Reconciliation during an intractable conflict in a Hebrew mixed (Arabs and Jews) college

ABSTRACT

This study examines how a course that includes recognizing pain and suffering inflicted during intractable conflicts affects Indigenous Minority Group students’ willingness to reconcile. The study employed a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative research tools with a pre-/post- questionnaire examining Israeli-Palestinian indigenous minority group students’ willingness to reconcile with the Israeli-Jewish majority group during an outbreak in violence (May 2021 Riots in Israel). Recognition entails creating space for minority students’ narratives and listening to their pain and anger related to their history and lived experiences as a minority. Findings show that students who received recognition maintain a steady will to reconcile and students who did not receive such recognition express a decrease in their willingness to reconcile. Such a distinction in results demonstrates the importance of recognizing a minority group’s narrative while an intractable conflict occurs.

KEYWORDS:

• Intractable conflict
• peace education
• mixed-college
• Palestinian students
• recognition
• Minority Group

Introduction

Since the rise of the Zionist movement at the end of the 19^th century, Jews and Palestinians have engaged in an intense and ongoing ‘intractable conflict’ (Bar-Tal 2007a) over the same piece of land, which culminated in all-out war (1947–1948) and resulted in the creation of an independent Jewish state and the dispersion of the Palestinian indigenous population into separated communities. The dispersion of the Palestinian community did not happen all at once—1948: three-part division of land into Jewish, Arab, and international parcels, 1967: Israel takes control of West Bank and Gaza, 1993: Oslo and the Palestinian Authority (PA), 2005–2007: Israel disengages from Gaza and Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement) takes over. This results in four major divisions of the Palestinian population: 1) Palestinian citizens of Israel (or Israeli-Palestinians), 2) Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank (administered, in part, by the Palestinian Authority), 3) Palestinian communities located in the Gaza Strip (Hamas administration), 4) Palestinian refugees in neighboring Arab countries (e.g. Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon) (Jamal 2011).

The Palestinian indigenous minority, who remain living in their homeland despite its occupation, have persisted in Israel since its proclamation in 1948 and have shared Israeli citizenship and life alongside Jews for nearly 75 years. The intensity of disagreement over narratives and opinions about the Palestinian question is part and parcel of the broader dispute between Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel. There is a foundational distrust between the Palestinian minority and the Jewish majority (Smooha 2016) and the Palestinian minority is widely perceived as a demographic and security threat to the State, a potential ‘fifth column’ (Waxman 2018). In addition, since its founding in 1948, Israel has declared itself a Jewish nation-state with the primary mission of serving Jewish people wherever they live. Consequently, Israel’s Palestinian citizens – one in four Israelis – are a political underclass (Ghanem and Mustafa 2018). Moreover, as a Jewish state, Israel does not distinguish between religion and nationality, thus, Palestinian citizens of Israel are religious/national, political, and linguistic/ethnic minorities who speak Arabic in a Hebrew-speaking society (Kook 2017). And persistent within this national context is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, one of the most intractable conflicts in the global arena with seasonal eruptions of violence (Kriesberg 2016), such as the May 2021 deterioration in Gaza.

The ‘Guardian of the Walls’ operation erupted on 10 May 2021, resulting in a ten-day wave of violence regarded as the worst of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in recent years (Lavie et al. 2021). The rise in hostilities in May 2021 followed the movement restrictions and displacement of Palestinians in East Jerusalem. First, on 6 May 2021, Palestinians began demonstrating against Israel’s Supreme Court order to expel Palestinian families from the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in Jerusalem. Then, on 7 May 2021, Israeli soldiers forcibly dispersed Palestinians from al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem’s Old City during Ramadan. Later, on 10 May 2021, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (a military struggle against non-Muslim rule) fired thousands of airstrikes on Israel who retaliated by firing thousands of airstrikes into Gaza (Darwish 2021) and launching Operation ‘Guardian of the Walls.’ On this same day, riots spread from Jerusalem to other mixed-inhabitant cities, like Jaffa and Haifa where both Arabs and Jews reside.¹ One study found that while about 73% of Jews believe the violence came from the Arab side, about 65% of Arabs believe the violence was mutual between both parties (Naser et al. 2021). Clashes included deadly attacks, vandalism to public and private property, and acts of arson at religious sites, homes, public buildings, and to vehicles (Lavie et al. 2021). All the while, Israeli-Palestinians continue to study in Israeli institutions of higher education, even during a prolonged period of escalation (Ari, Lilach, and Mula 2017; Binhas 2019; Redlich 2020).

During the May events, such students encountered Jewish lecturers and Jewish students and were subjected to a variety of interactions and reactions to the current conflict. For example, some Jewish lecturers and students objected to expressions of solidarity with Palestinians of East Jerusalem and an increase in violence against Arabic speakers caused many Israeli-Palestinian students to fear coming to campus (See Authors, 2022). In this context of escalated tension, we undertook this study to understand the willingness of Indigenous Palestinian students to reconcile with their Jewish counterparts. The current study looks at two groups of Indigenous Israeli Palestinian students at a Hebrew college in northern Israel. One group participated in a specialized course and the other group did not. This course focused on dialogue and partnership between communities using a unique model based on three concepts we abbreviate to ‘SEM’: 1) Shallow roots need constant watering, 2) Extended contact, and 3) Minimizing status differences (See Authors, 2022). As part of this course, students learned about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Palestinian narrative. They also received recognition of their own narratives and experienced how something other than the dominant (Jewish) one can be represented in education (Hanna 2016). For example, students explored the concept of ‘intractable conflict’ and its implications for society, watched films depicting shared lives and encounters between Israelis and Palestinians, and developed a plan to promote shared lives in the college. Again, the other group of Indigenous Palestinian students at the same college did not take this course, but instead were enrolled in a standard course.

The question that guides our research: Are students who took the SEM course more willing to reconcile with the Jewish majority than students who did not take the course? We hypothesize that they will be and, therefore, the next question we ask is why? We argue that recognizing the wrongs and injustices inflicted during intractable conflicts is one way to reduce hostilities between conflictual groups (Jamal 2001). In the context of a violent outbreak, recognition entails creating space for minority group narratives by listening to their pain and anger about living as a minority in a Jewish state (Bar-On 2010).

Literature review

Indigenous minorities

Research on social movements concerning how political and national minorities increasingly challenge the political orders of their countries has evolved (Jamal 2011). Such human resistance coincides with the growing power of national minorities to undermine the dominant ideological politics on national, cultural, legal, and moral grounds. This phenomenon exists particularly when the minority community is what remains of indigenous peoples, which is the case of Palestinian citizens in Israel (Jamal 2011, 1–2; Nasasra 2021), Native Americans, Māori of New Zealand, and more (Ririwai et al. 2021). Indigenous minority refers to ‘remaining members of a population group who continue to live in their homeland despite its occupation by immigrant groups that have come to establish a new state over its ruins’ (Ghanem and Ibrahim 2019, 12).

Minority-majority relations in the context of intractable conflict

Relationships between minority and majority groups based on ethnic and national differences can include attempts at both inclusion and exclusion (Banting and Soroka 2012). Indigenous minorities are vital sources for understanding minority-majority relations within a current nation-state, especially when a state is ruled by a hegemonic ethnic nation (Farley 2009). How ethnic states treat minorities is particularly relevant as indigenous minorities claim collective rights to challenge the state’s political order (Jamal 2011; Nasasra 2021). The relations between the hegemonic group and the minority group are further complicated in an intractable conflict because the minority group is often perceived as a threat to the majority group and, thus, a target for significant discrimination (Khatib 2021).

Intractable conflicts such as those in Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, Kashmir, Cyprus, and the Middle East persist over long periods and involve physical violence in which both soldiers and civilians are injured and killed. Society members rarely imagine peacefully resolving the conflict and, thus, make extensive material and psychological adjustments to cope with the ongoing situation. Intractable conflicts are perceived to be about essential and primary goals, needs, and values regarded as indispensable for community’s existence and survival. Each side focuses solely on its own survival – it is either us or them without compromise (Bar-Tal 2007a; Elcheroth and Dario 2015).

Indeed, the day-to-day relations between the Palestinian minority and the Jewish majority in Israel are inevitably linked to the ongoing Israeli – Palestinian conflict (Rosen and Perkins 2013), characterized by the following features: protracted, involves physical violence, perceived as irresolvable and about existential issues whereby each side focuses only on its own needs without possibility of compromise, demands extensive material and psychological investment (Bar-Tal 2007b; Elcheroth and Dario 2015). Because existential issues are at the center of the conflict, even relatively minor events can cause an outbreak in violence (Christie and Louis 2012; Vallacher et al. 2012). When such outbreaks (re)occur, such as the May 2021 events, overall feelings of threat increase and empathy for out-group members decreases. Often the hegemonic state will feel more threatened by the indigenous minority’s claims for collective rights. At the same time, the minority group’s negative emotions toward the majority group increase (Khatib 2021) with heightened feelings of anger, fear, rage, resentment, and insecurity (Daniel and Hammack 2012).

Recognition of the minority group narrative during an outbreak of violence

Recognition between rival groups includes acknowledging the foundational narratives of both groups: recognizing Palestinian claims to the land and the need for a Jewish state (Andrew and Hammack 2014; Daniel and Bennink 2004). Recognition is ‘necessary for the existence of any human group with a free will for autonomy and independence’ (Jamal 2001, 338). Recognizing the wrongs and injustices inflicted during intractable conflicts is one way to reduce hostilities between conflictual groups (Jamal 2001). In the context of a violent outbreak, recognition entails creating space for minority group narratives and listening to their pain and anger related to traumatic events (Bar-On 2010). Furthermore, recognition can reduce negative feelings toward the other group and, thus, increase opportunities for reconciliation (Daniel and Bennink 2004; Kelman 2008).

Therefore, we hypothesized that by systematically recognizing the history, complex identity, and lived experiences of an indigenous minority during a violent outbreak may mitigate their negative attitudes towards the majority group. We believe recognition is a human need in the context of intergroup relations (Bush and Folger 2004).

Similarly, non-recognition in the context of an intractable conflict impacts the conflictual ethos, which includes de-legitimization of the other side (Bar-Tal 2000). Generally, in conflict, and specifically in intractable conflict, the parties do not recognize the other’s legitimacy, which is a catalyst for intensification and violent outbreaks. Recognition of the out-group point of view does not mean agreement with everything the other represents but just a basic understanding of the legitimate existence of the other (Jamal 2001). The present study examines the consequences of a violent outbreak, during an intractable conflict, on Israeli Palestinian students. One group of students participated in a SEM course and gained recognition of their narrative and point of view and another group of students did not.

Description of the course

The course, ‘Dialogue and Partnership between Arab and Jewish Communities in Israel,’ extended across 14 weeks (with breaks for holidays), between 7 March 2021 and 27 June 2021, during which time the violent May events occurred. Except for three face-to-face meetings led by a Jewish lecturer (one of the researchers) and an Arab practitioner, all lessons were online and asynchronous.

To foster trust in the possibility of dialogue, partnership, and reconciliation we developed our SEM model based on three theoretical concepts mentioned above:

1. Shallow roots need constant watering: Peace education in a region of intractable conflict faces a hostile sociopolitical environment that works against its effects. ‘Reality dissonance’ describes the dissonance between the views and practices promoted by peace education and the reality of the intractable conflict that surrounds participants. Most peace education programs do not combat such dissonance. Instead, because members of such societies tend to be skeptical about peaceful resolutions or reconciliation (shallow roots), peace education initiatives operate on cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions (constant watering) (Rosen and Perkins 2013). Unlike schools, higher education put efforts into dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian intergroup relations and recognizing the power relations between the groups (Hager and Jabareen 2016; Paul-Binyamin and Haj-Yehia 2019). However, Israeli higher education is pressured to act according to the national agenda (Nasie and Bar-Tal 2012; Yemini 2021) and, thus, conflict and its consequences are often ignored (Yemini 2017), especially in times of violent eruptions (Authors 2022).

2. Extended contact: During an outbreak of violence, attitudes toward and perceptions of the other group become more negative (Lickel 2012). In such extreme conditions, ‘contact might be expected to help prevent or at least lessen the most brutal instances of intergroup violence’ (Wagner and Hewstone 2012, 200). Moreover, intergroup contact may bring each side to accept the legitimacy of the other side’s collective narrative (Pilecki and Hammack 2014; Salomon 2002). Recognition of the suffering of the minority group is a kind of such contact because it requires ‘acknowledging and empathizing with another’ (Malek and Burgess 2005). Indirect contact can also improve negative attitudes towards another group. for example, extended contact with new ideas and narratives can facilitate action, reaction, and introspection, all of which are observable in the student post-course narratives. Simply knowing that in-group members have outgroup friends (extended contact) or observing these friendships (vicarious contact) can improve intergroup relations and trust in the possibility of reconciliation (Authors 2022; Vezzali et al. 2014). In the current research, the students experienced an encounter with the outgroup through extended contact by watching videos showing intergroup meetings and shared lives between Palestinians and Jews in Israel (Authors 2022).

3. Minimizing status differences: organizers of group encounters invest considerable effort in minimizing status differences. Usually, this is accomplished by selecting two facilitators, a Palestinian and a Jew, and integrating Arabic language as much as possible (Suleiman 2004).

The students gained knowledge and recognition about their past through the legitimation of their national narrative and history (Salomon 2002) (cognitive dimension). They also read about common emotions during an intractable conflict, watched videos explaining emotional barriers, and viewed the film Two-Sided Story (by ‘Parents Circle Families Forum’). The film presents the Jewish and Palestinian narratives from both perspectives, and a video in which a Jewish participant demonstrates empathy and presents the Palestinian narrative in the first person. Through the video, the students watched the recognition of their narrative from the Jewish side (emotional dimension through extended contact). The students also reflected on their situation, shared their thoughts and feeling during the violence outbreak, and got recognition by creating space for their complex emotions. Indeed, recognition works by giving space for expressing emotions and recognizing a group’s narrative’s emotional significance (Bar-On 2010; Daniel and Bennink 2004). In addition, the presence of a Palestinian and a Jewish facilitator and inclusion of the Arabic language created a safe environment for students to express themselves and gain recognition (For more details, see Authors 2022).

During the outbreak in violence, the course facilitators convened the students for conversation about how they were experiencing events and asked them to write down their feelings and include the historical context of the conflict and prospects for reconciliation between Jews and Palestinians.

Methodology

This study employed a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative research tools for data analysis (Anderson and Shattuck 2012). Such a combination allows for a solid foundation and in-depth comprehension of results. It also facilitates the discovery of novel perspectives (Creswell 2014; Dunning et al. 2008).

Measurements

Willingness to reconcile (dependent variable). Our questionnaire is based on Shnabel and Nadler (2010) questionnaire which examines respondents’ willingness to reconcile with the other before and after the course. Our questionnaire is also based on the Zigenlaub and Sagy (2020) questionnaire, which examines Jewish-Israeli students’ willingness to reconcile with Palestinians. Participants were asked to indicate their opinions on 11 statements (e.g. ‘I think we should work to promote reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians,’ ‘I think the Jews are just like us’). Each item was given a Likert-type score ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly disagree. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .92 to .96.

Another questionnaire dealt with students’ knowledge about the history of the conflict. Participants were asked to indicate their degree of knowledge about the conflict with four statements (e.g. ‘Some of the settlements that the Jews established after 1948 were built in places where there had been Arab settlements before’). These questions were compiled based on a questionnaire dealing with narratives by Rosen (2006). In the current study α = 0.67.

In addition, students were asked to reflexively observe the process they underwent through written essays. The reflections inform the quantitative research by adding qualitative insight. We analyzed their reflections using Narralizer software (http://www.narralizer.com) and relied on theoretical intergroup relation concepts, such as negative emotions, racism, and intergroup empathy (Batson and Nadia 2009; Sofia, Crisp, and Hogg 2011). To enhance the reliability of the qualitative data, the researchers: 1) read and analyzed the reflections together and decided on the main categories; 2) continued reading and analyzing the reflections separately.

Participants

Participants were enrolled in two courses for undergraduate students of social science at a major college located in the periphery of Israel established for the purpose of increasing access to higher education for underprivileged populations. All students in both classes are Palestinian citizens of Israel with 62 students enrolled in the SEM course (research group) and 94 students enrolled in the non-SEM course (control group); both courses were taught by the same Jewish instructors. Table 1 details students’ age, gender, and socioeconomic status (SES), derived from the educational attainment of the students’ parents defined on a six-level scale: 0 = lack of education, 1 = elementary school, 2 = high school, 3 = BA degree, 4 = MA degree, 5 = doctoral degree. Significant between-group differences were found for the measured variables of age and SES but not for gender. Research group students were slightly younger than control group participants (t _[116.56] = 2.499, p < .05) and reported lower scores of parental educational attainment than the control group (father educational attainment t_[151.62] = 8.43, p < .001; mother educational attainment t_[153] = 9.08, p < .001).

Table 1. Student characteristics (research and control groups).

	Research group	Control group
Age	Mean 20.69 (SD = 1.66)	Mean 21.90 (SD = 3.95)
Gender	87% females	83.8% females
Mother educational attainment (MEA)	Mode 2 (primary school)	Mode 3 (high school)
Father educational attainment (FEA)	Mode 2 (primary school)	Mode 3 (high school)

Researchers emphasized prior to obtaining consent that the questionnaires were both anonymous and voluntary and participants were assured that no identifying information about the courses would be processed. The research was approved by the college’s Ethics Committee.

Analysis and findings

We hypothesized that the research group would not attain lower levels of willingness to reconcile following the intervention compared to before and higher levels of willingness to reconcile relative to the control group. To measure the effect of the intervention in relation to the dependent variable, a univariate analysis of covariance was applied to allow the characterization of differences between the pre- and post- interventions and between the groups (Research group = 1, control group = 2), while controlling for MEA, FEA, and age. The analysis showed significant differences between the tests only on the dependent variable (F _{[1, 279]} = 5.57, p < .05, η² = .020). The effects of student characteristic variable on the dependent variable were non-significant. This analysis was followed by two univariate analyses of variance conducted separately for each group. As for the research group, non-significant results were detected between the tests (pre/post) (F _{[1, 119]} = 0.12, p > .05, η² = .001; pretest M = 4.43, SD = 1.10; posttest M = 4.36, SD = 1.27), meaning no change in their willingness to reconcile. The analysis for the control group was found statistically significant (F _{[1, 182]} = 12.45, p < .01, η² = .064). These control group students showed less reconciliation willingness in the post-test (M = 4.39, SD = 1.13) compared to the pretest (M = 4.90, SD = 0.82). Figure 1 summarizes the findings of the differences between groups and tests for the dependent variable. The hypothesis was partially corroborated.

Figure 1. Differences between groups and tests for the dependent variable.

Furthermore, to measure how the intervention impacts student knowledge, independent samples t-test was applied to highlight the differences between the pre- and post- intervention for the research group. In Table 2, we present the quantitative findings of the index variable.

Table 2. The knowledge variable before and after the course.

Variable	Before course M (SD)	After course M (SD)	t
Knowledge about the conflict	4.28 (1.11)	4.86 (.98)	−3.004**

Note. ** p<0.01, n=62.

In addition to the quantitative findings, the qualitative findings indicate the importance of recognition during the course. The students from the research group expressed their feelings in the reflections they shared.² Some of them described the gap between the Jewish and Palestinian students, the Jews’ negative attitudes and racism toward Palestinians, and the effect of such behavior on Palestinian students’ sense of belonging:

At the college, there is a mix between Arabs and Jews, but… the news that happened (May events) stirred up attitudes and influenced our opinion on many things. I saw the violence we are exposed to, and there is no way to prevent it because we are Arabs and they are Jews. There is no other option.

The ongoing political tension, discrimination, and inequality increased the feeling of not belonging among the Arab minority.

However, most of them mentioned the knowledge they learned about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the implications of intractable conflicts, and the fact that there is diversity amongst Jews and programs of partnership between Jews and Arabs. The students also felt safe to express themselves and their complicated feelings and some of them found the course helpful in such a difficult time.

New knowledge and familiarity with both sides:

The course positively affected my belief about (the relationship between) Jews and Arabs. Because the course increased our familiarity with many events … our knowledge grew significantly, and we also studied with a Jewish teacher who understood the situation and always understood both sides. All of these gave us a comfortable atmosphere to study this subject.

Here, a student mentions that increased knowledge and a Palestinian point of view, especially taught by a Jewish teacher, positively impacted their beliefs about Arabs and Jews.

The course raised my belief about reconciliation between Arabs and Jews, from negative to positive. And this course made me more knowledgeable about what happened between Arabs and Jews in the past.

This student also claims more knowledge (i.e., acknowledgment) about the conflict he was exposed to in the course contributed to his increased belief in reconciliation.

The course taught us many things about the confrontation between Arabs and Jews. There are many Jews who do not consider Arabs as criminals … The Arabs and the Jews suffered a lot, and not every Jew is a racist, and not every Arab is a criminal.

This student describes learning about the different perspectives of the conflict from both sides and how this contact with such knowledge provided space for them to feel empathy.

Self-expression:

This course lets us openly discuss our opinions, how we feel towards the other people, what we are going through, and how we live. We had a course assignment during the last violent events, and, through it, we discussed what we feel and tried to understand what others feel.

It was a difficult time … I am an Arab, and I see what happened in Jerusalem or Gaza. It hurts me.

Here, students describe how the course gave them a safe place to express themselves and their complicated feelings during the outbreak of conflict.

Assistance during a difficult time:

The course helped me get through this period easily because we learned about the conflict between the two sides and the opinion of each side. We saw sympathy between the two sides, and each side tried to trust the other. In this course, I learned that there are programs that help through specific activities that increase trust and reduce conflict and tension between Arabs and Jews. This period was difficult for all of us, but with the help of the course, it was easy for me to get through this period.

The student describes how the course eased the stress brought on by the immediate conflict. They also learned about other programs that facilitate positive relationships between Palestinians and Jews, which increased trust and mutual empathy for each side.

This course is designed to bring the Arabs and the Jews together, so especially during this period, this course positively affected the Arabs because it tried to reduce the rate of hatred between them. Especially at the last meeting, lecturer Yoav and practitioner Muhammad did activities related to the events that happened, and they did so to reduce the conflict. As for myself, these events (outbreak of violence) did not affect me in a big way.

This student describes how the course helped them during the immediate conflict. The activities led by the Jewish lecturer and the Palestinian practitioner effectively reduced feelings of stress and hatred.

Counterexamples:

However, some students mentioned a gap between what they learned in the course and their lived realities.

This course was the opposite of the current reality we have gone through. Most of the videos demonstrated acceptance between Arabs and Jews, which happened until now but not to a large extent. What exists, to a large extent, is reality.

Discussion

This study’s original purpose was to examine the influence of the intervention on the students’ willingness to reconcile. However, during the course, an outbreak in violence occurred. As Khatib (2021) mentioned, in such a situation, the relations between the hegemonic state group and the minority group are more complicated since the minority group will be perceived as a threat by the majority group, as was the situation between the Jewish and Arab students during the violent events (See Authors, 2022). Therefore, when violence breaks out, such as in May 2021, threatening feelings increase, including strong negative emotions and less willingness to reconcile (Daniel and Bennink 2004; Daniel and Hammack 2012). For example, according to one of the students: ‘During the violent incidents I saw malice and hatred in their eyes when I was walking on the road, I also heard in my ears that they were talking insolently about the Arabs, saying out loud “Death to the Arabs”, also writing everywhere on the walls this sentence.’

Following the violent event, we refined our hypothesis. Instead of assuming that the intervention will raise the level of willingness for reconciliation by the research group, we hypothesized that during a violent outbreak, the intervention would, at least, mediate the expected decrease in willingness to reconcile. The research group students attended a course where they gained recognition for their point of view and national narrative. We argue recognition can be achieved through these dimensions: knowledge about the historical conflict and both narratives, and how an intractable conflict affects communities; familiarity with options for reconciliation between groups; watching a Jewish participant who expresses empathy and recognition by presenting the Palestinian narrative in the first person; giving recognition by making room for negative emotions of the minority group; and cultivating positive emotions through extended contact (Bar-On 2010; Jamal 2001; Malek and Burgess 2005; Salomon 2002).

In addition, students from the research group experienced ‘reality dissonance’ when they encountered the gap between their new knowledge about the conflict and intergroup dialogue promoted by the course and the pervasive reality of the ongoing conflict. Such reality dissonance can make participants more skeptical about peaceful resolutions or reconciliation (Rosen and Perkins 2013). As one student mentioned: ‘All that is happening in reality lately is completely different from what we are learning in the course.’ Despite this, non-significant results were detected between the tests (pre/post), i.e. research group students’ level of willingness to reconcile either remained the same or increased, it did not decrease. The control group, in comparison, showed less reconciliation willingness in the post-test than the pre-test. The pre-test was given prior to the violence and so the decrease in willingness to reconcile was motivated by current factors. The intervention really did act as a prophylactic or preventive measure.

The differences in results between the research and control groups demonstrate the importance of recognizing a minority group narrative and point of view while an intractable conflict occurs. This recognition also contains knowledge about the conflict and the group’s history, including its origins. Indeed, the research group’s knowledge level increased in the post-test, as seen in the following statement: ‘the Palestinian people have lived in parts of the country for centuries. Until the establishment of the State of Israel, a large Arab majority lived in the country.’ In other words, more students were aware of their origin as part of an indigenous group (Jamal 2011). Learning that their land claims are justifiable might, arguably, cause students to feel angrier and more resentful. However, in coordination with the other components of the course, this new knowledge, did not cause a decrease in their willingness to reconcile.

The emotional component of the course also led to recognition. The students testified that the course provided a safe place for them to express their feelings openly. Indeed, giving space for expressing difficult or negative feelings constitutes recognition for minority groups (Bar-On 2010). This study shows the importance of expressing emotions in a situation of violence and conflict, especially among Indigenous Palestinian students who live in a Jewish state and learn in a mixed Hebrew college.

The students experienced recognition through direct contact with the Jewish lecturer who acknowledged the suffering of his students during May 21 event (Malek and Burgess 2005). In addition, the experience of extended contact illustrated to the participants the possibility of living together and reconciliation: ‘the videos and interviews we watched heightened my belief that it is possible to reconcile and live in peace.’ Recognition also came by watching a video that presented the Palestinian point of view from a Jewish participant in the first person: ‘At the beginning of this course, I did not know much about the relationship between Jews and Arabs, but now I know that there are Jews who like to live and participate with Arabs.’ This study demonstrates how direct and indirect contact during intractable conflict and a violent outbreak can lead to trust in the ability to reconcile.

In sum, we can argue that the recognition students got from the course assisted them in preserving the possibility for reconciliation, compared to the control group. As one student from the research group argued: ‘Through the course, I knew that people want to improve the relationship between the Arabs and the Jews, and they are trying to find programs to improve the relationship. It made me hope there are options for reconciliation.’

This study is consistent with other studies that deal with the relationship between recognition and reconciliation (Daniel and Bennink 2004; Kelman 2008). The study also demonstrates how recognition can be significant during a violent episode within an intractable conflict, among an indigenous minority group attending a mixed college.

Limitation and future research

The present study demonstrates the importance of recognition in times of conflict, intergroup violence, and ‘reality dissonance’ when students encounter the gap between the course content and the reality of the conflict. Recognition gives the students a space to express themselves and feel better even during conflict and violence. However, one of the study’s limitations is that the violent riots changed the original plan to study the effect of the course in more peaceful times. In the future, it is advisable to conduct such research to learn whether the course causes willingness to reconcile in more peaceful time and not just to prevent a decline. Another limitation is the lack of explanations as to which recognition aspect was significant for the students. Is this because the students could express themselves when violence erupted, is it the new knowledge about history and injustice, or is it the students’ new knowledge about the possibilities for reconciliation? The students mentioned all these aspects in the reflections. Future research that would study these aspects in depth may contribute to a deeper understanding of recognition during intractable conflicts among minority groups.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Noa Shapira

Dr. Noa Shapira completed her Ph.D. at the Faculty of Education, Technologies in Education Program, Haifa University. The Ph.D. was entitled: Fostering intergroup empathy in an online learning environment. Between 2015-2018, she was a member of the Learning in a Networked Society (LINKS) Israeli Centre of Research Excellence (I-CORE). She is now a lecturer at Kinneret College on the Sea of Galilee, the Department of Education and Community. Noa is one of the developers of the MOOC course: Introduction to Multiculturalism.

Yoav Kapshuk

Dr. Yoav Kapshuk is a Senior Lecturer at Kinneret College on the Sea of Galilee, Israel, and Head of the Israel Studies Unit at the Department of Multidisciplinary Studies. Former Visiting Fellow at the LSE Middle East Center and the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt. Dr. Kapshuk focuses on peace research: peacebuilding, peace education, peacemaking, and transitional justice, especially about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israelis and Palestinians relationships. He received his Ph.D. in Political Science and International Relations from Tel-Aviv University (2017). His studies have been published in peer-reviewed academic journals such as Defense and Peace Economics, Israel Law Review, and Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology.

Notes

1. The term ‘mixed cities’ is often used in Israel to describe cities with large number of both Israeli Jews and Israeli Palestinians.

2. ^tThe quotes are translated from Hebrew