,
specifically when students encountered Palestinians who shared their personal
transformation from positions of militant opponents of the state of Israel and Jewish
presence in historic Palestine to positions of accepting the existence of the other and
readiness for a peaceful transformation of the conflict. But we must note that even
though students deeply appreciated the discovery of moderate and peace oriented
Palestinians many remained deeply apprehensive about proposed solutions to the
conflict which contradict the premise of the state of Israel as a Jewish state.
Asides fear students discovered that emotional responses to human suffering of the
other are influenced by political rules [Francis 2011; Galtung 1990; Lederach 1995;
Mack 1990]. If fear of the other appears to correspond to what is considered within
Israeli society a rightist or patriotic position, empathy is considered a leftist or
universalistic and potentially unpatriotic position. Possibly the division we discovered
between political and non political positions indicates on how Israeli political
discourse influences and even limits the legitimacy of diverse authentic emotional
responses to violence in the context of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Israeli deep
culture of conflict appears to serve as a defense against spontaneous emotional
58
responses to violence towards the other based on empathy or even compassion
[Galtung 1990, Staub 2003]. In the course students discovered that fear and empathy
appear to be binary positions which might draw you into a tense confrontation on
ideology and political position. Within the course process only when diversity of
positions and perspectives became a feasible possibility in the group discourse
participants managed to express diverse emotional responses to the experience of
conflict reality without being drawn into fierce political and ideological debates.
We and they are fundamentally different!
As proposed in the literature on the social psychology of societies in intractable
conflict the prolonged experience of conflict contributes to psychological needs such
as justifying our role in the conflict, and related to this conceiving us and them in
binary and even largely undifferentiated ways; the other serves us in defining
ourselves in opposite manner [Bar-Tal 2007, Adwan and Bar-On 2001]. Within an
evolving deep culture of conflict violence towards the other is legitimate and
unavoidable because they are not like us, they cannot accept us and we need to
prevent them endangering our existence. [Galtung 2009, Francis 2011] Asides the
dimension of fear of the other inherent to such a position there is an underlying
assumption that we and they are not only completely different, within each society
there is some basic homogeneity which allows us to think of the differences between
societies in binary terms. The other serves us as an opportunity for defining who we
are, or in other words, we are unlike them, they are unlike us [Bar-Tal 2007].
This mechanism underwent a significant transformation. The exploration of the other
within the conflict context contributed to a dynamic inter-identity exploration. The
course introduced complex perspectives about Palestinian society, perspectives that
59
represent critical analyses of conflicting narratives and social groups, of power
mechanisms and evolving cultures and political aspirations within Palestinian society.
The intra group dialogue that evolved in response to this triggered a reflexive
exploration of power relations and mechanisms, and of contradicting narratives and
collective identities within Israeli society. Participants explored the diversity within
the group, and the evolving acknowledgement of diversity within the group
contributed to the capacity to explore diverse and at times conflicting perspectives on
the conflict and the conflict relations between Israelis and Palestinians. Facilitation
encouraged reflexivity by inviting students to voice and explore their different
perspectives on Israeli society, their perspectives on collective identities within Israeli
society, and the resulting diversity on how to relate to the other and to the conflict. I
suggest that the capacity to perceive the other in terms of complexity is closely related
to the capacity to perceive ourselves in terms of complexity. The emotional
experience of complexity was at times very challenging to students. The group had to
find ways on how to deal with the experience of identity based conflict between
participants foremost in relation to ethnicity and religion/secularity. The more the
group gained the capacity to contain diversity without experiencing mainly threat, and
instead experienced diversity as a value and a quality from which all may gain, the
more the group succeeded to relate to the other from a perspective of diversity as well.
(Bar-On 1999). This interrelated to the capacity to identify mechanisms, process and
maybe most significant, social groups and individuals in Palestinian society with
whom participants could at times empathize and even identify. The more the learning
process progressed the more we could discern conversations in which students related
to themselves, to others in the group, and to others/Palestinians in terms of
complexity.
`
60
Inherent to this process was the attention and discovery of power related mechanisms,
our involvement in these mechanisms and their affect on our lives. Reconciliation is
not only a socio emotional process it involves structural dimensions as well [Darweish
2010; Nadler & Schnabel 2008; Rouhana 2004; Galtung 2009]. The exploration of
power mechanisms contributed to students' awareness of the experience of structural
and cultural violence and based on that it contributed to their capacity to address
violence from perspectives that take into account human needs, rights and interests of
all sides involved. . [Bar-On & Kassem 2004; Bar-Tal 1998, Bar-Tal & Teichman
2005; Litvak-Hirsch 2003, Bar-On & Chaitin 2003].
There is nothing I can do that can possibly contribute to change!
The experience of conflict across generations, what is termed intractable conflict
contributes to evolving cultural premises that make conflict appear to be unavoidable
and unsolvable; especially because the other refuses to share our readiness for solving
the conflict. [Bar-Tal 2007; Bar-Tal & Teichman 2005]. Possibly related to these
premises, the group was preoccupied with the issue of possible agency towards the
conflict.
The more the group challenged the mechanisms I described so far, the more we can
discern an additional significant mechanism which relates to agency, or rather the
belief that I as an individual cannot contribute to change in the ongoing conflict
dynamics.
Following a number of meetings in which the group explored with growing reflexivity
our involvement in power structures, narratives and collective identities the feasibility
of agency became a concern and source of deep frustration. Asides deep seated doubts
about the feasibility of Palestinians who are in favor of conflict resolution and
61
reconciliation and about Palestinian leadership's capacity to contribute to a resolution
of the conflict, there were debates about Israel's contribution to the unending conflict.
Students raised doubts about government decisions and policies, doubts about our
capacity as citizens to assess government's policies, and eventually doubts were aimed
at the value of the group's learning... At this stage of the course process the group
seemed to doubt the value of the learning itself: what is the value of the emotionally
difficult and unsettling learning we experience since it teaches us about what is
missing and wrong in our perceptions of conflict and our contribution to the conflict,
but we cannot use this knowledge in order to transform the conflict itself.
In itself, this is an interesting development. If the starting point is the assumption the
conflict cannot be resolved because of the other, the enemy who resists ending the
conflict, now the group relates to the possibility that also we as a society contribute to
the ongoing conflict. But the assumption that this is a conflict beyond our scope of
influence remains a given.
In that sense, the cultural mechanism of accepting
violence since it is unavoidable remains intact. [Francis 2011; Staub 2003]
The conversations and reflections [both in conversations in the group but also in the
individual writings of final assignments at the end of the course] towards the end of
the course, especially after the site visits, indicate possible transformations of this
mechanism. Many students shared their commitment to take more responsibility for
gaining knowledge about the conflict, to be critical towards the perspectives and
assumptions that guide the public discourse, to challenge positions and opinions of
their friends and families. In other words, to be individuals who address the conflict
discourse from a position of individual responsibility for learning, for taking into
account their own involvement in narratives and collective identities and to not shy
away from accepting complex perspectives of the conflict reality even if these
62
perspectives counter hegemonic conflict discourses in our society. This I suggest is
agency, because it implies that course participants discovered the option to address
the conflict and the conflict discourse from a position of critical reflexivity and to act
in accordance to one's own perceptions even if this creates challenges with "others" in
our own society.
7. Conclusions and questions for future research
The action research approach that guided me aims to create opportunities for
processes of discovery; participants to such a process attempt to explore and discover
the complexities and challenges of a given societal reality, the types of change they
want to promote, opportunities and obstacles towards change [Francis 2005; Reason
and Bradbury 2000]. It is a deeply political process, a process of emancipation since it
aims to empower participants to contribute towards change; change attuned to
challenges of justice and equality [Francis 2005].
The learning process I presented here reflects this orientation. I suggest that this
action research inspired learning process dealt foremost with shared involvement in
the deep structure and deep culture of ongoing violence, foremost violence related to
the Israeli Palestinian conflict, but as we discovered the conflict related deep structure
and deep culture cannot be separated from diverse power relations within Israeli
society [Galtung 2009; Francis 2007; Lederach 1995]. The group involved in this
learning process discovered the inherent challenge of addressing the cultural
mechanisms which obscure our involvement and contribution to direct and structural
violence [Galtung 1995]. As we discovered, the course focus of "encountering the
suffering of the other" is in itself a focus that runs counter to premises that guide
thoughts, emotions and actions within Israeli deep culture. The exploration of
63
cognitive and emotional responses to this focus of learning led to the discovery of
mechanisms that obscure or contextualize and justify our involvement in violence.
Encountering narratives of the other triggered the culturally patterned mechanisms of
resisting knowledge that challenges our need to distance our selves from perceptions
and perspectives that contradict ethnocentric narratives of suffering, struggle and
justice; of resisting emotional experiences that go beyond the fear of the other and
foremost the experience of empathy and compassion towards the other; of resisting
the acknowledgement of the diversity and complexity of individual and collective
identities, social groups and power relations within ours and their society; of resisting
the feasibility and moral obligation for taking active responsibility in relation to our
contribution to the violent character of the conflict..
The course design and the facilitation approach encouraged participants to explore
their learning experience in reflexive manner. Participants' responses to the diverse
types of knowledge they encountered became a major object of exploration and
learning, and we may suggest that such a type of learning environment by itself
provides an opportunity for experiencing an environment that contradicts many of the
premises of the deep culture of violence: power relations, their significance and our
involvement and contribution to them are critically assessed; collective identities are
addressed in terms of diversity and complexity; the political history of the conflict are
explored from diverse perspectives; the individual is encouraged to explore
emotional and cognitive challenges inherent to the attempt of addressing conflict
reality from a position of critical subjectivity and to explore positions that go beyond
hegemonic discourse. Within such a learning environment encountering the suffering
of the other becomes an opportunity to address conflict relations from perspectives
attuned to positions of reconciliation, such as the acknowledgement of the diverse
64
narratives involved, the diverse needs of all sides involved, empathy for the suffering
of the other, and to address violence as an element that is inherent to the conflict and
not necessarily attributed to the other only : [Kelman 2004; Nadler & Liviatan 2006;
Nadler, Malloy & Fisher 2008; Nadler & Shnabel 2008].
The research findings presented and discussed here relate to a research that is still
ongoing, and there are many questions that demand further attention. To point out
some of the questions
For the purpose of this master's thesis, and in specific on account of the scope of a
master's thesis, my focus was on the analysis of major themes that can be discerned
throughout the verbal documentation of course meetings. I did not directly relate to
additional data sources such as individual writings of each participant throughout the
course and in depth interviews with participants. My assumption is that drawing on
these additional data sources might contribute to an analysis of individuals' course
experiences. This might provide additional understandings about the significance of
the learning experience and the factors that contribute to diverse types of learning.
We do not have information about the significance of the learning experience after the
course. How do participants experience "re entry" from the participation in the course
to the ongoing involvement in Israeli deep culture? For example, while I am writing
this thesis Israel and Gaza are in another round of extreme violence, how do students
relate to this experience? Is their response to the ongoing violence in any manner
different from what appears to be a rather homogeneous discourse in the public
sphere?
65
Asides the qualitative research the ESO research team applied a quantitative analysis
of the contribution of the course to participants positions towards reconciliation. How
do the quantitative and qualitative findings interrelate?
In the upcoming year we will have another course on encountering the suffering of the
other. How will changes in the group's composition affect the learning process? And
related to this, what could be the significance if, as suggested by students, the group
will have more students who represent political positions associated with rightist and
nationalist discourse? How will changes in the political context influence the course,
foremost the aftermath of the war with Gaza?
The setting of this course was basically a Jewish Israeli intra identity learning process.
Should we have a dialogue encounter with Palestinian students what would be the
contribution of this to the types of learning, foremost how will such an encounter
affect the capacity for critical reflexivity?
Probably of major interest in relation to my analysis of the interrelation between the
course setting and the significance of encountering the suffering of the other: if a
group of students encounters the suffering of the other without investing in an
extended learning process and dialogue on the experience of learning, will the affect
of this experience be fundamentally different?
And finally, a question that very much preoccupies me, what can be the contribution
of research findings that relate to a group of students to broad processes within Israeli
society at large? The processes of change that we discern as an outcome of this action
research, are they of possible significance on a societal level? How can such a
question be approached and what is the kind of research that could address this
question?
66
On a personal note, the action research I present here was a deeply inspiring
experience. Students and facilitators felt that the shared process of exploration of the
conflict is in itself a process of change. This inspires hope that Israeli society will be
able to address conflict in a transformative manner. While writing the thesis we once
more experience the atrocities of violent war. The findings of the research assist me in
understanding the mechanisms that nurture within Israeli society the acceptance and
even support for addressing the Israeli Palestinian conflict by violent means mainly. I
hope that at some stage in the future research on reconciliation will indicate how a
transformation of the deep culture of violence can become feasible.
References
:‫ בתוך‬.‫ המשגה‬:‫ התשתית הפסיכולוגית חברתית של סכסוכים בלתי נשלטים‬:)2007( ,‫ בר טל‬.‫ד‬
.25-50 .‫ הוצאת כרמל‬.‫חברתי של החברה היהודית בישראל‬-‫ ניתוח פסיכולוגי‬:‫לחיות עם הסכסוך‬
Adwan, S. & Bar-On, D [Eds] (2001). Victimhood and beyond. Newton Centre M.A.
TRT and Prime.
Bar-On, D. (1999). The “others” within us: A socio-psychological perspective of
changes in Israeli identity. Beer Sheva, Israel: Ben Gurion University Press. (In
Hebrew)
Bar-On, D. & Kassem, F (2004)." Storytelling as a way to work through intractable
conflicts: The German-Jewish experience and its relevance to the Palestinian-Israeli
context". Journal of Social Issues. 60( 2), 289 -306
Bar-Tal, D. (1998). "Social beliefs in times of intractable conflict: The Israeli case."
International Journal of Conflict Management,9, 22-50.
67
Bar-Tal, D. (2013) Intractable Conflicts: Socio-Psychological Foundations and
Dynamics. Cambridge, UK , Cambridge University Press.
Bar-Tal, D., & Teichman, Y. (2005). Stereotypes and prejudice in conflict:
Representations of Arabs in Israeli Jewish society. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Berghof Foundation {2004 – 2014). Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation.
Berlin. Available at http://www.berghof-handbook.net
Brewer, M. (2000). "Reducing prejudice through cross-categorization: Effects of
multiple social identities." In Oskamp, S. (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and
discrimination 165–183. Hillsdale, NJ. Erlbaum.
Brewer, M., & Brown, R. J. (1998). "Intergroup relations." In Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S.
T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.). Handbook of social psychology New York: McGraw-Hill.
(pp. 554–594).
Bush, K. (2004), The Intra-Group Dimensions of Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka:
Learning to Read between the Lines, London: Palgrave/Macmillan
Chaitin, J. & Steinberg, S. (2008). “You Should Know Better”: Expressions of
Empathy and Disregard Among Victims of Massive Social Trauma. Journal of
Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 17 (2), 197-226.
Darweish, M. (2010). "Human rights and the imbalance of power, the Palestinian
Israeli conflict." In Dudouet,V. and Schmelzle,B. (eds.). Human Rights and Conflict
Transformation: The Challenges of Just Peace. Berghof Handbook Dialogue, No 9,.
Berlin: Berghof Conflict Research. 85-95. Online at www.berghof-handbook.net
Dovidio, J. F., Saguy, T. & Shnabel, N. (2009). "Cooperation and conflict within
groups: Bridging intragroup and intergroup processes ." Journal of Social
Issues, 65, 429–449.
68
Fals-Borda, O. & Rachman, M.A..(1991). Action and
Knowledge. New York;
Intermediate Technology/Apex.
Francis, D.(2005). Action Research. Birmingham. Responding to Conflict.
Francis, D. (2011). "New Thoughts on Power: Closing the Gaps between Theory and
Action." In Austin, B., Fischer, M. & Giessmann, H.J. (eds.). Advancing Conflict
Transformation - The Berghof Handbook II. Opladen/Framington Hills. Barbara
Budrich Publishers. 505 – 525;
Galtung, J.(2009). A Theory of Conflict, A Theory of Development, A Theory of
Civilization, A Theory of Peace. Oslo. Transcend University Press..
Galtung, J. (1990)." Cultural Violence". Journal of Peace Research. 27 (3), 291-305.
Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/423472
Gergen, K.J. & Gergen, M.M. ( 2001). "Social construction and research as action."
In Reason,P & Bradbury, H (Eds.), Handbook of Action Research: participative
inquiry and practice. London: Sage. 159 – 170.
Gorman, H.& Bornstein, G. (2000). "The Effects of Intragroup Communication on
Intergroup Cooperation," Journal of Conflict Resolution 44 : 700.
Harmat, G. (2011). Gender Analyses to Peace Education in Palestinian-Jewish
Dialogue Encounters. Ph.D. Dissertation; Constantine the Philosopher University
Nitra.
Kelman, H.C. (2004). "Reconciliation as identity change: a social-psychological
perspective." In Bar-Siman-Tov [ed.]. From conflict resolution to reconciliation.
Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Kemmis,S.& McTaggart, R. ( 2000). "Participatory action research." In: Denzin,
N.K.&Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds). Handbook of qualitative research. London. New Dehli
.Sage. 567-586.
69
Lederach, J.P. (1995). Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation across Cultures.
Syracuse, NY. Syracuse University Press.
Lederach, ,J..P. (2011). "Forward to berghof handbook for conflict transformation." In
Austin, B., Fischer, M..& Giessmann, H.J. (eds.). Advancing Conflict Transformation
- The Berghof Handbook II. Opladen/Framington Hills. Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Litvak-Hirsch, T., Bar-On, D. & Chaitin, J. (2003). "Whose House is This? Dilemmas
of Identity Construction in the Israeli-Palestinian Context." Peace and Conflict:
Journal of Peace Psychology, 9 (2), 127–148.
Mack, J.E. (1990). "The enemy system." In Volkan, V.D., Julius, D.A. & Montville,
J.V.
(Eds).
In:
The
psychodynamics
of
international
relationships.
Massachusetts/Toronto, Lexington Books. 57 -70.
Maos, I. (2012). "Contact and social change in an ongoing asymmetrical conflict: four
social-psychological models of reconciliation-aimed planned encounters between
Israeli Jews and Palestinians."; In Dixon, J. & Levine, M. (Eds). Beyond Prejudice
Extending the Social Psychology of Conflict, Inequality and Social Change. 269-285.
Cambridge
Books
Online
©
Cambridge
University
Press.
Available
at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022736.016
Nadler, A., & Liviatan, I. (2006)." Intergroup reconciliation: Effects of adversary’s
expressions of empathy, responsibility, and recipients’ trust. " Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32, 459–470. doi:10.1177/0146167205276431
Nadler, A., Malloy, T., & Fisher, J. D. (2008)." Intergroup reconciliation: Dimensions
and themes." In A. Nadler, T. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), Social psychology of
intergroup reconciliation .pp 3–12. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195300314.003.0001
Nadler, A., & Shnabel, N. (2008)." Intergroup reconciliation: The instrumental and
70
socio-emotional paths and the need-based model of socio-emotional reconciliation."
In A. Nadler, T. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), Social psychology of intergroup
Reconciliation. pp. 37–57. New York, NY. Oxford University Press.
doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195300314.003.0003
O’Brien, R. (2001). “An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action
Research”. In Richardson, R. (Ed.), Theory and Practice of Action Research. João
Pessoa, Brazil: Universidade Federal da Paraíba. [English version}. Available at
http://web.net/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html
Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (2001)".Introduction." In: Reason,P & Bradbury, H
(Eds.), Handbook of Action Research: participative inquiry and practice. London:
Sage.
Reason, P.& Marshall, J. (1988). "Action research." In: Boud, D.&Griffin, V.
Appreciating adults learning. London: Kogan Page. 112 – 126.
Rouhana, N. N. (2004). "Group identity and power asymmetry in reconciliation
processes: the Israeli Palestinian case." Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace
Psychology 10:1, 33 -52. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Sagy, S., & Adwan, S. (2006). "Hope in times of threat: The case of Palestinian and
Israeli Jewish youth. " American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 128-133.
Sagy, S., Adwan, S., & Kaplan, A. (2002)." Interpretations of the past and
expectations for the future of Israeli and Palestinian youth. " American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry,72, 26-38.
Sonnenschein, N., Halabi, R., & Friedman, A. (1998). "Legitimization of national identity
and the change in power relationships in workshops dealing with the Israeli/Palestinian
conflict." In E. Weiner (Ed) The Handbook of Interethnic Coexistence. New York:
Continuum. 600-614.
71
Staub,E. (2003). "Notes on Cultures of Violence, Cultures of Caring and Peace, and the
Fulfillment of Basic Human Needs." Political Psychology, 24 (1).
Steinberg, S (2004)." Discourse categories in encounters between Palestinians and
Israelis." International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society. 17
9. Appendix
9.1 ESO research program [ please note that the program is not up to date in its
mile stones, this was the initial program and delays in the program start changed
the schedule of research stages]:
Hearts of Flesh: Understanding/Challenging Reified
Identities In Intergroup Reconciliation
The project title “Hearts of Flesh” is a reference to an image in the Book of the
Prophet Ezekiel: “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will
remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh” (36:26). Our goal
is to make significant steps forward in the scientific research on reconciliation. And
the image of transforming hearts, from stony to full of life, is relevant for all the
disciplines of this transdisciplinary project.
State of Research and Project Goals
State of Research and the innovative approach of HoF
Reconciliation studies have developed rapidly over the past two decades to become a
very active interdisciplinary and international field of research. All the leaders of this
project have long experience with this very complex science, as the literature from
Dajani, Nadler, Leiner, and Sagy demonstrates [literature provided in separate
section]. This project aims to capitalize on that experience and further develop
understanding and expertise through not only interdisciplinary, but also
transdiciplinary cooperation with a focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The academic disciplines of social psychology and religion attempt to grasp the
immensely complex realities of “who we are” and “what we believe” on personal and
social levels. As Charles Taylor and others have argued, these are the central
questions that inform personal and social identities (Taylor 1995, Searle 1995). The
“identity” concept is very complex and viewed differently from the perspective of the
different disciplines and even within disciplines. Nevertheless, it offers a pivot point
for joint research and demonstrates the importance of the different disciplines
working together. Additionally, though the project is unified by an approach to the
72
concept that is primarily influenced by Taylor, Searle and Honneth, this is merely a
starting point. Within conflicts, antagonistic cycles become intractable when social
identities become “reified” in ways that lock groups into continued antagonistic
cycles. The reified identities may take the form of “victim”, “perpetrator” or
something else, and what is important is that both social psychology and religion
provide critical tools for grasping the groups’ own self-understanding. With respect to
understanding the resources for potential challenges or revisions of that identifying
self understanding, both social psychology and religion offer much to the present
approaches to reconciliation that benefit mostly from the fields of political science
and history, as well as from law, economics and demographics.
The value of an approach that integrates social psychology and religion is
demonstrated in “From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation” edited by Yaacov BarSiman-Tov in 2002. Bar-Siman-Tov argues in his introduction: “When the sides still
encounter severe difficulty in overcoming the built-up bitterness and grievances of
protracted conflict, and in altering their hostile perceptions and mutual fears, they may
fail to stabilize peace relations. Reconciliation is therefore a crucial factor in
stabilizing peace after the resolution of an international conflict.” The present
challenge is to bring the strengths of the many disciplines together, and to develop
transdisciplinary relationships, competencies, practices, and methodologies that may
more adequately address some of the complexities of the unfortunate post-OsloProcess situation.
On the scientific level, HoF tries to go beyond this position namely in three
dimensions:
1. Shift from Interdisciplinarity to Transdisciplinarity (in the sense of Mittelstraß): In
all the stages of the project, members from the different disciplines will work closely
in the development of goals and models, the designing of experiments, the evaluation
of results, and the publication of those results. These disciplines include especially
social psychology, political science, religious science, history, education, philosophy,
theology and media ethics.
2. Understand Reconciliation as Integral to Conflict Resolution: We are convinced
that reconciliation should not be regarded as a process that kicks in only after the
conflict resolution is achieved (s. Bar-Siman-Tov’s 2002 quote above; he follows a
rather common view in Political Science). There are moments, activities and persons
who stand for reconciliation in the middle of a conflict already (the so-called
“Hölderlin-perspective” see below).
3. Appreciate the Complexity and Drawbacks of Victim/Perpetrator Identification: In
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the approach parting from victims and perpetrators as
commonly adopted in many important researches on reconciliation (f.ex. Nadler,
please add), encounters serious problems in the fact that most Palestinians consider
victimhood as an important element of their identity, whereas many Israelis are not
disposed to consider themselves as perpetrators. Many see themselves as victims,
belonging to the people that have in fact been the most persecuted during the centuries
and who has been the victim of the worse genocide of the 20th Century. Even
competition for victimhood can take place between these two groups. In this conflict
in many cases, reconciliation must find another way.
Perpetrator and victim identifications are socially constructed realities in both their
self-identification and projected identification modes (cf. John Searle, The
Construction of Social Reality 1995). Reconciliation studies struggle to understand
the extremely complex causes and effects of all such relevant identifications within
conflicts. A constructivist approach model developed in Jena that continues to inform
73
our research is the Identity Projection Model (IPM, Mummendey, Wenzel 1999,
Wenzel, Mummendey, Waldzus 2007). Understanding conflict situations is further
encumbered by the fact that heterogeneous nature of conflicting groups. Within these
groups, people can be more or less victims or perpetrators, and can also
simultaneously possess various attributes of both victims and perpetrators. Victim and
perpetrator identities can be “hardened” by media, political figures, religion and
education. Yet the “Hölderlin-perspective” insists that within this complexity there
are also resources for resolving and reconciling conflicted situations – that the drive to
simplification can shut out precisely those people, groups, identifications, beliefs,
values, … etc. with the capacities to moderate conflicting trajectories. An analogous
insight may be seen in William Ury’s “Third Side” approach (2000).
Thus, an important goal of resolution studies is to understand how to build up identity
understandings that offer resources for achieving more peaceful situations. We profit
from books like Amartya Sen (Identitiy and Violence 2006) and Martha Nussbaum
(The Clash Within 2008). Sen shows the complexities of identity levels and attributes
that all people possess. It is simplistic and destructive to reduce a person’s whole
identity to simply victim or a perpetrator. Similarly, Nussbaum strives to give “a
human face” to the Hindu extremists who committed violence against Muslims in
Gujarat. The Hindus were roused by understandable social fears, common ideologies,
and nationalist goals. In addition to Nussbaum, we can see in many contexts that
victims who suffered most refuse to be called victims and prefer to be considered as
survivors.
All the different parts of our project try to make hermeneutical efforts and to find
empirical evidence for the fact that the perpetrator-victim structure can be
transformed by more complex and more empathic views of the other side in the
conflict. Our central question is: Does it work to overcome in some way a well
established “victim”-“victim”-situation? If it is possible, this question is which
measure works exactly how? And are there specific problems to be observed?
These very precise questions are also guided by philosophical interest: From this point
of view we have the hypothesis that recognition in the sense of “Anerkennung” (cf.
Honneth, Kampf um Anerkennung, Das Ich im Wir, Ricoeur, Parcours de
reconnaissance, Charles Taylor, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition)
could be the directing dynamics in reconciliation processes. We want to test this
hypothesis by asking if it can be found some evidence that “victims” and
“perpetrators” both require recognition as moral and as whole persons more than only
in their role as victims and perpetrators.
We follow three different but interacting research designs to develop the approaches
to reconciliation in cases where the roles of victims and persecutors are not clearly
taken by many actors in the conflict.
Finding Empathy with a group considered so far as
“perpetrators” (explain EEM here?)
To overcome the victim-perpetrator-view, we want to ask the question if there can be
given a more human face to the other side by the experience that “Perpetrators” have
been victims in another respect.
1. Can the “victim” learn/achieve/find empathy for the “perpetrator” through an
experience relevant to the “perpetrator’s” history? (footnote: this concept of
74
empathy should not be confound with Mc Culloch’s concept of empathy with
the perpetrators regret)
2. If empathy for the “perpetrator” is achieved, does that empathy potentially
impact the “victim’s” openness for reconciliation with the “perpetrator”?
3. Does empathy change the ascription of being victim or perpetrator? Can
“victims” have empathy with “perpetrators” when they see that they are
victims too? Or need victims a confirmation of their status as victim to show
empathy with the perpetrators?
4. Prefer “victims” and “perpetrators” to be recognized as “victims” and as
“perpetrators” or as whole persons?
The project recognizes the difficulty of examining a reality as difficult to define as
“empathetic emotions” on the one hand and the great complexity of social identities
on the other hand.
Following the insights of the important researches Dan Bar-On did with groups of
Germans, Israelis and Palestinians in Auschwitz, ( f.ex. Tell your Life Story. Creating
Dialogue among Jews and Germans, Israelis and Palestinians, Central European
University Press 2006), we want to work on a field experience, hosting a group of
Palestinians at the “Auschwitz-Birkenau Concentration Camp Museum and
Memorial” as well as memorial sites in Berlin. With careful attention to the subjects’
affective perceptions a) before, b) during, c) immediately after, and d) over a longer
term, the profound experience assessment is meant to gain insight regarding the
complex reality of collective victim identity, especially in the context of a conflict
situation characterized by competing victimhood. From the Auschwitz experience, we
hope to gain insight into two related questions corresponding to the project’s two-part
central question:
1. Would a Palestinian’s experience at Auschwitz generate an emotional
response that could be characterized as empathy?
2. If empathy is observed, is there a correlation between empathy feeling and a)
reduced self-identification as victim, and thereby b) increased openness for
reaching reconciliation with the perpetrator.
Because studies demonstrably show that perpetrators are much more willing to enter
into reconciliation (e.g., Harth & Below, 2011; Shnabel, Nadler, Ullrich, Dovidio, &
Dganit, 2009;), there is a need for intently examining the emotional dynamics of
victimhood in itself – and not just in the quid pro quo relationship of the victim with
the perpetrator. The expected (and hoped for) result is that when a “victim”
experiences increased empathy for the “perpetrator”, the victim gains specific
emotional resources, a reduction of emotional barriers to reconciliation, and the
potential for reconciliation is thereby increased.
75
(the following paragraph should be worked on by our specialists in Social
Psychology; how do you integrate the third party case and experimental designs in
laboratory?)
Structuring such a study requires the cooperation of all three partners, German,
Palestinian, and Israeli. And while the Auschwitz study benefits particularly from the
empirical discipline of social psychology, the experience is quite relevant to the
disciplines of theology, political science, philosophy and others. Moreover, though the
Palestinians are the subjects of the pivotal study in Auschwitz, the experience is
intended to be archetypal. Benefitting from that experience, analogous experiences
would be designed for Israelis, such that they would have carefully programmed
experiences related to the 1948 exodus of Palestinians, the Nakba; an event that
centrally influences the victim-identity of Palestinians.
1. 3 Giving a close description of encounters,
persons, events, institutions, products of culture in
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which escape the logic
of conflict
No conflict is total, there are always moments of normal cooperation, understanding
and mutual help between members of the opposed groups. Our hypothesis is: When
people pay more attention to the “peace in the middle of conflict” new resources for
reconciliation are opened. Perhaps even, the conflict can be located and restricted. In
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict however, the moments of peaceful dialogue seem to be
located, especially in what is organized by many grasroot initiatives (s. Judy
Kuriansky, Beyond Bullets & Bombs,Grasroots Peacebuilding between Israelis and
Palestinians. London 2007).
Question to us all: would it be realistic and would it make sense in your eyes to bring
the following idea into the project)
We want to make a statistically valid quantitative (questioners) and qualitative
(interviews) survey with Israelis and Palestinians asking them questions like:
Where do you locate the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians? Have you made
good experiences with the other side? Which? Do you consider yourself as victim? As
perpetrator? (In a scale from 0 to 10). Have you friends from the other side? Could
you imagine to have some? Could you imagine a nonviolent solution of the conflict?
(s. experiences from South Africa) Would you prefer a nonviolent resolution of the
conflict? How could it be? Would you like to be recognized as a victim? Which
recognition of the others would you seek? With this surview we can calculate the
importance of peaceful experiences in the middle of the conflict. We also can test our
presupposition in 1.2. that many Israeli and Palestinian people consider themselves as
victims or refuse at least to be considered as perpetrators.
The results of this surview shall constitute a data bank available for all researchers in
on the topic. It will also be published in a book with commentaries and
interpretations.
The results of this surview shall be compared with the image in the Israeli and
Palestinian medias of the conflict and with movies on the conflict. These films often
show the possibility of friendly encounters and the human face of the other side (f.ex.
Alles für meinen Vater, das Herz von Jenin, Lemon Tree)
76
1.4.
The identity markers between Israelis and
Palestinians are religion and history policies. Can they
change their functioning?
The identity markers between Israelis and Palestinians are not so much language (also
Jews from Morocco or Yemen speak Arabic), but religion in the sense that Israel is
not a secular state but puts Jewish religion in the very context of his constitution.
Even if there is a rather important non-religious group in Israel, there place in the
identity of Israel is controversial. Palestinians normally are considered as Muslims,
even if a small part of them are Christians (between the residents in Palestine about 12 %). The other identity marker is history policy. For Israelis there are more or less
similar stories of the state Israel and Palestinians also share narratives who tell what it
means to be part of the Palestinian people. Religion and History policy are the real
markers of the difference between Israelis and Palestinians.
Working on the identity markers could help to overcome the system of the conflict (F.
Simon 2004 und 2010). According to the Hölderlin perspective we want to foster
aspects in the history and in the religions of the partners in the conflict leading to
more commonalities, a common respect for shared humanity and human dignity as
well peaceful aspects of the identity of the other group.
2 Discipline Approaches:
Social Psychology:
HoF benefits from Nadler’s well-established scholarship in social psychology on
inter-group reconciliation, a dynamic that looks beyond conflict resolution where the
goal is the agreement with regards to the division of scarce resources. HoF begins
with the following understanding: Reconciliation is a “process that leads to a stable
end to conflict and is predicated on changes in the nature of adversarial relations
between the adversaries each of the parties’ conflict-related needs, emotions, and
cognitions” (Nadler, Malloy, Fisher 2008: 4, italics in original). Nadler (2011) shows
that three dimensions of intergroup reconciliation are currently emphasized in
research on intergroup reconciliation: socio-structural change, relational change, and
identity-related changes. The current project recognizes the complexity and interdependence of these dimensions and deliberately focuses the EEM and related
research focus upon identity-related aspects of intergroup reconciliation. Kessler and
Harth from Jena use Nadler’s models and share his approach.
The project appreciates the role played by historical narratives in shaping group
identities and thus influencing socio-emotional reconciliation. Reconciliation hinges
“on the idea that the key to a reconciled future lies in a direct confrontation with a
painful past” (NMF 2008: 7). The EEM is unique in that has victims look at
perpetrators’ past, not the other way around, in order to learn if the empathy gained
corresponds to greater willingness for reconciliation.
Additionally, given the role of Germans in planning and hosting the Palestinians in
Germany and Poland for the Auschwitz experience, we will include studies on thirdparty roles.
Political Theology: Islam as Moderate Religion
The focus here is upon the role of non-fundamentalist religious understanding for
influencing social and political realities. “Religious fundamentalism” is a reality
77
relevant for Christian, Jewish and Muslim faiths. Of note here with respect to
fundamentalism in Christianity is William Egginton’s 2011 work In Defense of
Religious Moderation. The HoF project focus is practical insofar as Dajani is
developing understanding, literature and workshops on moderate Islam. Dajani’s
work at Wasatia focuses the research and work of his project team. Wasatia is a term
from the Quran that means centrism, balance, moderation, justice, and temperance.
The stated mission of advocating a moderate approach to further the aims of peace
and prosperity is consistent with Egginton’s insight that fundamentalism is best
addressed with thoughtful theological examination and deliberation, and not by
dismissing and alienating such forms of religious belief. In addition to providing
resources for doctoral theses on the topic, the project is responsible for supporting
workshops for Palestinian leaders on the topic of moderate Islam.
Theology: Hölderlin Insight
The group in Jena benefits from Martin Leiner’s work on reconciliation in many
conflicts around the world. As a protestant theologian he is working on the origins of
the concept of reconciliation in biblical traditions. He has focused on the so-called
“Hölderlin Perspective” – a conviction that conflicts possess the resources not only
for antagonism, but also for resolution and reconciliation. Here, the work on identity
is critical, following the insight from Kelman (2004) that conflict “settlements”
operate on the level of interests, “resolutions” on the level of relationships, but
“reconciliation” operates on the level of identities. Leiner follows Hölderlin’s insight
and finds resources for reconciliation in the multi-layered identities that comprise
conflicting groups. In the middle of conflict there are persons, groups, moments and
motives for peace. We want to discover more this in the concrete context. Between
Israelians and Palestianians there is often a kind of relationship of imitation (you kill
our people we kill yours), this relationship can be utilized for peace also (you make
steps towards reconciliation, we also do). Study on the Auschwitz experience.
Political Philosophy: Modern identity and the role of “Dignity”
as marker for identity shift in the Arab Spring
Movements identified with the “Arab Spring” are calling for political structures that
distinctly recognize “human dignity”. The three partners of HoF are well-positioned
to study this profoundly important aspect of this ongoing development. The “dignity”
principle is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), so the
principle itself is not new, but the present identification with dignity represents its
continuing relevance and its revolutionary potential. Social groups affected by
political oppression are de-identifying as passive victims, and re-identifying with
forms of democratic and even egalitarian ideals. In a sense, their “recognition”
(Anerkennung) of their own dignity is affecting the external “recognition”
(Zuerkennung) of their dignity. As Charles Taylor writes, group identity includes the
social ideas that enable the members of a group to understand “Who am I” as well as
related moral questions regarding the good. In conflict situations where the identity of
the victim is dominated by the passive experience of being violated, avenues of
reconciliation are severely restricted by the overriding need to address issues of undoing the violation. The present insistence on dignity is both rooted in Arab and
Muslim traditions and also has modern, (perhaps) western and universalistic roots.
The partners from Jena have deep scholarly interest in and long experience with the
78
principle of dignity, and are interested in working with our partners to develop an
understanding of the dignity principle’s role in the emerging Arab identity. The
following points demonstrate an approach to the dignity principle that builds upon the
learning from the EEM and the identity focus of the project’s other disciplines.
1. The Arab Spring seems to have significant parallels with other civil movements
that began with dignity convictions, i.e., US African-American Civil Rights
Movement… Key is that the dignity conviction precedes and is a condition for civilpolitical achievements. In some ways it is independent of the perpetrator’s actions.
2. The call for dignity is something deeply embedded in Western traditions, but
dignity’s specifically meaning for the Arab demonstrators and the cultural/religious
associations implied by its use are simply not known – it points to a significant lack of
western understanding of the people, their motivations, and possible avenues of
mutual understanding.
3. That said, as Charles Taylor has argued, the call for dignity is associated with an
ideal of universal justice “which has found expression in the [20th century] in the
various universal declarations of rights” (Taylor 1994: 395). This raises the question:
If the call to dignity does in fact reveal something of the motivations and meanings of
the Arab Spring movements, to what degree is this dignity an identity marker rooted
in traditional and religious sources of meaning, and to what degree is it also informed
by modern and egalitarian sources. The “mapping” of the Arab demonstrators’
identity’s moral world, in Taylor’s sense, would require the insight of people from
within this world.
(Charles Taylor’s 1994 “Sources of the self: the making of the modern identity” )
Experimental Philosophy
Does the focus upon “dignity identity” as opposed to “justice” change the results of
reconciliation goals. Many theologians involved in the field, such as Howard Zehr and
Dorothy Vaandering, use the terminology of “restorative justice” as a way of avoiding
counter-productive uses of justice language/approaches, such as those emphasizing
distributive justice or retributive justice (according to whom/reference?), for example.
They use restorative justice terminology to emphasize the inherent worth of all human
beings impacted by conflict; this is an emphasis more identified with human dignity
in many European contexts and certainly in Germany. Techniques of the emerging
field of experimental philosophy as well as social psychology would be applied for
questions relevant to the project, such as whether an emphasis upon “justice” as
opposed to “human dignity” predetermines willingness to enter into reconciliating
agreements.
Projects of thesis:
Jena (Working titles)
-
Mrs Jahan: “das Friedenspotential der Religionen Judentum, Islam und
Christentum im Blick auf Palestina” with prof. Bertram Schmitz (Religious
studies and theology)
79
-
Mrs Stoeckner: „Comparative study in memory policies on Holocaust and
Auschwitz in countries like Germany, Hungary and … (History and theology)
-
N.N. from Social Psychology
-
In the second time: N.N. Movies on the Palestinian-Israeli-Conflict a possible
resource for reconciliation? (films like Lemon Tree, Das Herz von Jenin or
Alles für meinen Vater – do they reflect a Hölderlin-Perspective?)
-
N.N. from Social Psychology
-
Coordinator’s project (Martin O’Malley):
-
Book projects from professors in the project:
Tel Aviv:
Al Quds:
Project Milestones, Conferences, Timeline:
Date
September 2012
09.12 to 02.13
02.13
07.13
Annual
02.15?
Goal
Project Begin
Notes
Universities, institutes and personell
should be under contract
Auschwitz Experience Prep
Group chosen, experience planned, prestudies and study methods developed.
Auschwitz Experience
30 Palestinian subjects, first to Berlin,
bus to Auschwitz, full day in Center,
bus return to Berlin
2 Week Summer School in Jena Following Leiner’s Jena Model
Conferences
Meetings in Israel-Palestine, or Jena
Nakba Experience
Employs learning for Israeli experience
Semesters of research (publication of
the results, when?)
80
‫‪9.2 The course syllabus at Ben-Gurion University 2013/2014‬‬
‫אוניברסיטת בן‪-‬גוריון בנגב‬
‫הפקולטה למדעי הרוח והחברה‬
‫תשע"ג ‪2013‬‬
‫המחלקה ל‪:‬חינוך‬
‫שם הקורס בעברית‪ :‬מפגש עם הסבל של ה'אחר' בסכסוך הישראלי פלסטיני‬
‫מס' קורס (במידה ומדובר בשינוי פרטי קורס)‪_________________ :‬‬
‫שם המרצה‪ :‬פרופ' שפרה שגיא‪ ,‬מר מיכאל שטרנברג‪ ,‬גב' יעל בן דוד‬
‫רציונל כללי‪:‬‬
‫נרטיבים קולקטיבים מספרים לנו מי אנחנו ומהיכן באנו‪ -‬כמו גם מיהם האחרים‪ .‬לנרטיבים תפקיד מכריע‬
‫בהיווצרותם של קונפליקטים בין קבוצתיים כמו גם בתהליכי פיוס‪ .‬בקורס זה נחקור את התנאים‬
‫המאפשרים התפייסות בקונפליקט הישראלי פלסטיני‪ ,‬ואת תפקידם של נרטיבים בתהליך זה‪ .‬נעסוק‬
‫בנרטיב של הסבל שנגרם לצדדים במסגרת הסכסוך‪ ,‬ובקשר שבין היכרות עם הנרטיב של ה'אחר'‬
‫לנכונות לפיוס בין שני הצדדים‪.‬‬
‫קורס זה נערך במסגרת פרויקט מחקרי ייחודי‪ ,‬אשר חוקר את המפגש של ישראלים ופלסטינים עם הסבל‬
‫של האח ר בקונפליקט‪ .‬במקביל לקורס זה יתקיים קורס נוסף באוניברסיטה פלסטינית אשר יפגיש‬
‫פלסטינים עם אירועי העבר הכואבים של העם היהודי‪ .‬בסמסטר הראשון של הקורס נקיים מפגשים‬
‫שבועיים בהם יינתנו הרצאות על ידי מרצים אורחים וייערכו סדנאות עיבוד בקבוצה‪ .‬במהלך חופשת‬
‫הסמסטר תת קיים סדנה בת יומיים עם הקבוצה הפלסטינית בנווה שלום‪ ,‬ובסמסטר ב' ייערך יום סיור‬
‫באתרים הקשורים לסבלו של האחר‪ .‬הנוכחות בקורס הינה חובה ומשמשת תנאי למעבר הקורס‪.‬‬
‫יעדי ההוראה‪:‬‬
‫‪.1‬‬
‫‪.2‬‬
‫‪.3‬‬
‫לחקור וללמוד על נרטיבים קולקטיבים שונים של העצמי ושל האחר הפלסטיני‬
‫ללמוד על תפיסות של סבל בסכסוך הישראלי הפלסטיני‬
‫לבחון את הקשר בין הכרה בסבל של האחר לנכונות להתפייסות בסכסוכים‬
‫‪81‬‬
‫פרשיות לימודים‪:‬‬
‫סמסטר א‪:‬‬
‫‪ 23.10.13‬היכרות‬
‫‪‬‬
‫מפגש היכרות עם הקורס ותאום ציפיות‬
‫‪ 30.10.13-6.11.13‬קונפליקט בין קבוצות‪ :‬מושגים בסיסיים‬
‫‪‬‬
‫‪ :30.10.13‬קונפליקט בין קבוצות בראי תיאורית הזהות החברתית‪ -‬הרצאה ודיון‪.‬‬
‫מרצים‪ :‬בועז המאירי וענת שריד‬
‫‪‬‬
‫‪ : 6.11.13‬מהם נרטיבים קולקטיבים? תפיסות של נרטיבים קולקטיבים ככלי להבנת‬
‫יחסים בין קבוצות בקונפליקט‪ .‬מרצים‪ :‬פרופ' שיפרה שגיא וד"ר ענאן אבו‪-‬סרור‬
‫‪‬‬
‫‪ :13.11.13‬מפגש עיבוד‬
‫קריאת חובה‪:‬‬
‫נדלר‪,‬א‪" .)2000(.‬קונפליקט בין קבוצתי והפחתתו‪ :‬פרספקטיבה של הפסיכולוגיה החברתית"‪ ,‬דיאלוג בין‬
‫זהויות‪( ,‬רבאח חלבי‪ ,‬עורך)‪ ,‬הוצאת הקיבוץ המאוחד‪,‬תל‪-‬אביב‪ .‬עמ' ‪.28-46‬‬
‫‪TyH .n.o T,Hruo r. T .Hu8ur( JH, enruT ,.H , e., T‬‬
‫‪.l. )ry‬‬
‫‪T : .(u Hu, b. )1986(. T,H rrn‬‬
‫‪. 7(y sP itylyI y yoy gsho I yo y golohcysP ,). rur,H , . i s( .n ,‬‬
‫‪.)24-‬‬
‫‪.e -n,nr 8r: gH r‬‬
‫‪Mana, A., Sagy, S., Srour,A., Mjally-Knani,S (2012). Perceptions of collective‬‬
‫‪narratives and identity strategies: the case of the Palestinian Muslims and Christians‬‬
‫‪in Israel. Mind and Society, 11(2), 165-182.‬‬
‫קריאת רשות‪:‬‬
‫‪82‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫שגיא‪ ,‬ש‪ ,.‬שטיינברג‪ ,‬ש‪ ,.‬פחיראלדין‪ ,‬מ‪ : )2002( .‬האני האישי והאני הקולקטיבי במפגש בין‪-‬‬
‫קבוצתי של יהודים וערבים בישראל‪ :‬דיון בשתי אסטרטגיות התערבות ‪ .‬מגמות‪,‬מ"א (‪ ,)4‬עמ'‬
‫‪.556-534‬‬
‫‪Ayalon, A. & Sagy, S. (2011). Acculturation attitudes and perceptions of‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫‪collective narratives: The case of Israeli-Arab youth. Youth and Society, 43,‬‬
‫‪819-844.‬‬
‫‪ 11.12.13 -20.11.13‬יחסים בקונפליקט‪ :‬אנחנו והם‬
‫‪‬‬
‫‪ -20.11.13‬מגדר‪ ,‬דת וכוח בקונפליקט‪ .‬מרצה‪ :‬ד"ר מראם מסארווי‪.‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫‪ -27.11.13‬תפקידם של מבנים חברתיים ותרבות בקונפליקט‪ .‬מרצה‪ :‬מיכאל‬
‫שטרנברג‪.‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫‪ -4.12.13‬מושג הכבוד ותפקידו ביחסים בקונפליקט‪ .‬מרצה‪ :‬ד"ר בקי לשם‬
‫‪‬‬
‫‪ -11.12.13‬צרכים ורגשות בקונפליקט ופיוס‪ .‬מרצה‪ :‬ד"ר נורית שנבל (?)‬
‫קריאת חובה‪:‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫רוחאנא‪ ,‬נ' (‪ .)2001‬פיוס בסכסוך לאומי מתמשך‪ :‬זהות וכוח במקרה הישראלי‪-‬הפלסטיני‪.‬‬
‫סוציולוגיה ישראלית‪ ,‬ג(‪.277-295 ,)2‬‬
‫‪Nadler, A. & Shnabel, N., (2006). A Need-Based Model of Reconciliation:‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫‪satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to‬‬
‫‪promoting reconciliation. Journal of Personality & Social psychology,‬‬
‫‪94(1),116-132.‬‬
‫קריאת רשות‪:‬‬
‫‪Staub,E.(2003). Notes on Cultures of violence, culture of caring and peace,‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫‪and fulfillment of basic human needs. Political Psychology, 24, (1), 2003.‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫בר טל‪ ,‬ד‪ )2007( .‬לחיות עם הסכסוך‪ :‬ניתוח פסיכולוגי‪-‬חברתי של החברה היהודית בישראל‪.‬‬
‫הוצאת כרמל‪.‬‬
‫‪ 18.12.13-25.12.13‬היכרות עם נרטיב הסבל של האחר בקונפליקט‬
‫‪83‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫‪ -18.12.13‬מרצה אורח‪ :‬פרופ' מוחמד דג'אני‬
‫‪‬‬
‫‪ -25.12.13‬עיבוד‬
‫קריאת חובה‪:‬‬
‫‪Dajani, M., Barakat, Z. (2013). Shared Narratives—A Palestinian-Israeli‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫‪Dialogue. Israel Studies, 18 (2), pp. 53-69.‬‬
‫קריאת רשות‪:‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫כהנוב‪ ,‬מ‪ .)2010( .‬דיאלוג חשוף‪ :‬יהודים וערבים במפגש‪ .‬באר שבע‪ :‬אוניברסיטת בן גוריון‪.‬‬
‫‪ 1.1.13-8.1.13‬עם המבט לעתיד‪ :‬אפשרויות לפיוס‬
‫‪‬‬
‫‪ -1.1.13‬מהו פיוס בקונפליקט בין קבוצות? תפיסות שונות להתפייסות ותיקון יחסים‬
‫בין קבוצות‪ .‬פרופ' אריה נדלר‪.‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫‪ -8.1.13‬מפגש עיבוד וסיכום הסמסטר‪.‬‬
‫קריאת חובה‪:‬‬
‫‪‬‬
‫ג'מאל‪ ,‬א' (‪ .)2001‬הכרה הדדית‪ ,‬פיוס וטרנספורמציה של סכסוכים‪ :‬היבטים תיאורטיים‪.‬‬
‫סוציולוגיה ישראלית‪ ,‬ג (‪.313-341 :)2‬‬
‫‪Nadler, A., & Shnabel, N. (2008). Intergroup reconciliation: The‬‬
‫‪instrumental and socio-emotional paths and the need based mode of‬‬
‫‪socio-emotional reconciliation. In A. Nadler, T. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher‬‬
‫‪(Eds.), Social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 37-56). New York:‬‬
‫‪Oxford University Pres.‬‬
‫‪84‬‬
‫‪‬‬
:‫קריאת רשות‬

Kelman,H.
(2004).
Reconciliation
as
identity
change:
A
social
psychological perspective. In: Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov (Ed.), From conflict
resolution to reconciliation. Oxford University Press, 2004.
:‫חופשת סמסטר‬
.‫סיורים בישראל והרשות הפלסטינית‬

:‫סמסטר ב‬
‫שלושה מפגשי סיכום‬
85

‫אוניברסיטת בן ‪-‬גוריון בנגב‬
‫הפקולטה למדעי הרוח והחברה‬
‫התוכנית לניהול ויישוב סכסוכים‬
‫מה שלא ידענו‬
‫מחקר פעולה על מפגש של סטודנטים יהודים ישראלים עם‬
‫נרטיבים פלסטינים‬
‫עבודת מ‪.‬א‪.‬‬
‫מאת‪ :‬מיכאל שטרנברג‬
‫בהנחיית‪ :‬ד"ר טל ליטבק – הירש‬
‫אלול תשע"ד‬
‫‪September 2014‬‬
‫‪86‬‬
‫אוניברסיטת בן ‪-‬גוריון בנגב‬
‫הפקולטה למדעי הרוח והחברה‬
‫התוכנית לניהול ויישוב סכסוכים‬
‫מה שלא ידענו‬
‫מחקר פעולה על מפגש של סטודנטים יהודים ישראלים עם‬
‫נרטיבים פלסטינים‬
‫עבודת מ‪.‬א‪.‬‬
‫מאת‪:‬מיכאל שטרנברג‬
‫בהנחיית‪ :‬ד"ר טל ליטבק – הירש‬
‫חתימת הסטודנט ________‬
‫חתימת המנחה‬
‫תאריך________‬
‫__________________‬
‫תאריך ‪1.10.2014‬‬
‫חתימת יו"ר הועדה המחלקתית__________________ תאריך ‪1.10.2014‬‬
‫‪September 2014‬‬
‫אלול תשע"ד‬
‫‪87‬‬
‫תקציר‬
‫מחקר הפעולה הוא חלק מתכנית מחקר בין לאומי ורב תחומי "לפגוש את הסבל של האחר"‪.‬‬
‫הגישות התיאורטיות שמנחות את צוות המחקר הישראלי מתמקדות בעיקר בכתיבה שעוסקת‬
‫בסוגיות של זהויות מורכבות‪ ,‬קטגוריזציה של זהויות‪ ,‬נרטיבים וזהויות חברתיות‪ ,‬צרכים‬
‫מתהווים בהקשרים של קונפליקט ומשמעויות של יחסי כוח לא סימטריים עבור הצדדים‬
‫בקונפליקט‪ .‬מרכיב מרכזי בתכנית המחקר הישראלי הוא קורס אקדמי שנתי בהשתתפות של ‪24‬‬
‫סטודנטים לב‪.‬א‪ .‬במחלקה לחינוך באוניברסיטת בן‪-‬גוריון‪ .‬תכנית והנחיית הקורס שהתקיים‬
‫במהלך שנת הלימודים תשע"ד יצרו סביבת למידה לחקירה פעילה של "אנחנו" ו"הם" ביחסי‬
‫קונפליקט‪ .‬זה נעשה על ידי הכרות עם מושגים מחקריים ותיאורטיים בנושאים של קונפליקט‬
‫ופיוס‪ ,‬מפגש עם נרטיבים פלסטיניים שהוצגו על ידי מרצים‪ ,‬סיורי שדה ודיאלוג פנים קבוצתי בה‬
‫המשתתפים חקרו את המשמעויות של הדברים להם נחשפו‪.‬‬
‫מחקר הפעולה נועד ליצור ידע המתייחס לפרספקטיבות התיאורטיות שהנחו את תכנון הקורס‪,‬‬
‫לחקירה האיכותנית של תהליכי הלמידה הקבוצתיים שהתפתחו במהלך הקורס ולתרומה‬
‫ולמשמעויות שהסטודנטים ייחסו לתהליכים של למידה ופיתוח ידע בהם השתתפו‪ .‬שאלת המחקר‬
‫המרכזית הייתה‪ :‬מה ניתן ללמוד מתהליכי הלמידה שהתפתחו בקורס על האופן בו סטודנטים‬
‫יהודים ישראלים מתייחסים לנרטיבים של האחר‪ ,‬איך תורמים חוויות הקורס לתפישות של‬
‫האני‪ ,‬של האחר ושל היחסים בין האני לאחר בהקשר של הקונפליקט הישראלי פלסטיני ומה‬
‫התרומה של כל אלו על עמדות ביחס לפיוס‪.‬‬
‫הלמידה אודות שונות ומורכבות בתוך החברה הפלסטינית הביאה את המשתתפים לחקירה של‬
‫שונות ומורכבות בתוך קבוצת הלמידה בכל הקשור לזהויות קולקטיביות‪ ,‬נרטיבים ויחסי כוח‪.‬‬
‫היכולת שהתפתחה לגשת באופן רפלקסיבי לשונות בתוך קבוצת הלמידה‪ ,‬לחוות ולחקור‬
‫קונפליקטים בין המשתתפים תרמה להתפתחות של היכולת לחקור את יחסי הקונפליקט עם‬
‫הפלסטינים מעמדה של רפלקסיביות ביקורתית‪ .‬זהות קולקטיבית הפך להיות מושג רב משמעי‪,‬‬
‫במקום תפישות שמייחסות חד ממדיות ונוקשות ביחס למי זה "הם" ו"אנחנו" התפתחה ההכרה‬
‫ברב ממדיות ומורכבות של מושגים האלו בהתייחס לחברה הישראלית והפלסטינית ובהתייחס‬
‫ליחסים שבין החברה הישראלית לחברה הפלסטינית‪ .‬הפרספקטיבה של מורכבות תרמה ליכולת‬
‫של המשתתפים לפגוש נרטיבים של האחר ממקום של אמפתיה גוברת ולהתמודד עם האתגרים‬
‫הרגשיים והקוגניטיביים של רפלקסיביות ביקורתית בהקשר של קונפליקט לא סימטרי‪ .‬בהמשך‬
‫להצגת ממצאי המחקר נידונו המשמעויות ביחס למקורות התיאורטיים שהנחו את המחקר‪.‬‬
‫‪88‬‬
‫בנוסף מוצעת פרשנות של הממצאים על ידי אבחנה של מנגנונים של הבניית מציאות הקונפליקט‬
‫שניתן לזהות בתהליכי הקורס‪ .‬הצעתי היא שמנגנונים אלו מקורם בתרבות עומק של החברה‬
‫הישראלית‪ ,‬תרבות עומק שמתפתחת מתוך הקשר של מבנה העומק של קונפליקט אלים‪ .‬בסביבת‬
‫הלמידה שהתפתחה על פי האוריינטציה של מחקר הפעולה התגובות של המשתתפים למגוון סוגי‬
‫ידע הפכו להיות מוקדי חקירה ולמידה‪ .‬הצעתי שתהליך מסוג זה יוצר הזדמנויות לחוות סביבה‬
‫שנוגדת הנחות רבות של תרבות עומק של אלימות‪ .‬בהקשר של סביבת למידה מוג זה החשיפה‬
‫לנרטיבים של האחר הופכת להיות הזדמנות להתייחס ליחסי קונפליקט מפרספקטיבות שתורמות‬
‫לעמדות של פיוס‪ ,‬כגון ההכרה במגוון נרטיבים ומגוון צרכים של כלל המעורבים בקונפליקט‪,‬‬
‫אמפתיה לסבל של האחר‪ ,‬והתייחסות לאלימות כמרכיב אינהרנטי לקונפליקט ולא בהכרח‬
‫כמיוחס לאחר בלבד‪ .‬בסוף התיזה אני מציע שאלות לקראת השלבים הבאים של המחקר‬
‫המתמשך‪.‬‬
‫‪89‬‬