Download PDF Version     Printable Version

| More

Grassroots Reconciliation in Palestine and Israel (Part Two) by Hania Bekdash

Palestine Center Brief No. 181 (18 August 2009)

By Hania Bekdash*

Overview: In resolving conflicts between groups, grassroots reconciliation efforts are imperative. Without them, reaching a sustainable conflict settlement and positive peace is difficult.¹  Top-down peacemaking approaches to conflict negotiations without parallel and adequate bottom-up grassroots efforts has proven ineffective and should be avoided in Israel and Palestine.

Recent history has shown that reconciliation and dialogue among elites and policymaking leaders is precarious without the support of their publics. If the people become disenchanted in resolution arrangements, they cannot be sustained. In order to create motivation for a public to support conflict settlement, reconciliation at the popular level must be introduced, taught and practiced as a parallel policy.

The breakdown of the Oslo Accords and Camp David II, which were followed by the 2000 intifada, or uprising, is just one example of failed attempts marred by largely ineffective grassroots efforts. Many believe that the grassroots reconciliation and peace programs that took place before the second intifada were flawed because they perpetuated the power asymmetry between Israel and the Palestinians.² Since then, more joint Israeli-Palestinian activities and efforts have been taking place on the ground but without the proper support of political negotiations.  Elite-level developments, such as the Annapolis conference in 2007, will not succeed without a basis in popular sentiments. With the U.S President Barack Obama administration’s current ambitious agenda of forcing a political agreement between policymakers, especially with a divided Palestinian leadership, bottom-up efforts are more important than ever in shifting public opinion in hopes to sway leadership.

The signing of agreements must also be accompanied by social and psychological change at the grassroots level on both sides³.  The social and psychological barriers that engender conflict settlement are often not given sufficient importance in political policymaking but they will remain crucial components. Many studies have shown that mutual de-legitimization, cognitive distortions, lack of trust and other psychological aspects are significant factors that contribute to protracted conflicts⁴.

Grassroots efforts must therefore focus on three major aspects of peacebuilding as a support for the political peacemaking process: psychological factors, education and advocacy and democratic institution-building. This overarching approach toward the peace process in Israel and Palestine will assure that both social psychological and political impediments to settlement are addressed in a manner that will create the proper conditions for positive peace, beyond the mere management of conflict, to be achieved.

History of Grassroots Reconciliation

Prior to the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 Israeli civil society organizations represented a spectrum of far-right to far-left positions vis-à-vis the Palestinians, but always along the lines of Zionist principles. Many Israeli peace groups founded before the Accords supported peace on the basis of two states yet failed to rectify the most basic aspects of the Palestinian experience: the Israeli dispossession of Palestinians and appropriation of the their land and property. Nonetheless, some argue their grassroots efforts in dialogue and interaction aided the signing of the Accords.⁵  After Oslo, more Israeli anti-Zionist organizations that recognized Palestinians as equals emerged. However, Israeli civil society has always been careful not to be linked too closely with internationalist movements for fear that they would be characterized as anti-Israel.⁶  In addition, they lack political support by policymakers and are largely relegated to the peripheries of public opinion, thereby limiting their capacity to effect change.

Palestinian civil society organizations also shifted their goals before and after the Oslo Accords. Prior to Oslo, civil society organizations in Palestine mainly focused on uniting against the occupation. Their goals were to establish dialogue and track II diplomacy aimed to get the Palestinian cause on the international agenda⁷. After Oslo, they shifted their focus to human rights, political awareness and socio-economic development. Absent of a sovereign state, the organizations faced a repressive Israeli occupation and were dependent on foreign funds, limiting the nature of the work.⁸ 

Joint Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation organizations were the next wave after Oslo and predominately followed the form of “people-to-people activities”. Many of these did not survive the second intifada because they largely perpetuated power asymmetries that inhibited, rather than promoted, reconciliation. Common characteristics of organizations that did survive by leveling these asymmetries include: 1) equitable leadership among both Israelis and Palestinians, 2) activities conducted on somewhat neutral sites or at least in dual offices and locations, and 3) non-exclusionary language, meetings in both Arabic and Hebrew or English.  Many of the groups that did not survive the intifada were dominated by Israelis and seen as tacitly imposing a Zionist agenda through the use of language, location and leadership.

Other people-to-people attempts include interactive problem solving workshops. Herbert Kelman is one of the most notable facilitators of problem-solving workshops among Israelis and Palestinian mid-level influentials and elites. The influential participants of Kelman’s workshops included journalists, directors of think tanks, academics, political leaders and former diplomats. However, there is the danger of self-selecting bias in this group because a prerequisite was that they would be willing to explore the possibility of a negotiated solution. Kelman maintains that interactive problem solving workshops were a main contributing factor leading to Oslo which, regardless of its actual impact, was a significant step forward in the peace process.¹⁰  However, after the failure of Oslo, problem-solving workshops designed for influential and elite members of society were criticized for focusing too much on government policies in the Occupied Territory and not enough on rebuilding grassroots relations and addressing systemic injustices.¹¹

The main joint grassroots organizations that are thriving today because of adherence to symmetrical principles include: Peace Research Institute of the Middle East (PRIME)¹², Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI)¹³, Middle East Children Association (MECA), Crossing Borders and Neveh Shalom/Wahat el Salam School for Peace¹⁴. These peacebuilding organizations that exist today exemplify adherence to the aforementioned principles because they remain consistent in developing a joint leadership, participation and values that offer models for institution-building in the future.

Relevance of Grassroots Activities

Many studies have been conducted to determine the efficacy of grassroots programs on promoting peace. Professors Soloman and Biton studied an Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information program directed at both Israeli and Palestinian youth called “Pathways into Reconciliation”. They found that the program caused participants to shift their perceptive of peace from negative to a more positive and structural understanding. The program is believed to have been successful in decoupling the political-military events from the people as individuals in the minds of the participants. In turn, participants humanized other individuals and held them as separate from events. According to the cognitive dissonance theory, which emphasizes the role that psychological barriers can play in perpetuating conflict, such a distinction is imperative to prevent further conflict.¹⁵  Another professor, Moaz, discovered that following his study of youth conflict transformation workshops, Jews and Palestinians now rated each other as intelligent and broad-minded to a similar extent.¹⁶  Focusing on youth is especially relevant and important because they are at a developmental stage that emphasizes development of social and personal identities.¹⁷  If successfully implemented, it is highly probable that youth will be involved in long-range peace-building activities through cooperative projects during their time in university and beyond¹⁸.

Although grassroots reconciliation practices cannot replace diplomacy and negotiations at the political level, they are necessary for creating a culture of peace to break through the “cognitive wall” that often inhibits the success of formal negotiations and contributes to escalated violence. In this regard, grassroots efforts are important for sustaining and preserving relationships where possible, creating safe spaces where people can meet without feeling ostracized by their communities and for standing against militant extremists on both sides. Also, it helps maintain constructive interactions that can lead to fostering more positive collaborative activities. More important, if the participants in the program believe it has been successful in shaping or changing their perspectives then they will likely work in disseminating their opinions and contribute to the overall achievement of a just peace. 

What More Can be Done?

Since signing accords will not eliminate all barriers to reconciliation, it is necessary that grassroots continue addressing means to overcome the barriers while remaining cognizant of root causes. Roots of psychological barriers tend to be attributed to negative images and stereotypes reflected and perpetuated by mass socialization processes; the agents of which are state institutions, media, educational systems and textbooks.¹⁹   These must be the target of significant counter-efforts in grassroots reconciliation practices. Counter-approaches need to be joint efforts that are capable of promoting a symmetrical push for reconciliation. This includes the creation or merging of other civil society organizations such as human rights and “watchdog” groups to raise awareness and engage the political process. Short experimental workshops may be useful for research purposes but will remain largely limited in impact. The projects should be long-term, sustainable and cooperatively organized.  

Though some reconciliation projects can be politically difficult, they are not impossible. The use of education in creating a shared history has been very contentious in Israeli society. In 1994, the Israeli Ministry of Education began work to develop new textbooks for Israeli school children that would recognize previously denied Palestinian realities. The project continued under Benyamin Netanyahu’s administration of 1999, and after the Labor party regained power, new textbooks became available in 1999 that were later overruled by the Knesset.²⁰  Recently, Israel has been trying to pass a law prohibiting the teaching of the Nakba, the catastrophic impact of Israel’s foundation on the Palestinians in 1948, in schools. In hopes to counter these measures, some organizations have created educational materials. For example, Zochrot and other civil society organizations help spread an understanding of truth within the two narratives. Zochrot is a non-governmental organization aimed at educating the public on the Nakba. It put together an educational kit for middle and high-school aged Israeli teenagers that gives a literary and personal account history of the period surrounding 1948 from the Palestinian perspective.²¹

For projects that currently do not have a combined leadership or focus, two options remain within the bounds of promoting reconciliation. They can either find another organization from the “other side” that does similar work and with which they can foster collaborative relations. Another option involves focusing on creating inter-group reconciliation and homogeneity. Both Israelis and Palestinians are deeply divided politically which is another barrier to public support for negotiated settlement²². Dr. Patricia Lundy, who has studied the Northern Ireland intra-group reconciliation process, believes that sequencing intra-group reconciliation before inter-group may be an essential decision to take.²³  She has found it beneficial to create a climate of reconciliation among one’s own community, especially the most “extremist” ones, in order to prepare them to reconcile with the other side. Furthermore, with the current divided intra-Palestinian leadership, the primacy of intra-group reconciliation may not only be a favorable option, but a necessity.

The next step of “people-to-people” programs and dialogue is for both groups to actually live and coexist in the same community .To date, only one experimental village has been formed with this goal in mind and it is known as the Oasis of Peace or Neve Shalom/Wahat el Salam²⁴. This is considered a people-to-people project on a massive scale where members of both “sides” are forming civic, economic and political bonds in all levels of society from children to adults. An increase of these projects, or communities, would prove enormously beneficial to sustaining the fruits of any formal peace negotiations as well as achieving positive peace within the Israeli and Palestinian societies. Even just creating more awareness to both parties about such a place’s successful existence is a good starting point.

Overcoming Barriers to Grassroots Reconciliation

Although there remains a significant fear of ostracization, grassroots organizations must increasingly participate in multi-lateral organizing. More collaboration among the different kinds of organizations ranging from psychological, educational and democracy-promotion must be implemented under the overarching and super-ordinate goal of mutually achieving a positive peace. Education must inform activism, activism must educate and social psychological organizations must work to break down the cognitive walls that inhibit the practical implementations of all other Palestinian-Israeli collaborative projects.

One way of doing this is to engage with technology and new forms of media in a more beneficial way. For example, many websites of smaller grassroots movements suffer from poorly communicated information and are rarely updated. Public relations and marketing experts would be an enormous asset to any of these organizations. They would contribute to their ability to effectively disseminate information. Taking smaller steps like educating youth to be more conversant in these types of activities will prove reciprocally rewarding. The youth will be better equipped to become leaders and policymakers and support positive peace initiatives while the organizations will expand incrementally.

One of the most effective methods for overcoming barriers to grassroots reconciliation is to promote joint or cross-cutting organizations working on economic, environmental and social issues. This will attract a greater amount of followers who are perhaps not primarily interested in reconciliation but will later learn that it is a welcome side-effect of affecting change in mutual areas of interest. For example, The Parent’s Circle is an organization that was created by people who were most affected by the violence of protracted conflict in Israel and Palestine. Through dialogue and activism, both sides join together to overcome grief and promote a peaceful resolution.²⁵ 

Inter-faith projects are beneficial to finding common ground among different faiths and promoting a necessary inclusionary perspective on religious identities, known as “religiorelativism”.²⁶    Beyond dialogue, these organizations sometimes engage in political actions that target religious groups. Rabbis for Human Rights is an organization that merges values of human rights while promoting greater religious tolerance and understanding.²⁷  Such hybrid type organizations are the quintessential models for overcoming barriers to reconciliation. Moreover, faith-based projects are instrumental in retracting from the extremist ideologies by promoting a non-extremist version of religion that is more in line with principles of peace and tolerance.

Outside groups can also help enable reconciliation efforts by pressuring Israel. An interesting study in 1997 by Oren Yiftchael, professor at Ben Gurion University, found that economic motivations for supporting peace were growing among the Ashkenazi elite²⁸. The increased economic burden of funding the occupation has created a group favoring reconciliation and a peace settlement. It follows then that greater economic burdens on Israeli society, like those imposed by an international boycott, could prove increasingly effective in swaying public opinion to support settlement and perhaps initially engage in reconciliation. Part of the success of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa was also attributed to an international boycott.

In sum, reconciliation must be sought as a parallel policy to formal negotiated agreements. Though it has already begun at the grassroots level, it must be further developed as an integral complement to any credible and just agreement. There is no dearth of local organizations within Israel and Palestine that are working toward a solution, but more can and should be done. The most successful and just organizations are the ones that promote cooperation among both parties, embrace mutual goals and lead to the building of new and shared institutions.

* This information brief was written by Palestine Center intern Hania Bekdash, a student at the Fletcher School at Tufts University, as culmination of her research during the Summer 2009 Internship Program. The views expressed within are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of The Jerusalem Fund or its educational program, The Palestine Center. This brief may be used without permission if credit is given to the Center.

---

¹  Beyond the absence of violence, “positive peace” is a term used to describe the presence of social equality and justice. For more information, see: Johan Galtung, “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research,” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, (1969): 167-191.
²  Ifat Maoz, "Peace Building in Violent Conflict: Israeli-Palestinian Post-Oslo People-to-People Activities." International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society 17, no. 3 (2004): 563-574.
³  Ifat Maoz, "An Experiment in Peace: Reconciliation-Aimed Workshops of Jewish-Israeli and Palestinian Youth." Journal of Peace Research 37, no. 6 (2000): 721-736.
⁴  Gordon Allport, The Nature of Prejudice, (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1954); John Paul Lederach, Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies, (Washington DC: U.S. Institute of Peace, 1997): David Bargal, “Structure and Reconciliation Transformation Workshops: Encounters Between Israeli and Palestinian Youth,” Small Group Research Process, (vol. 35, no. 5, October 2004): 596-616.
5  Nona Mikhelidze and Nicoletta Pirozzi, “Civil Society and Conflict Transformation in Abkhazia, Israel-Palestine, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria and Western Sahara”, MICROCON Policy Working Paper 3, http://www.microconflict.eu/publications/PWP3_NM_NP.pdf , November 2008, (accessed on 7/20/09): 47
⁶  Ibid.,47
⁷  Track II diplomacy is known as indirect or non-official negotiations and interventions by non-governmental organizations, scholars, religious leaders, or former diplomats who are deemed “eminent” or “influential”.
⁸  Nona Mikhelidze and Nicoletta Pirozzi, “Civil Society and Conflict Transformation in Abkhazia, Israel-Palestine, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria and Western Sahara”, MICROCON Policy Working Paper 3, http://www.microconflict.eu/publications/PWP3_NM_NP.pdf , November 2008, (accessed on 7/20/09): 48.
⁹  Ifat Maoz, "Peace Building in Violent Conflict: Israeli-Palestinian Post-Oslo People-to-People Activities," International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, (vol. 17, no. 3, 2004): 563-574.
¹⁰  Herbert Kelman, “Interactive Problem Solving in the Israeli-Palestinian Case: past Contributions and Present Challenges,” in Contributions of Interactive Conflict Resolution to Peacemaking, ed. R. Fisher, (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005): 1-28.
¹¹  Louis Kriesberg, "The Relevance of Reconciliation Actions in the Breakdown of Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations, 2000." Peace & Change, (vol. 27, no. 4, 2002): 546-571.
¹²  PRIME is a non-governmental, nonprofit organization established by Palestinian and Israeli researchers in 1998 with the help of the Peace Research Institute in Frankfurt, Germany. PRIME's purpose is to pursue mutual coexistence and peace-building through joint research and outreach activities. Information found at: http://www.vispo.com/PRIME/index.htm
13  IPCRI is a joint institution of Israelis and Palestinians dedicated to the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the basis of “two-states for two peoples” solution. It is unique in that it is the only Israeli-Palestinian joint public policy think-tank and "do-tank" in the region. IPCRI seeks to serve as an intellectual platform for Israelis and Palestinians (and others) to create and develop new concepts and ideas that enrich the political and public discourse in order to influence decision makers and to challenge the current political reality with the aim of advancing the political solution of two-states for two-peoples. Information found at: http://www.ipcri.org/
¹⁴  Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam- is a cooperative village of Jews and Palestinian Arabs of Israeli citizenship. The village is situated equidistant from Jerusalem and Tel Aviv-Jaffa. The School for Peace (SFP) was created in 1979 as an ideological educational institution of Neve Shalom/ Wahat al Salam. Through encounter workshops and training programs, they try to implement the principles on which the community was founded. Information found at: http://nswas.org/rubrique138.html
¹⁵  For more information, see: Phil Barker, "Cognitive Dissonance." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: September 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/cognitive_dissonance/>, (accessed on 8/6/09).
¹⁶  Ifat Maoz, "An Experiment in Peace: Reconciliation-Aimed Workshops of Jewish-Israeli and Palestinian Youth." Journal of Peace Research 37, no. 6 (2000): 731
¹⁷  Erik Erikson, Identity: Youth and Crisis, (New York: Norton, 1968).
¹⁸  David Bargal, “Structure and Reconciliation Transformation Workshops: Encounters Between Israeli and Palestinian Youth.” Small Group Research. (vol. 35, no. 5, October 2004): 596-616.
¹⁹  Daniel Bar-Tal, “Formation and Change of Ethnic and National Stereotypes: An Integrative Model”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, (vol. 21, no. 4,1997): 491-523
²⁰  Louis Kriesberg, "The Relevance of Reconciliation Actions in the Breakdown of Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations, 2000." Peace & Change 27, no. 4 (2002): 577.
²¹  Or Kashti, “Are Teachers Introducing Nakba to Students Against State’s Wishes?,” Ha’aretz, June 4, 2009, http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1090345.html (accessed on 8/2/09).
²² “ Israeli Election Suggests Political Divisions Remain”, J Weekly,  February 12, 2009, http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/37162/israeli-election-suggests-political-divisions-remain/ (accessed on 8/7/09);
Oren Yiftachel, “Israeli Society and Jewish-Palestinian Reconciliation: ‘Ethnocracy’ and its Territorial Contradictions”, Middle East Journal, (vol. 51, no. 4, Autumn 1997): 505-519.
²³  Nevin Aiken, “Learning to Live Together: Transitional Justice and Intergroup Reconciliation in Northern Ireland,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association’s 50th Annual Convention “Exploring the Past, Anticipating the Future”, New York, NY February 15-18, 2009. USA Online <PDF>. 2009-05-22 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p314063_index.html: 28.
²⁴  See endnote xiv.
²⁵  The Parent’s Circle- Families Forum – We strive to offer a breakthrough in people's frame of mind, to allow a change of perception, a chance to re-consider one's views and attitudes towards the conflict and the other side. The Forum activities are a unique phenomenon, in that they continue during all political circumstances and in spite of all tensions and violence in our region. Information found at: http://www.theparentscircle.com/
²⁶  For more information on “religiorelativism” and “religiocentrism”, see: Mohammed Abu-Nimer, “Religion, Dialogue, and Non-Violent Actions in Palestinian-Israeli Conflict”, International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, Vol. 17, No. 3, Spring 2004: 491-510
²⁷  Rabbis for Human Rights seeks to prevent human rights violations in Israel and in areas for which Israel has taken responsibility, and to bring specific human rights grievances to the attention of the Israeli public while pressuring the appropriate authorities for their redress. Information found at: http://www.rhr.org.il/index.php?language=en
²⁸  Oren Yiftachel, “Israeli Society and Jewish-Palestinian Reconciliation: ‘Ethnocracy’ and its Territorial Contradictions”, Middle East Journal, (vol. 51, no. 4, Autumn 1997): 505-519.