Othering and de-othering in Israel and Palestine
The case of Windows-channels for communication
Dani Bender
Student number: 6356648
Master thesis; Children’s rights, UvA
August 2011
First reader: Jacobijn Olthoff
Second reader: Lilian Peters
The illustration on the front page was painted by Yeara Shenhav, a young girl from the Democratic
School in Kfar Saba, a city in central Israel. It was part of the “Dreaming Peace” exhibition organized
by Windows. Is it a window through which the two children are making eye contact? Or is it a mirror,
each child seeing something of the other in themselves? Or something completely different? I felt
that it depicted the de-othering process. Looking at the other while looking at the same time looking
at yourself.
2
Contents
Chapter
Table of contents
3
Acknowledgments
6
1. Introduction
7
2. Methodology
10
2.1 Subjective reality
10
2.2 Position in the field
10
2.3 Methods
12
2.3.1 Issues in the field
12
2.3.2 Focus group interviews
13
2.3.3 Participant observation
15
2.3.4. Interviews
15
2.3.5 The magazines
16
2.3.6. Selection of participants
17
2.3.7 The issue of informed consent
18
2.3.8. Language issues
18
3. Context
19
3.1. Failing to report; children’s rights in Israel
19
3.1.1 Three groups of children
20
3.2 Looking at history
23
3.2.1 Pre Israel
23
3.2.2 Independence day or Nakbah
24
3.2.3. 1967; defeat or liberation
25
3.2.4. Terror or rebellion
26
3.2.5. The country now
27
3.3 Conclusion
28
3
4. Images of the ‘other’
4.1. Othering in theory
29
29
4.1.1. Comparing ourselves to the other othering in theory
29
4.1.2 Intractable conflicts and monolithic identities
30
4.2. Othering in the Israeli-Palestinian context
4.2.1 Fearing the other
4.3 Influential factors on the image of the other
31
31
33
4.3.1 Education and othering
34
4.3.2 The influential media, a discussion of theory
36
4.3.3 Media and othering in practice
38
4.3.4 History and othering
38
4.3.5 Denial of the other’s history and collective memory
39
4.3.6 Culture of victimhood
40
4.3.7 Society, family, friends and othering
41
4.3.8 Family and othering
41
4.3.9 Pressure from peer groups
42
4.3.10 Personal experience and othering
44
4.4 Conclusion
5. Windows, channels for communication
45
47
5.1. The formative years
47
5.2. Windows in theory; the contact model
48
5.3. Growth of the program
49
5.4. Windows in theory; dialogue models
51
5.5. Windows in practice
52
5.5.1. The preparation program
53
5.5.2 Young Journalists
53
5.5.3 Video Group
54
5.5.4 Young Leaders
55
5.6. Non dialogue methods
55
5.7. Recruitment and keeping the youth in the program
55
4
5.8. Conclusion
6. The effects of Windows
6.1. Jewish Video group: the Tel Aviv group
6.1.1. Image of the other
6.2. Jewish Young Journalist group: the Gi’vataim group
6.2.1. Image of the other
6.3. Palestinians of 67 Video group: the Bethlehem group
6.3.1 Image of the other
6.4. Palestinians of 48 Video group: the Jaffa group
6.4.1. Image of the other
6.5. Palestinians of 48 Young Journalist group: the Tamra group
6.5.1. Image of the other
57
58
58
58
60
60
62
62
63
64
66
66
6.6. Discussion of Windows’s diverse impact
67
6.7. Factors of othering revisited
67
6.7.1. Eroding forces
68
6.7.2. The ripple effect
69
6.8. The friendship factor
70
6.9. The Personal experience factor
73
6.10 The methods used by Windows
74
6.11. Conclusion
77
7. Conclusion
79
7.1. Othering
79
7.2. Influence of Windows on the othering process
81
7.3. Academic and practical relevance
83
7.4 Final words
85
References
86
Appendix 1
100
5
Acknowledgments
There are many people that I want to thank. First of all I would like to thank the participants in the
project. You are all very special. I want to thank you for sharing your thoughts with me, making me
laugh and making me think. It was great to talk with all of you. The Windows group; Rutie, Zahiye,
Emily, Anais, Tsila, Tony, Danny, Lauren, Nina, Mouna. Thank you for being my Windows family. It
was great working, talking and hanging out with you. Time went too fast and it would have been
great to spend more time with all of you.
Talya and Ido, Thank you for everything. You made me feel at home time and time again.
Kitty Jurrius, thank you for helping me start the research process. Jacobijn Olthoff, thank you so
much for your always precise and useful criticism and for thinking with me. Even on Sundays and on
vacation you were ready to help me. Thank you so much.
Mom and dad, thank you for care packages and helping me improving my piece time after time. You
are wonderful.
Siebrich, thank you. For looking at my work, thinking with me and listening to me ramble when I was
overloaded with ideas. Thank you for everything you do!
And everyone who I have forgotten, sorry, but thanks!
6
1. Introduction
In Jerusalem a young Palestinian family gets on the bus. The mother, father and young daughter sit
down in a four place space. Slowly but surely the bus starts to fill up. All the seats are filled and many
people are forced to stand in the aisle. All but one seat, no one takes the fourth seat. It seems that
the people in the bus do not even want to stand next to the family and avoid standing close to them
as much as possible. How can so many people be scared of this young sweet family? (Excerpt of
diary, February 2008)
This little scene played out on one of the first days I spent in Israel when I studied there for a
semester in 2008. The Israeli bus passengers showed clear ‘fear’ and even disdain for the Palestinian
family. I remember observing this and the how I was shocked by the obvious and very strong
reactions. In studying “othering” processes in Israel and Palestine for my masters in Children’s rights
I remember this incident as my first experience with othering in the context of this region’s conflict.
The image of the other is based on the prejudiced view that a person or group has of another person
or group. Especially in conflict situations, the other is often portrayed negatively as someone who is
different or strange and in extreme cases evil, scary and dangerous. In my time spent in the Middle
East region I have heard phrases expressing the entrenchment of the conflict. “The only good
Palestinian is a dead Palestinian” and “the Israelis are child murderers” are examples of statements
that are experienced by the speakers as facts and reality. The process of negatively portraying the
other, is a psycho-social phenomena that is known in the social sciences as othering (Chryssochou,
2004) In limited form, it is seen as a normal part of people’s self-defining process (Friese, 2001). The
extreme form othering has taken on in Israel and Palestine is part of the volatility and dangerous
impasse that is presently characteristic of the region (Maoz, 2004). Over the years, the situation
between the Israelis and the Palestinians has become extremely polarized. Sworn destruction of the
Jews, suicide bombings and rocket attacks of Israeli cities seem to go hand in hand with the
occupation of the West Bank, military strikes of Gaza and second class treatment of Palestinians
living in Israel proper. The extremely negative image that the groups in the conflict have of each
other make a solution to the conflict, now raging on for over 60 years, nearly impossible to imagine
or realize.
In this polarized context there are organizations striving to depolarize the situation. Through
education, intergroup meetings and other methods these organizations are trying to counter the
negative image that is created of the other. They are trying to kindle a de-othering process. This
thesis focuses on the processes of othering and deothering, utilizing the literature to discuss
7
theoretical aspects of othering. This study highlights one of these organizations as a case study; the
Windows- channels for communication project. “Windows” will be used as the abbreviated name for
this organization through the rest of this thesis.
Windows is a peace building organization that works, primarily, with youth between the ages of
twelve and eighteen. The organization focuses on encouraging youth to think more critically and
openly about the other and the context of their reality in the conflict. The organization utilizes
several media outlets to create a potentially constructive context for the participating youth to meet
the other. The younger groups, or “Young Journalists”, create a bilingual Arabic and Hebrew
magazine that focuses mostly on issues between the groups and the conflict. The older “Video
Group”, focuses on the same issues, working on video items; interviewing each other, making Video
clips etc. The video and magazine are based on the process and interactions that the youth
experience in Windows, both by working with each other and through in depth dialogue sessions.
The Video group and the Young Journalists group consist of three small groups of five to six
participants. Each of these three subgroups is homogeneous and forms what is known as the “single
identity group”. Windows prides itself on this fact and is one of the only peace building organizations
that works with the three major groups that are effected by the conflict. The single identity groups
are made out of the Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories, (identified in this thesis as the
“Palestinians of 67”) the Palestinians living in Israel (identified in this thesis as the “Palestinians of
48”) and the Jewish Israelis. Most other similar organizations work with Israelis and one of the other
groups. The fact that Windows works with the three groups is an interesting, contributing factor to
this study. The different experiences of these three groups are incorporated in this study and offer
diverse insights gained from the study. The Young Journalists include the following groups: the Israeli
“Gi’vataim” group, the Palestinian of 48 “Tamra” group and the Palestinian of 67 “Jalkamuz” group.
The Video Group consists of the Israeli “Tel Aviv” group, the Palestinian of 48 “Jaffa” group and the
Palestinian of 67 “Bethlehem” group. The participants of these groups were interviewed to find the
answer to the following question:
“How do the participants of the Windows- Channels for Communication project experience the
influence of the program on their image of the other? “
Exploring this question is relevant for several reasons. First of all, it is an evaluation of the effects of
the program. Speaking to the youth about their experience in the Windows program can be
informative about the impact Windows has had on the youth’s view/ideas of the other.
8
Secondly, exploring the effect that the program has had on the groups can lead to a better
understanding of the de-othering process. Which factors lead to the variance in change between the
groups? This is of academic interest. Research on the different factors that influence the othering
process are limited, especially when approaching it from the youth perspective. Potentially, the
knowledge of these factors can also be useful in the further practical development of peace building
programs like Windows, utilizing the insights to increase their effectiveness.
The answer to the query of this research project will be answered in several steps. In the third
chapter the Israeli Palestinian context will be discussed. In that chapter the major groups in the
conflict will be further introduced and the reality in which they live will be explored. The fourth
chapter will discuss the othering process through theory and data gathered in the field. The different
factors that lead to the images of the other will be explored. In the fifth chapter the work of
Windows will be elaborated on. The organization’s history, their methods, and its place in the
theoretical framework of intergroup contact meetings will be discussed. The sixth chapter will
address the effects Windows has had on the youth’s experiences and how this impacts their view of
the other. Making use of relevant literature, hypotheses for the variable effects experienced by the
groups will be offered. In the concluding chapter the study will be summarized and put in to a
broader perspective. However, before we proceed to these chapters, the following chapter will
discuss the research methodology, focusing on the methods used and the difficulties encountered in
this research.
9
2. Methodology
In this chapter the methodology of the research will be discussed. The first section of the chapter
will focus on the epistemology and the theoretical approach followed by a discussion of the position
of the researcher in the field. In the second section the issues in the field, the methods used and the
limitations of the methods will be discussed.
2.1 Subjective reality
The notion that the ‘other’ can be seen differently by different people points to reality as being
something subjective. Reality cannot be measured objectively for not only do the informants have
their own perspectives of reality, but also the researcher has his or her own perspective. This view
of reality is captured in the constructivist epistemology. Gray explains the constructivist vision as
follows; “Meaning is constructed, not discovered, so subjects construct their own meaning in
different ways, even in relation to the same phenomenon. (Gray, 2004: 17)” Especially in a conflict
situation people are known to have not just different, but often diametrically opposed views. These
different views will be discussed in Chapter 3.
Examining the changing perspectives of people is best done using the theoretical approach called
phenomenology. Any attempt to understand phenomena should, according to phenomenology, be
grounded in people’s experience of that phenomena (Pietersma, 2000). The phenomenon in this
instance is the ‘othering process’ and ‘the other’. The data gathered in this research is not intended
to give an objective truth about the research topic, but rather describes the researcher’s
observations and discoveries of the subjective truths and realities presented by the participants.
2.2 Position in the field
Utilizing this epistemology and theoretical approach, and especially when writing about this delicate
highly politicized conflict I feel that it is important to elaborate on my position as a researcher in the
field and the conflict and on any issues this might have caused. My mother is Catholic and my father
is Jewish. In the eyes of many religious Jews this make me a non-Jew, but in the words of the Tel Aviv
group; I’m ‘Jewish enough’. I did not grow up with strong Jewish traditions, however I have always
felt some kinship with the Jewish people. I feel that this has helped me keep a rather balanced
perspective. Without it, I think I would have had a stronger focus on the difficult situation that the
Palestinian people are in. Without this Jewish background I could have felt a stronger sympathetic
bias towards the Palestinians and might have lost a balanced point of view. During the research I
made sure to be empathetic to the issues presented by each group, not to make any judgments and
10
when necessary emphasize my neutrality. Nevertheless my Jewish background came up regularly
during the research, not only when interviewing the Jewish groups, but also when speaking with the
Palestinians. The thought of this had plagued me in advance. Would my respondents ask me about
my background in the context? How should I answer their questions? And most importantly, would
my answers influence the view my respondents had of me and with that their answers? It proved to
be one of the first questions every group of respondents would ask me. It seemed best to answer
honestly and openly to their questions, as I hoped that they would do the same to my questions. I
always told them my family background and that I felt neither Jewish nor Catholic, which in all
honesty I do not. This answer seemed to satisfy the groups. I didn’t feel any distrust towards me. I do
not think that my semi-Jewish background influenced the answers of either group.
My identity as an inquisitive foreigner in their country was much more apparent. As a foreigner I was
able to ask, in their view, obvious questions. The participants forgave my lack of knowledge of the
situation since I was foreign. It also granted me the opportunity to ask for elaboration on certain
answers without them feeling like I was criticizing their answers. By asking them for more
elaboration their answers often became clearer to me and at times it seemed to help them better
understand what they had stated before. However I was not there to learn about the details of the
history of the conflict and peoples. If I would use the opportunity that being a foreigner gave me too
often, it would lead to loss of valuable interview time. To partly avoid this loss of time I spoke to
different people and read about the society, conflict and the program to create a basis of
background information before speaking to the youth. In the interviews with the youth I tried to
keep the focus away from the conflict and on the ideas the youth had of the other. Because of
limited access and time with the youth my time with them was precious. At times my ‘ignorance’ for
local terminology caused major delays in the interviews.
Being a westerner, one also is used to a certain narrative of politeness. If we say something bad
about someone we often camouflage it in kinder words. In both Israeli and Palestinian society this
‘sugar coating’ is often not applied, especially when speaking about the ‘other’ in the conflict. This
was at times disturbing to me. I admit that I reacted shocked to some of the respondents’ remarks,
for example when the Palestinian Tamra group depicted the Israelis as ‘murderers of Palestinian
children’ I could not keep a straight face. I tried to keep my reactions neutral, but at times found it
difficult not to inquire if this was what they really meant. I do not think that my reactions had much
of an influence on their answers, because even if I reacted surprised or disturbed they continued
describing the ‘other’ without any sort of sugarcoating at all.
11
2.3. Methods
In this section I will discuss the different methods that I used during my research, when relevant
ethical and methodological issues will be discussed. The section will commence with a paragraph
explaining issues that arose in the field. I have chosen to start with a paragraph on this subject
matter for it directly informed the choice of methods.
2.3.1 Issues in the field
In the field it soon proved to be difficult to reach the youth who were part of the program.
Participants were spread out over the country and generally only came to the Window’s office in Tel
Aviv once every two months. It was difficult to make appointments with them outside of their
normal meetings due to pressure of schoolwork and issues sparked by the conflict such as difficulties
with checkpoints and frightened parents. These issues also led to numerous cancelations of
interview sessions. In total there were more interviews cancelled than that actually took place.
Sometimes problems within the organization caused difficulties for my research. For example there
were issues with the facilitator of one of the groups in the West Bank. This facilitator had been fired
and Windows still owed her money. Her closeness with the participants of her group and the major
issues between her and Windows made it impossible for me to meet with this group. I feel that this
is a loss for the research. I have tried to gather information on the group through other people who
worked with them, but the data that could be gathered proved to be limited. I shall therefore not
include this data into the analysis. The relationship between the participants of this group and those
of the Jewish Gi’vataim group, who have been in close contact throughout the program however,
played an important role in the de-othering process of this Jewish group and will be included in the
analysis.
Another issue that influenced the way I could do my research were the bad experiences that the
organization had had in the past with reporters and researchers who did not show respect when
interacting with the youth. Rutie Atsmon, the director of the organization, gave an example of this
by telling a story of an Israeli journalist who had started a loud and angry discussion with one of the
Palestinian participants. The journalist started cursing at the Palestinian boy and telling him how
everything he knew was wrong. Incidents such as these have caused the organization to be
defensive and cautious towards outsiders. Their first inclination when I arrived was to proceed with
caution, shielding the children somewhat from me. In the first month, I was only allowed to speak to
the youth if someone from the organization was present. All my questions were to be checked in
advance. Although this was strenuous work, in a way it worked to my advantage; my focus groups
were prepared down to every detail. After working with some of the Window’s employees on the
12
questions, my presence in the office and them experiencing me in the youth group meetings I
attended, the people of the organization started trusting me more and more. In the end, because it
took such a long time to actually plan the sessions with the youth, I never actually had focus group
interviews with anyone of the organization present. Doing the interviews without anyone present
was much preferable, as the presence of someone from the organization might have had a big
influence on the answers of the youth and the course of the discussion.
2.3.2 Focus group interviews
Early on in the research it proved necessary to alter my preplanned methods to adapt to the limited
amount of time that I would be able to spend with the participants. I chose to do my direct research
with the participants in three steps; two single identity focus groups1 with all of the groups2 and
single one-on-one interviews with each of the participants of the groups. In practice it became so
difficult to make an appointment for these sessions that I decided to concentrate on the focus
groups and to leave out the single one-on-one interviews. I did this for several reasons. The groups
could be a great source of information in a limited amount of time. The time/data ratio was
potentially significantly more efficient in comparison to individual interviews. A high time/data ratio
was very important in this situation of limited contact with my research subjects. Additionally, in a
one on one interview the respondent may be timid or might feel uneasy in addressing certain
subjects, the group setting can make the discussion of difficult subjects, such as conflict and images
of the other, easier (Schensul, 1999; Mauthner 1997: 23). Although under circumstances I feel this
was the best option for the research, one of the consequences of this choice is that the individual
narrative has become less present in this research. I have tried to include it somewhat by doing
individual exercises within the focus groups on which I will elaborate further in this section.
The focus group interviews were focused on themes instead of based on a list of question, thus
avoiding the fixed question answer format (Kellet & Ding, 2004). The first focus group interview
focused on the image that the participants have of the other. The second interview emphasized
how this image was constructed and how participating in the Windows program has influenced this
image. The group interviews were done in single identity groups. This was to try and avoid issues of
extreme peer pressure that would arise if they would be talking about the other while the other is
1
Only one identity either Palestinians of 48, Israeli Jewish or Palestinians of 67
Two Israeli Jewish groups (Givataim, Tel Aviv), two Palestinian Israeli groups (Tamra, Jaffa) and two
Palestinian groups from the Occupied Palestinian Territories (Bethlehem, Jalkamuz) All ranging in ages
between 14 and 17
2
13
present. Although the youth were used to talk openly about each other with the other presents in
the joint group sessions I chose to do my sessions in single identity groups. This proved to be a wise
decision, for while doing the interviews in a single identity groups the youth asked me numerous
times if the other group would hear or read what they would say in the interview. When they were
assured that the other group would not read the interviews they became more relaxed and candid.
Issues of peer-pressure, even in single identity groups, remained always present in the focus groups.
To sidestep part of this unavoidable peer pressure (Schensul, 1999; Kellet & Ding, 2004) I started
each session with an individual mind mapping or brainstorm exercise. Not only was this a way to
reduce the peer-pressure, it was also useful in retaining a stronger sense of the individual narrative
in the data. In the first session the exercise consisted of asking the youth to write down their first
associations when they thought about the ‘other’. During the interviews I did not refer to the other
as the other, but as the Israeli people or the Palestinian people, this to avoid a steering question.
Before the interview I had made a script that included the exercise and the subjects that I wanted to
address, however the words and thoughts that the youth presented in their exercises functioned as
the kick off point for the discussion. They were asked to read their list out loud and explain why they
had written things down. The youth often reacted to each other’s’ ideas. If I found that certain
themes came through in all of the lists I made sure to come back to those later in the session. If
subjects in my list were not brought up by the youth I made sure to bring those subjects up during
the discussion.
In the second session the participants were asked to write down anything that influenced their ideas
about the other. In this exercise it became clear that an example was needed for the youth to start
working. I decided to use school and family of examples for I was sure that in every list these
influences would come up. I also made it clear that it did not need to be big overarching influences,
but that they could also write down experiences that they had. Once they had written down
everything that they could think of, they were asked to rank the influences and put them in three
spheres of influence3. This again functioned as the starting point for our discussion. I asked the
youth to start explaining the influences. How had it influenced them and why did they put it in what
sphere of influence? Apart from sidestepping part of the peer pressure, these exercises were meant
to lead to stronger participant engagement (Kellet & Ding, 2004) and let them partially control what
issues were discussed in the session. This worked quite well and led to engaged and animated
discussions. The individual exercises were collected at the end of the session to use as data. All the
discussions were taped. Notes were not taken during the group sessions. I gave my role of
moderator of the discussion priority. Not only to have a more fluid interview, but also to help avoid
3
An example this exercise can be found in appendix 1
14
the possible slanted discussions that can occur in focus groups (Schensul, 1999). In almost every
group there were one or two participants whose English was better than that of the rest. Or they
might have been more talkative in general. On the one hand it is very helpful to have someone in the
group who is so eager to talk. It is a good way to get the discussion going. However in such a
situation the possibility exists that this one person completely dominates the conversation. When
this happened during the focus groups I asked more direct questions to the other participants to
make sure that their voices were heard. Also when the dominant speaker finished his or her point I
made sure to ask a follow up question to the other participants; “Do you feel the same way?” After
the session notes were taken of the highlights. I transcribed the recordings as soon as possible.
2.3.3 Participant observation
The other methods used in the research that was done directly with the participants is participant
observation. Participant observation gives the researcher the possibility for direct observations, by
taking part of social activities with the subjects (Wester, Boeije & Hak, 2005). Being part of the
general social life of the youth was difficult if not impossible; it was also time consuming given the
fact that it only provided a limited amount of information. It was however valuable to participate in
the Windows sessions. In order to describe and analyze the effects of a program it is helpful to
experience this program yourself. The Windows sessions consisted of either single identity group
meetings or joint sessions. I was able to attend both, either sitting in on the meeting or truly joining
into the conversations. The sessions were generally in Hebrew and or Arabic. In between activities
the youth would speak with me in English and during the sessions the discussion would sometimes
be translated in English. The language barrier however did not prevent me from gathering of data
because I could observe the body language of the interacting groups and the different exercises that
were done during the sessions. These observations were noted down during and after the session. I
am aware that these observations are the subjective impressions of the researcher. In fact, data
collected by observation are always consciously or subconsciously selected by the researcher
(Wester, Boeije & Hak, 2005). I am aware of this flaw, especially when it involves a research focused
so strongly on the ideas and thoughts of the participants. The observations have therefore as much
as possible been used in combination with data gathered more directly in the focus groups or
secondary data.
2.3.4 Interviews
As stated before, due to time limitations one-on-one interviews with the youth were very difficult to
organize. Instead I opted to focus on the group discussions with them. Stakeholders from the
organization were interviewed one on one. I did this to get a clear idea of the background, work and
15
vision of the organization they work for, but also to get their point of view on the
othering/deothering process that the participants (youth) were going through. To allow the
respondents to talk freely in conversational style, but still give the interview structure, a semistructured interview with a topic list was used. In the first interviews this list was based on literature
and on the need to get a better idea of the organization and how it functioned. The follow up
interviews were often more strongly based on the highlights of earlier interviews with stakeholders
and the discussions with the youth participants.
It is important to be aware of the influence one, as interviewer, can have on the answers of the
interviewee. Power relations, expectations and wrongly asked questions might lead to different
answers (Kvale, 1996). It is important to be aware of this and keep this influence to a minimum. I felt
that because I had a lot of contact with the people at the office before I interviewed them these
dynamics were avoided as much as possible, however one could argue that this familiarity might
have led to different answers as well . The interviews with the people working at Windows were
quite informal.
Although most of the staff at the office could be interviewed, it was more difficult to speak to the
facilitators of the groups. These were the people who facilitated the groups in their meetings. Each
single identity group has their own facilitator who organizes and leads the single identity group
meetings. The joint meetings are led by the three facilitators of the groups that are meeting. The
facilitators have the most contact with the groups and most likely have the best idea of the process
that the youth are going through. However just before I started my research most of the facilitators
were fired. Some of them were not on good terms with the organization or had been working with
the kids only for a couple of months and thus could not be used in this research. However, I still got
the chance to speak to some of them and this led to interesting data. Furthermore people at the
office had had contact with the youth through the years and had often been present at the joint
meetings. By interviewing them I hoped to get some of the data that would have otherwise been
gathered through the facilitators of the different groups. All the interviews were taped and
transcribed shortly after.
2.3.5 The magazines
The magazines that are made by the children reflect the process that they go through while in
Windows. They form a collection of articles written by the youth, also transcriptions of dialogue
between the groups are often part of them. Hence the Windows publications proved to be very
useful for this research. Not only will the articles be used as examples for what is argued in this
thesis, but they actually can be seen as a set of data on its own, for the articles are always brutally
16
honest in how the other is portrayed, both positively and negatively. It has to be noted however
that during the focus group sessions some of the participants indicated that what was stated in the
magazine did not completely reflect the process that they were going through; they felt that it was
watered down and portrayed easier than it felt for them. I believe that although for the participants
it felt watered down I think it can be used to triangulate the data gathered in the focus groups and
the observations.
The magazines are generally written/translated in Arabic and Hebrew. Luckily a large amount of
magazines have been translated into English as well and these translated magazines have been
analyzed for the research. Furthermore I had at my disposal newsletters of several years and several
articles written about the organization in local and foreign newspapers and magazines. These have
been used to create a clear image of the work of the organization; its vision and how it presents
itself to the outside world.
2.3.6 Selection of participants
In consultation with Windows I decided to work with the two main groups in the project; the Video
Group and the Young Journalists. Looking at these two groups gives a good impression of the work
Windows does and the effects of the program. The youth in these groups have generally been in the
program for several years and it would thus be possible to talk to them about the effects of the
program. The preparation program that just started this year seemed to be only in the starting
stages and not relevant for the research. One could argue that talking to the youth in these
beginning stages could function as a baseline for the rest of the research. However the effects of the
program proved to be in line with the context. Looking at youth in another context could not be
used as a baseline. The oldest group, the Young Leaders, was not up and running when I was there
and could thus not be included in the research. Each of the groups in the Video Group and the
Young Journalist program are made up out of three identity groups; the Palestinians that live in the
occupied territories or Palestinians of 67, the Palestinians who live in Israel, or Palestinians of 48 and
a group of Israeli Jews. Each sub- group is made up out of five to seven youth. Because of the limit
size of the groups I chose to attempt to speak to the entire groups. It however proved difficult to
organize meetings with all the participants of the groups present. Generally one or two participants
of the group would be absent during the focus groups. The issues were more difficult with two of the
groups. The Palestinian of 48 Jaffa group did not seem to have any time at all. In the end I ended up
doing an in depth interview with only one of the participants of this group. As explained earlier, the
facilitator of the Palestinian of 67 Jalkamuz group, had a lot of issues with Windows in the time I was
there. Because of the close relationship between the facilitator and the youth it proved impossible
17
to meet them. The participants of the other groups all seemed interested and enthusiastic to be a
part of the research. They often thanked me for doing the sessions with them. It seemed an issue of
time, or conflicting activities if participants did not join in the sessions.
2.3.7 The issue of informed consent
When researching youth informed consent often becomes an issue. “In much social research young
people under the age of 18 are not the main givers of consent. It is traditional that parents or
guardians make the final decision on whether a young person should or should not be involved in
research (Alan France, 2004)”. This however denies the youth their right to make their own
decisions. Furthermore France (2004) notes that it “gives control over the research process to
others”. There has been a lot of debate on this subject (Masson, 2004; Lindsay, 2000). In the
instance of this research it was opted to get consent from both parties. The parents were contacted
by the organization and asked for their consent. The youth, however, had the last vote. Before each
interview they were given the opportunity not to participate and they were clearly told that
whenever they wanted they could stop the interview or not answer the question. It never happened.
2.3.8 Language issues
For both the youth and the stakeholders (and the researcher), English was a second or third
language. All the stakeholders spoke English very proficiently. The language skills of the youth were,
on average not as good. When confronted with language issues in the focus group the youth
discussed the word in their own language and usually came up with an adequate translation. If not,
an adult was asked for the translation of the word. I feel that little data was lost in translation for the
children were very articulate, even in English.
18
3. Context
Multiple realities
The context of the research I have done, the Israeli Palestinian conflict, is a complex one. The
perceptions of events in the present and in history of this conflict can be quite different for different
people, and where relevant, in this chapter I will pay attention to these different perceptions. The
first half of the chapter is dedicated to exploring the context by looking at the children’s rights in the
region. This will be done by exploring recent state and shadow reports to the commission of the
Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC). Looking at these reports will show the different realities
that the different parties of the conflict live in. The second half of the chapter is dedicated to the
history of the region and the conflict. It is important to know the history to have a better idea of the
conflict and the context of this research. Looking at history is another way to explore the different
perspectives of reality that are an important part of this conflict
3.1 Failing to report; children’s rights in Israel
In October of 1991 Israel ratified the international Convention for the Rights of the Child (CRC). The
Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (OPAC) was ratified by the
country in July of 2005.4 By signing the CRC and the Optional Protocol Israel pledged to uphold the
rights outlined in the document for all the children under its jurisdiction. Every five years Israel is
obliged to report on the status of the children’s rights. This is done only in part: while Israel reports
well on the Israeli children5, it has structurally declined to report clearly on the status of the rights of
the Palestinian children living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). The children in the
occupied areas officially also fall under Israel’s jurisdiction. When questioned by the Committee on
the Rights of the Child about the failure to report the delegation responded that due to the conflict
situation they were not willing to report on the Palestinian children. When the violations of the
rights of the Palestinian children, brought forward in shadow reports on the rights of the children in
the territories brought forward by NGO’s were discussed, the reaction of the delegation was the
following: “The delegation answered that the State party could not always apply human rights
conventions because of the ongoing-armed conflict. It explained that the safety of [their own]
population was the most important issue on the country’s agenda6.”
4
treaties.un.org
Including the Palestinian citizens of Israel
6
STATE PARTY EXAMINATION OF ISRAEL’S INITIAL PERIODIC REPORT ON THE OPAC
53RD SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
5
19
Not reporting on the Palestinian children living in the OPT is an example of the unequal ways that
different groups of children are treated in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The
following sections will go further into this, making use of several recent state and shadow reports to
the Committee of the Convention of the Rights of the Child. Based on these reports I will show the
state of children’s rights in Israel and the Palestinian territories. More importantly for this research,
it will show that the three identity groups with whom Windows works, Israeli Jews, Palestinians of
487 and Palestinians of 678, live in somewhat of a different reality. The names of these different
groups will be explained later in this chapter on the basis of the history of the region. The focus in
the following section lies mostly on the violations of the rights of the Palestinian children. I would
like to stress that this focus is not a conscious choice of the author, but rather a reflection of the
reports and evidently of the amount of rights violations.
3.1.1 Three groups of children
The first thing that stands out when looking at the rights of children in Israel and Palestine is the
discrepancy in the definition of a child. Since Israel recognizes the CRC an Israeli is considered a child
until he or she has reached the age of eighteen; this also refers to the Palestinians of 48 for they
have Israeli citizenship. However, according to military order No. 132, Palestinian children in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory are considered adult by law once they have reached sixteen9. It is a
way for the Israeli military to control the rebellious youth in the territories. The consequence of this
law is that Palestinian sixteen and seventeen year olds, according to the CRC still children, can be
treated and tried according to adult law. By doing this the Israeli government violates the rights of
the Palestinian youth lined out in the CRC.
In the different shadow reports conveyed by NGO’s working in Israel, as well as in the reactions to
the reports by the Committee of the Rights of the Child, Israeli Jewish children are mentioned only
sporadically. The reports just noted the dangers of the ongoing conflict and the Palestinian
‘terrorism’ as possible violations of the rights of the children in the State party10. This plus the
increased militarization of the educational system and the recruitment of children under eighteen11
seem to be the most important violations of the rights of the Israeli Jewish children brought forward
11- 29 JANUARY 2010
7
Palestinians living in Israel proper
8
Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories
9
Consideration of reports submitted by the States parties under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the
Convention of the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict (29 january 2010)
10
Consideration of reports submitted by the States parties under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the
Convention of the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict (29 january 2010)
11
ISRAEL: CRC issues recommendations on use of children in hostilities, Defence for children international
2010
20
in the reports. The majority of the shadow reports even focus solely on the rights of the
Palestinians. Issues within Israeli society might be overlooked in the reports due to the
overwhelming violations of the rights of Palestinian children. We however cannot and should not
discard the right violations that come with living in a militarized society with a constant fear of
attacks.
The rights of both 48 and 67 Palestinians on the other hand are more structurally and severely
undermined. The right to protection of the 67 Palestinian children especially is violated through
direct military actions. Human Rights Watch in their shadow report of the OPAC (2010) presents
many violations of the articles focused on protection in the CRC. The report mainly focuses on the
actions committed during ‘operation cast-lead’, a military action undertaken in Gaza in December of
2008 and January 2009. According to the report, 320 children who did not take part in the hostilities
were killed and 860 children were injured. According to a research done by the NGO B’tselem 1.387
Palestinians were killed and the Israelis suffered eight casualties. The Human Rights Watch Report
shows that Palestinians, including children, were killed while carrying a white flag, by precise
weapons such as drones, and by illegal white phosphorous ammunition. There have also been
reports of children being used as human shields by both the Israeli forces (Urquhart, 2007) as well as
by the Hamas (Katz, 2010).
It is not solely the direct military actions that lead to violations of the Palestinians children’s rights. In
the concluding observations on Israel’s 2002 report, the Committee for the Rights of the Child
remarks their concern of the discrimination of minority groups. The committee highlights the
inequalities in the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. The commission hereby refers
to the inequity in education, healthcare and social services between Jewish children and 48
Palestinian children. The 48 Palestinians are generally much poorer than their Jewish counterparts
(Unicef.org). When it comes to education, the 48 Palestinians and Israeli Jewish children go to
separate schools. Different people in the field spoke to me about the notoriously low quality of the
Arab schools, due to a much lower funding than the Israeli schools. Another example of the
problems in the education system was explained to me by participants in the Windows program. For
some prestigious studies, 48 Palestinians are forced to wait till their Israeli Jewish counterparts are
done serving in the army. They have to wait three or four years until they can start studying. If they
even can start studying at all, for the number of Palestinian children who are allowed to join certain
studies such as medicine is much lower than the amount of Israelis that can join.
21
The rights violations are even greater when it concerns the Palestinian children in the Occupied
Palestinian Territories. The measures imposed by the Israeli Defense Force, including road closures,
curfews and mobility, let alone the destruction of Palestinian social and economic infrastructure has
led to enormous problems. Schools, hospitals and social services are increasingly difficult to reach
for many Palestinian families12. The clear difference between economic rights for the Palestinians
and the Israelis is clear by observing the difference of GNI per capita of the areas. In 2008 the GNI
per capita in Israel was US$ 24700. In the same year the GNI in the OPT was US$ 1230, twenty times
less while in theory the two areas fall under the same jurisdiction (Unicef.org). The constant
occupation of the OPT and structural undermining of Palestinian society and economic activities has
led to an economy that is unable to develop (Abed, 1990). This has an effect on the life standard in
general and of course on the children as well. There are many other ways in which the rights of the
Palestinian people in general and Palestinian children specifically are violated; houses are destroyed,
travelling restrictions are set in place and there are even reports on torture and physical violence
used during arrests. Defense for Children International in a 2009 report stated that the torture of
children was “widespread and institutionalized into the [Israeli] system” (DCI, 2009). It is also
important to realize that it is not solely the Israelis violating the rights of Palestinian children. For
instance, in the Child Soldier Global Report of 2008 the recruitment and use of child soldiers by
Palestinian armed groups is demonstrated clearly, a grave violation of the rights of these children.
As one can see from the paragraphs above there is a big difference in the way that the rights of
children in Israel and the Palestinian territories are honored. It gives a good insight in to the different
realities that the different groups of children live in. The conditions that the children live in and their
personal experiences gives an important background for understanding their othering and possible
de-othering processes. It is important to keep in mind here that the paragraphs above are a
reflection of general reports. Single cases might differ greatly. For example some Palestinian children
in the West Bank might live in a better situation than some of their 48 Palestinian counterparts. In
one of the focus groups I had with the (67 Palestinian) Bethlehem group one of the girls expressed
her shock when she saw the living conditions of the (48 Palestinian) Jaffa group; “Their houses were
crap, really crap. I don’t know how they can live.”
12
Concluding observations/comments Israel report 2002
22
3.2 Looking at history
Is it Palestine or Israel? The West Bank or Judea and Samaria? Terrorists or martyrs? When writing
on Palestine and Israel it is nearly impossible to remain objective. Choosing one word over the other
renders your writing political. The history of the region has been told uncountable times, in
uncountable different ways. Different accounts show different victims, perpetrators and motives.
Besides studying the different rights violations, another way of exploring the different realities of the
people living in the region is looking at the history. This is also useful to better understand the
context of the research and the way history has influenced the building of different images of the
other.
This section will be written from the perspectives of the three groups introduced above; the Israeli
Jews, the Palestinians of 48 and the Palestinians of 67. We will see that when we look at historical
events, the perceptions of the two Palestinian groups do not vary very strongly. In some of the
following paragraphs I shall therefore speak of a general Palestinian perspective. When big
differences in the perspectives surface or certain events are of more importance to one group than
to the other I will discuss it as well. I have chosen to not go through the entire history of the country,
but to highlight certain major events. The events chosen are either of special significance to one of
the identity groups, give an important example of the different perspectives of the groups or are
necessary to understand the conflict.
2.3.1 Pre Israel
Even before Israel was founded in 1948 the region that is now Israel and the occupied Palestinian
territories had a complex history. The land has always been contested. The region has been
controlled by people from every religion. It has been conquered by people from Asia, Europe and the
Middle East. The last to rule the region before 1948 were the Ottomans and the English
(Goldschmidt JR. & Davidson, 2010). Before 1948 Palestine, as it was called during the British
Mandate, was predominantly populated by Arabs. However, there always was a Jewish community
that started growing slowly from 1882 onwards (Krämer, 2008). The majority of the Jewish people in
the pre-Israel days lived spread out through the world; from South America, to Africa, and from the
Middle East to Europe for their was not a Jewish country or homeland. The Jews call this dispersion
of their people the diaspora. The end of the Jewish diaspora started in 1948 with the founding of
Israel.
23
2.3.2 Independence day or Nakbah?
Every year, on May the 14th, Israel is covered in blue and white flags. The blue star of David is visible
in every street. Street parties are taking place all over the nation and Nationalistic music honoring
the brave soldiers is blasting from the speakers. Israeli Independence Day, the founding of the
Jewish homeland, is celebrated to the fullest by almost everyone in the country. Almost everyone,
because some rather mourn on this day. And in fact only a week later the same historical event is
remembered and mourned by Palestinians in and outside Israel. They call this day the Nakbah, which
means the catastrophe. On this day, the region is filled with the sounds of Arabic slogans of protests.
Often peaceful, but at times violent. In 2011, when I happened to be there for this research, several
protests ended in violence and the Israeli border was stormed by Palestinian refugees from Syria.
Every year in the months leading to Nakbah rumors of a new uprising spread through the West Bank
and the Palestinian population in Israel. It is clear that the memories and significance of the events
of 1948 are completely different for both the Palestinian groups and the Israelis.
In 1947 the British offered the Jews part of the region that fell under the British mandate of
Palestine. The area was to be divided between the Arab inhabitants of the region and the Jews by
the predecessor of the United Nations; the League of Nations. At the end of 1947, the initial
partition plan of the League of Nations failed to please either the Palestinians or the Jews a five and
a half month war broke out between the surrounding Arab countries and the Jews. The Jews, or
Israelis as they started to call themselves, came out of this conflict as the winners and on May the
14th 1948 Israel was declared an independent sovereign country (Goldschmidt JR. & Davidson, 2008).
The events in 1948 are key events for both the Palestinians groups and the Israelis, but for very
different reasons. For the Jews the events in 1948 led to the birth of the Jewish nation, the Jewish
homeland. It was the first time in modern time that the Jews had their own country, in a place that
they had considered theirs for centuries for religious and historic reasons. It was a safe place after
centuries of anti-Semitism and the horrors of the holocaust (Goldschmidt JR. & Davidson, 2008;
Windows, 2008). The founding of Israel however, meant the end of Palestine (Kramer, 2008). The
Palestinians refer to the events in 1948 as ‘Al Nakbah’ the immense catastrophe; for them it
changed their lives beyond recognition (Sa’di, 2002). Palestinian writer and historian Elias Sanbar
describes the effect of the events 1948 as follows;
24
“That year, a country and its people disappeared from maps and dictionaries… ‘ the
Palestinian people does not exist’, said the new masters, and henceforth the
Palestinians would be referred to by general. conveniently vague terms, as either
‘refugees’ or in the case of a small minority that had managed to escape the
generalized expulsion, ‘Israeli Arabs’. A long absence was beginning“(Sanbar, 2001)
This quote gives us a lot of information. The events of 1948 are seen as the end of the Palestinians.
The passage also refers to the expulsion of the Palestinians of their land. In the 1948 war and the
following years many Palestinians fled or were forced out of their lands. Many Arab villages were
destroyed or repopulated and renamed by the Israelis. The exact number of refugees in 1948 varies
strongly per source, however numbers have varied between 550.000 and 962.000 refugees (Karsh,
2011). They fled outside of the Israeli borders of 1948. Most fled to the other Arab countries. The
Palestinians who remained in Israel are now known by many names; Israeli Palestinians, Israeli
Arabs, Arabic Israelis. These are all different names with different political meanings and different
meanings of identity. I will however refer to the Palestinians that remained in Israel, as Windows
referred to them; the 48 Palestinians. By utilizing the historic date as a reference, instead of the
political identity of the groups part of the politics of identity can be avoided. It is important to
realize that the 48 Palestinians have Israeli citizenship, which grants them a certain amount of rights
that the Palestinians who fled do not have, such as the right to travel freely in and out of Israel.
3.2.3 1967; defeat or liberation
The following quotes taken from one of the Windows magazines both refer to the same events that
occurred in 1967;
“The Palestinians expected to return to their lands. They were in exile, hoping to return,
until hope was lost after the Naksa” (Palestinian Ashraf in Windows magazine 2007).
“ All of the states threatened us and were about to start a war against us. We could have
done nothing or surprised them. It was a gamble and fortunately for us, it was the right bet”
(Israeli Ahinoam in Windows magazine 2007).
These two quotes show two different perspectives on one important event. On June 5, 1967, a war
broke out between Israel and Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The war lasted only six days and in the course
25
of it Israel ‘unified’ Jerusalem, occupied the Egyptian territories of the Gaza strip and the Sinai
desert, the Syrian Golan Heights and the Jordanian controlled West Bank. Israel claimed that the war
had begun as a preemptive strike against the Arab armies who were threatening to attack the Jewish
state. The Arab countries claim that they were completely surprised by the war. Surprised as they
were, they were defeated completely (Oren, 2002; Goldschmidt JR. & Davidson, 2008).
Many Palestinians including Ashraf in the quote above call this defeat ‘Al Naksa’, ‘the setback’ for
not only did the Arabs loose the war, but Israel had gained an incredible amount of land in a very
short period of time. From that moment on, many more Palestinians fell under Israeli control. The
hope for a Palestinian state or as Ashraf so eloquently stated ‘the hope to return’ was completely
lost (Goldschmidt JR. & Davidson, 2008).
Many Israelis see the 67 war as a major military achievement. As Ahinoam put it, they took a chance
and “fortunately for us” they won. It changed the image many people, especially the Israelis
themselves, had of their country. This feeling is powerfully expressed by the Zionism and Israel
Information Centre “Israel's image as a haven for unfortunate Jewish refugees carrying their rags in
shapeless bags as they alighted from refugee ships in Haifa, was replaced by the image of a proud
state that had defied and overcome three Arab armies in a lightning war” (http://www.zionismisrael.com). Through the victory Israel annexed a territory three times bigger than before the war.
The territory that was captured from Egypt was later used as a bargain for peace with the powerful
Arab nation. The other territories that the Israelis captured remain under Israeli control till present
day. The Syrian Golan became a generally unpopulated area mostly seen as a defensive buffer
between Israel and Syria. Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem were ‘annexed’ as well (Bright,
2000). Especially the West Bank and Jerusalem bore special significance to a group of Zionist Israelis,
for these territories are seen as part of Israel in biblical times; Judea and Samaria. Finally this land
that ‘belonged’ to Israel was liberated. A large group of the Palestinian refugees that had remained
close to their old country now fell under the control of the nation that had expelled them out of
their country to begin with (Goldschmidt JR. & Davidson, 2008). Following the example of Windows,
the Palestinians who live in these “Palestinian territories”, will be referred to in this research as the
“Palestinians of 67” again choosing for history as a defining label.
3.2.4 Terror or rebellion
The second or Al-Aqsa intifada lasted from 2000 to 2005. I have decided not to speak here about the
first Intifada (taking place between 1987-1993), for in the lives of the youth that were part of this
study, it has not played a major role. The respondents of this study, although at the time young,
have lived through the second intifada and have memories of it that inform part of their image of
the other. Where the first intifada, or Palestinian uprising, was generally nonviolent, the second
26
intifada was extremely violent with many casualties on both sides (Liebes & Kampf, 2009). According
to the estimations of B’tselem, the Israeli center for human rights, between the years 2000 and
2005, 1100 Israelis and 5500 Palestinians were killed and many more were wounded. It was a
terrible time for both the Palestinians and Israelis.
The start of these violent years is something of contention. What is clear is that after Ariel Sharon, a
Likud candidate for Israeli Prime Minister, visited the temple mount guarded by hundreds of Israeli
policemen, the violence broke loose (bbc.co.uk). The temple mount is one of the holiest sites for
both Islam and Judaism. It is the location of the Jewish temples of old (Mezvinsky, 2010), but also
the place from where the prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven (Rubin, 2008). Sharon stated on
that day; “the Temple Mount is in our hands and will remain in our hands. It is the holiest site in
Judaism and it is the right of every Jew to visit the Temple Mount (bbc.co.uk)". The Palestinians claim
that this provocation was the final straw and the following riots that started the intifada were a
spontaneous reaction to the actions of the Israelis (bbc.news.co.uk). Others believe the violent
reaction was orchestrated by Arafat and his party and that they are the guilty ones for the start of
these years of violence (Toameh, 2001).
3.2.5 The country now
The decade that followed the unrests in the early 2000’s was described to me by the director of
Windows as a relatively calm period in Israeli history. Relatively, for even when the research for this
thesis was conducted many things occurred which in many other contexts would be seen as major
events; a bomb exploded in Jerusalem, a family of settlers including a three month old baby was
killed in their house by a group of unknown attackers. Israel suspected Palestinians of the act and as
a reaction to the killings a town was locked down for several days as a form of collective
punishment. Children, women and elderly people were killed by drone strikes in Gaza, while Qasam
rockets flew daily from Gaza into Israeli territory. The rockets almost never hit the intended targets,
and while this research was in progress a school bus was hit by one of the rockets, wounding many
and killing one child. This is just a small selection of the physical violence that occurred during the
research. So while there is no full out war in the region now, violence is still a regular occurrence in
Israeli and Palestinian life. Next to the actual physical violence there is racism and tension that colors
daily life for especially the Palestinian people. Numerous people in the field told me about new
‘racist’ laws from the relatively young right wing Netanyahu government. Among others a law was
introduced that makes it illegal to teach anything in schools about the Nakbah in Israel proper. The
word on the street was that this law is a way to stop the Palestinian narrative from spreading under
the Palestinians of 48.
27
3.3 Conclusion
In the first section of this chapter the different rights violation of children in the Israeli Palestinian
context were discussed. The big differences that exist between the amount and severity of rights
violations of three different groups were shown; the Jewish Israeli children, who are living in a
militarized society and whose rights are violated by actions of terror from non-governmental parties.
The 48 Palestinians who are enrolled in a bad education system, who often live in severe poverty
and are at times subjected to violence. And the Palestinians of 67 whose education possibilities are
even more limited, who through the occupation often have limited possibility of movement and who
are more often than the other groups subjected to violence.
Not only the experience of the present, but the experience of the history of the conflict is also
different for the three groups. Events that are seen as celebratory by the one group are seen as
disasters by the other and vice versa. The view of history and with that the view of today’s events
are colored by the groups’ own perceptions.
In this chapter it was shown that all of the three groups in a way live in different realities, at least
partially. Their experience in the present, but also the experience of history is different for each of
the groups. It is these different realities that play an important role in this study as we will see in the
next chapters.
28
4. Images of the ‘other’
“They hate us”
“The first time I met a Palestinian I was dressed in green and he handed me his identification papers”
(Israeli ex-soldier, 2011)
The quote above comes from a former IDF (Israeli Defense Force) soldier. He spoke during a
Windows led tour of Bethlehem for a group of Jewish tourists13. The ex-soldier told me and the other
participants in the tour about the image he had of the Palestinians before he joined the army. All his
ideas had been very negative, filled with fear. He thought he knew them without ever meeting them.
He also told us that his family was left wing, which in Israel generally means pro-Palestinian, but
nevertheless the apprehension towards the ‘other’ was clear from his story. The fear for the ‘other’
in Israeli and Palestinian society is strong. This fear for the ‘other’ is exactly what Windows tries to
change. In this chapter the processes of ‘othering and dehumanizing’ will be further explored. The
first section of the chapter will be a theoretical discussion of the ‘othering’ concept focusing on the
question ‘why do people other?’ The section following it will, by using my own empirical data and
literature, discuss the othering process in the Israeli-Palestinian context by looking at factors that
lead to othering.
4.1 Othering in theory
4.1.1 Comparing ourselves to the other
Consciously or subconsciously everybody uses the self-identifying process anthropologists call
othering. As social beings we cannot do differently (Friese, 2001). Othering is the practice of
comparing ourselves, as an individual or a group, to others while at the same time distancing
ourselves from them. We depict the other as being somehow inherently different from ourselves.
This distance helps to create and solidifies our own identity as the norm (Chryssochou, 2004). In
other words one could say that by concentrating on the difference between ourselves and others we
create our own identity. Othering is a way group’s form and gain cohesion. Symbolic representations
of sameness are created within an ‘imagined’ group. This always includes notions of being different
from others, from those who do not belong to our own group. These notions “create boundaries
between conceptions of us and them (Friese, 2001).” It helps form (imagined) groups and more
importantly separates them from the ‘others’. In short, we create a so called in- and out- group. Not
13
During the research Windows had just started organizing tours to the West Bank for foreign Jews who had
only visited the ‘Israeli’ side of the country.
29
seldom, there is limited or no contact with the other we categorize as the out-group (Friese,
2001).This is a common phenomenon and occurs in families, neighborhoods and communities and
does not have to lead to problems. However, problems may occur when othering starts taking on
bigger proportions. This increase in othering often occurs in situations of conflict.
4.1.2 Intractable conflicts and monolithic identities
In a non-conflict situation the othering process is generally only one part of the processes that form
our identities. This is however often different in situations of intractable conflict. This type of conflict
is characterized by “being violent, perceived as a zero-sum game (where one gains only if the other
loses), irreconcilable, central, and total in a society’s life (Rouhana & Bar-Tal, 1998).” Intractable
conflicts are deeply rooted in the often diametrically opposed collective narratives of the different
groups.14 These diametrically opposed narratives are the stories of their identities, aspirations and
perceived role in the conflict and their perceived pasts and current history (Bruner, 1990; Salomon,
2004). Nearly every aspect of the conflict is seen differently by the different parties of the conflict to
better suit their own narratives. There are many examples of these kinds of conflicts throughout
history. One of the clearest examples in modern history is the case that forms the context of this
research; the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
In an intractable conflict, such as the Israeli Palestinian case, we often see the formation of
monolithic identities (Maoz et al., 2002; Rouhana & Bar-Tal 1998). A monolithic identity is based
strongly in the distinction with the ‘other’. Othering in this instance forms an essential part of the
identity building process. A situation of dependency often arises between the different (national)
identities (Kelman, 1999). For example, an important part of Palestinian as well as Israeli national
identity is a strong sense of victimization. Protecting this sense of victimization means that the
‘other’ has to be the aggressor, the perpetrator, the bad guy (Maoz, 2002). The in-group depends on
their ideas of the out-group for an important part of their identity. The poorer image of the outgroup increases the worth of the image of the ‘self’.
At times, othering in an intractable conflict situation can reach such a level that we can speak of
dehumanization. In this case, the ‘other’ is not only different from us, but less worthy. So much so
that at times the out-group is even seen as ‘less than human’. Not only does this extreme version of
othering, in a situation of monolithic identities, strongly solidify the image of the self (Maoz, 2011). It
also makes the step towards violence against the out-group seem more reasonable. Human rights
that would count for any other group suddenly do not count for the out-group (Maoz, 2008). The
way that the Nazi’s portrayed the Jews, Gypsies and communists in the Second World War is a clear
14
Examples of this can be seen in the context chapter.
30
example of dehumanization. The way they were portrayed gave the excuse for the atrocities
committed during the holocaust (Kelman, 1973; Fisk 2009)
Dehumanization is used in nearly every intractable conflict, from Rwanda (Uvin, 1997) to the
situation of the Kurds in Iran and Iraq (Jalal, 2008). It is however not only in conflict that these levels
of dehumanization are seen; the slavery of sub-Saharan Africans is an example of extreme
dehumanization outside of a situation of direct conflict (Smith, 2011). One could even argue that in
the post 9-11 world with its war on terror Muslims are constantly othered nearly to the point of
dehumanization in Europe and the United States (Arfi, 2010).
4.2 Othering in the Israeli Palestinian context
As said, the conflict in Israel and Palestine is a clear example of an intractable conflict. Considering
the theory presented above one can imagine that in such a conflict othering has become an
important part of the identity building of individuals and society. In this section this prominent
othering and dehumanizing taking place in the Israeli Palestinian context will be discussed. This
section will begin with the discussion of three short examples of othering in the Israeli-Palestinian
context. The examples come from the three groups presented in the previous chapter. Following,
othering in Israel and Palestine will be explored by discussing the different factors that construct
images of the other. The factors discussed hail from theory and and from what youth presented (in
the focus groups interviews done for this study) as influential on their image of the other. The
factors will thus be discussed using both the primary data collected in the field as well as literature.
4.2.1 Fearing the other
“I was with a friend of mine on a bus. Two Arab girls came on and of
course started speaking in Arabic. My friend immediately started
looking around nervously and told me: "Let's get down off the bus,
let's go down! They are Arabs. I am scared. Hurry they are going to
bomb the bus!" I told her not to worry. They were just little girls and
they were not going to do anything. But she did not listen. "No, no,
they are talking Arabic and everything." She would not stop and we
had to get off the bus. (One of the Jewish Young Journalists, April,
2011)”
31
“You, the occupiers, hit civilians and soldiers and you didn’t care if
they were innocent or soldiers who tried to defend themselves.
Where is your mercy? Is it true what is said about you, that you do
not have mercy or compassion in your hearts? That you only want to
take our lands, to expel the Palestinians and destroy them? Is this
your goal? I tell you we are not terrorists. We are defending our lands
and want to defend the beloved al-Aqsa Mosque and finally, our lives.
- And you say that you want peace!!!”
(Excerpt of a letter from Mohammed age 12 from the Tulkarm
Refugee camp1, Palestinian of 67 published in Windows magazine
no.23 2007)
“They love the conflict. Not all of them, but most do. They are killers
of Palestinian children. They do not respect us; they like to do
whatever they want without asking us. Just like they took our land by
force without asking us. We want our land back. They don’t admire
us, they don’t like us. They don’t want us to live with them. We can be
friends if we both really want it, but the Jews do not want to be
friends with us. (A selection of thoughts regarding the ‘other’ from
the Palestinian of 48 Young Journalists, May, 2011)
These are three examples from the three identity groups in which othering plays an important role.
The quotes show that quite extreme othering is a part of all sides of the conflict. In the course of the
research I came across several forms of othering. An important part of othering is that the traits or
thoughts attributed to the other are generalized. It is not just a small part of the group, but more or
less the entire group that has this trait.
The three examples above all represent different forms of othering that came forward in the
research. The first quote is an example of fear for for the other. The Jewish Gi’vataim group
described how their hearts skipped a beat whenever an Arabic person came onto the bus. They fear
that the Arabic person will blow up the bus. Another example of this can be found in the Palestinians
of 48 Jaffa group; one of the participants of the group expressed her fear of getting kicked out of the
country by the Israelis, during a second Nakbah. Although the fears at times have some legitimacy
32
they are exaggerated and generalized.
The second quote is an example of another form of othering that I came across. During the focus
groups, othering was often encountered in how the youth attributed opinions to the general other.
A clear example of this can be seen in the quote of the 48 Palestinians from Tamra above. “They do
no like us, they do not want to live with us, they do not want to be friends with us” all assumptions of
the opinions of the other. This type of othering was seen in every group. The Bethlehem Palestinians
for example felt that all the Israelis saw them as terrorists. And the Jewish Gi’vataim felt that the
Palestinians thought that all Israeli girls are sluts.
Generalizing personal traits was a form of othering that I came across often during the study. The
last quote is a good example of this. The excerpt of the Mohammed’s letter above reads: “Is it true
*…+ that you do not have mercy or compassion in your hearts?” I also came across this form of
othering in the interviews. The Palestinian of 67 Bethlehem group for example told me that they
thought that the Israel population in general was naïve and believed everything the government and
the media told them. The Palestinians of 48 group from Tamra ascribed a violent nature to the
Israelis by telling me that all the Israelis loved the war and the conflict.
It is important to realize that the majority of the expressions of othering described in this thesis
come from youth that have been in a program focused on de-othering for several years. In many
cases the severity of their othering may have already decreased. In the societies in general much
stronger expressions of othering could be seen. An example of this was an enormous right wing
Israeli demonstration in Jerusalem where the slogan “the only cute Arab, is a dead Arab” was yelled
nonstop. It is clear that in the Israeli and Palestinian society there is a generally negative image of
the other.
4.3 Influential factors on the image of the other
An important question to ask is how the negative images the youth have of the other have come in
to being. In the focus group interviews the youth indicated factors that had influenced the image
they had of the other. They were then asked to order the different factors in spheres of influences.
The factors that had the most influence were put in the inner circle. Factors with less influence in the
middle circle and the factors that had the least influence were placed in the outer circle. By doing
this a depiction can be constructed of how the youth’s image of the other was formed and which
factors have had a major influence in it. Below you will find an overview of the different factors that
surfaced in this study, both found in the field and in the literature.
33
4.3.1 Education and othering
Education as a factor that influences the image of the other seems commonsensical. Children and
youth spent most of their time outside of their house at school, and thus this setting will have a big
influence. Although education was always included in some way or form in the list of influences on
the image of the other that the youth made in the focus groups, it became clear that, it only had a
very limited amount of influence. Education was usually presented as a factor with nearly any
influence on the youth’s image of the other. The youth told me that actual classes about the other
were limited. In the literature, the education about the other in Israel and Palestine was called more
than limited. The education system was accused of even ignoring the ‘other’ completely (Stewart,
2010).
An important reason for this ‘limited influence’ is the fact that it is forbidden for teachers to voice
their own opinions. It is almost impossible to talk about the conflict and most current affairs in depth
while remaining objective. According to, Windows director Atsmon and the youth, the teachers
almost never discuss the situation. If parents, students or other teachers complain, serious
reprimands are possible. Being too outspoken against the occupation for example is severely
punishable. The director of the school, which most of the Jewish Video group go to was summoned
to the minister of education for being too outspoken against the occupation. Although there are
separate schools for all three identity groups, every group interviewed stated that this was an issue
in their school.
Even though teachers are not able to discuss the conflict in depth, contemporary history and present
day events are still discussed in school. One of the things that the youth do in Windows is compare
the history books that they use in class. “Both have it completely wrong.” one of the Windows
participants from Bethlehem told me. The books from each side paint a very particular image of the
history and thus also of the ‘other’. Palestinians from the West Bank and Israeli Jews do not seem to
learn anything about each other’s history. Catrina Stewart, a contributor of the Christian Science
Monitor, writes that a principal of an Israeli school was summoned to the minister of education
because he instructed his teachers to use a book that highlighted the history of both the Palestinian
and the Israeli nation. The book has now been banned from the national curriculum by the ministry
(Stewart, 2010).
The Jewish youth I spoke to told me that, before they were in Windows, they were not aware of the
significance of the Nakbah for the Palestinians. For them the events of 1948 were only the events
that led to the founding of Israel. The Palestinians I spoke to, on the other hand, were not taught
about the holocaust. As a result, one of the most important events in Jewish history is often
34
interpreted quite differently by the Palestinians. The Jewish young journalists from Gi’vataim told
me about an exercise in Windows in which each group had to do a presentation about the most
traumatic events in the histories of the other, namely the Nakbah and the holocaust. After some
internet research, the Palestinians presented a history of the Holocaust wherein the Jews were
painted as the bad guys and the Germans where heroes trying to save the world. The Jewish group
described it as a very hurtful experience.
There seems to be a difference when it comes to education that speaks about the other between
the Palestinians of 67 and the Palestinians of 48. Palestinians of 48 at times seem to learn more
about the history of the Jewish people than about their own. One of the participants from Jaffa15
told me that she did not know anything about her own history until she came to Windows. Zahiye
Kundos (48 Palestinian), translator, editor and now also facilitator in Windows stated that the
majority of the Palestinians of 48 do not know anything about the Nakbah until they are sixteen
years or older. This might have to do with the fact that “Under current education minister Gideon
Saar, Israel has struck the word Nakbah from a textbook for Israeli Arab children, arguing that the
government should not promote a term that questions the legitimacy of the state (Stewart, 2010).”
The examples mentioned above illustrate that politics heavily influence the school curriculum.
Another example of this can be seen in the locations that Windows can work in. Under the last
government the minister of education was one of the founders of the Peace Now movement. “It was
clear that we could work in all the schools. We even got a letter from the ministry approving our
work.” Atsmon told me. However since the new, right wing government has been appointed the
work in Israeli and Israeli Palestinian schools has become difficult. Many schools are now hesitant to
work with Windows out of fear for reprimands. Especially schools for the Palestinians of ‘48 are
fearful for issues with the Israeli government. The Palestinian authorities in the OPT’s have always
been hesitant in letting peace building organizations work in the public education system. Windows
can only work with private schools in the West Bank.
Although the youth in the Windows program did not mention their education as a big influence, I
believe that the education that they receive actually does have a major influence on the image that
the youth have of the other. The problem is, in essence the one sidedness of the curriculum. The
lack of unbiased or even any education about the other in schools in Israel and Palestine leaves a big
gap of knowledge about the other to be filled by other sources of information. These other sources
of information have their own motives and biases which often portray the other as being bad.
15
Mixed Palestinian Israeli city near Tel Aviv
35
4.3.2 The influential media, a discussion of theory
The media is one of the sources of information that fill the gap left by the lack of education about
the other. Nearly all of the youth indeed named media as one of the factors that may have had an
influence on the image they had of the other. It is important to note here that when the media was
mentioned the youth always spoke of news outlets or debate shows etc. They did not note popular
culture as an influence. In this section on media the effect that media have on youth will first be
explored from a theoretical perspective; subsequently, the media landscape of Israel and Palestine
and the youth’s experiences with media will be explored by using secondary and primary sources.
In 1999, a multidisciplinary conference on research on youth and media was held in New York.
Researchers from different scientific backgrounds came together to discuss the future of research in
this field. Brown & Cantor (2000) have analyzed the discussions taking place at the conference.
According to them three basic rules on research on children and media can be identified. The first
rule is the most important one for this study; it states that “Media Are a Dominant and Influential
Activity of Childhood and Adolescence.” Brown and Cantor (ibid.) explained this assumption as
followed;
“The media are a powerful force in the socialization and cognitive development of youth. This
is not to say that the media are more powerful than other influences such as parents, peers,
and schools. However, in every area we reviewed, profound influences were seen.”
So while it cannot be seen as more powerful than other influences media does have an important
influence on youth. I could not find studies that specifically discuss the influence that media has on
youths image of the ‘other’. However, many studies have been done on the general effect media has
on youth. The majority of these studies have focused on youth, media and violence (Anderson, et.al,
2003.; Tremblay, R.E, 2000; Johnson et.al. 2002) and on youth, media and body image (Marshall
et.al. 2004; McCabe & Ricciardelli, 2001; Littleton & Ollendick, 2005). These studies all point to a
major influence of media on the ideas and sentiments of youth It is further important to be aware of
the fact the effects of media are usually mediated by other factors. A study done on media exposure
to smoking stated. For example, that the tendency to start smoking after exposure to it in the media
was ten times as large in youth if parents had positive ideas about smoking themselves (McCool,
Cameron & Robinson, 2011). The effect of the media, however large, is thus limited by the way it is
perceived and by the surroundings of the youth.
36
In pointing at the media as an influence on their image of the other, the youth mostly referred to
news, both from television and newspapers as a factor of influence. When looking at news media
and its effects on othering it is important to have an idea of how the media influences our ideas and
thoughts. A theory that explains this influence is the theory of agenda setting. Agenda setting
theories state that news media have a large influence on audiences. “Through their day-by-day
selection and display of the news, editors and news directors focus our attention and influence our
perceptions of what are the most important issues of the day (McCombs, 2004).” The theory of
agenda setting is split up into two levels. The first level of agenda setting states that media have the
possibility to influence the perceived importance people have of issues (Weaver, 2007). What is
more important for this study is the second level of the theory. In this level the focus lies on how our
perception of issues and subjects is influenced (McCombs, 2004; Ghanem, 1997). Not only the
content of our thinking gets influenced by the news media, but also the way we think. The two major
processes that are used here are framing and priming. Entman (1993) defines framing as follows; it
is “selecting some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating
text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral
evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described (Entman 1993).” In other
words it is stressing certain points in the story, making them more important. Subtle changes in the
presentation can make a difference in how issues are perceived (Iyengar 1987; Gilliam et al. 1996).
This can already be done by subtle changes in the wording (Weaver, 2007; Kahneman and Tversky
1984).
Priming refers to the process of making “changes in the standards that people use to make
evaluations” (Iyengar & Kinder, 1987, p. 63). This is mostly related to politics; the media shows us
certain issues as benchmarks with which we than evaluate the performance of our leaders and
governments (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). This process can also be seen in the way media
influences the perception of the ‘other’. Certain benchmark issues are brought forward by the media
on how they should be evaluated.
The news media is recognized as a major agent that can significantly influence audiences’ political
and social perceptions through the processes discussed (Iyengar 1987). Especially when it comes to
conflict situations, which are typified by high levels of uncertainty, alongside with a strong drive to
understand the other’s behavior and at the same time criticize it (Rosenberg & Wolfsfeld, 1977),
people tend to subjectively perceive and interpret information (Hirshberg, 1993; Maoz, 2004).
Agenda setting theory teaches us that framing and priming by the media under such circumstances
can have a larger influence on people’s perception and the responses that people will have to the
37
issue presented (Nabi, 2003).
4.3.3 Media and othering in practice
The Israeli and Palestinian context is a conflict situation as meant in the previous section. The
coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is notoriously biased. Media watchdogs from both the
Palestinian and Israeli side claim that the other side is biased. The youth in the focus group
interviews all spoke about the bias and one sidedness of the media. When I asked the Bethlehem
girls to explain the bias they had noted, they gave me a stunning example; in the Palestinian news a
picture was published of a sobbing man with a baby in his hands. The baby had been shot in the
head and killed. The headline read, ”Israeli soldiers kill baby”. The exact same picture was published
in the Israeli media, however in this picture the sobbing man was wearing a kippa16 with the caption
“Jewish baby killed by Palestinian terrorists”. One picture, two completely different stories. Emily
Schneider, the International Relations & Development Coordinator for Windows, gave another
example of the bias of the media in Palestine and Israel; “when a Palestinian is shot and killed at a
checkpoint Israeli papers will write articles such as “terrorist plot thwarted”. Palestinian newspapers
will write about the murder of an innocent taxi driver.” It is clear that the version of the story one
reads will profoundly influence how one views this “reality” and reacts to it.
Although the youth all named the media as an influence, they could not give me explicit examples of
times when it had influenced them. “Sometimes reading things makes us angry” one of the
Participants from the Video Group told me when I asked her to explain her mention of media
further. This was about as explicit as it got. Nevertheless, also without explicit examples it is clear
that the media does play an important role in creating the image of the other.
4.3.4 History and othering
In the context chapter the history of the Israeli Palestinian region was discussed through the
different prisms of the three identity groups; Palestinian of 48, Palestinian of 67 and Israeli Jews. The
three narratives of the history naturally give a different view of the present. History is often used in
determining whether land is rightfully yours. It is also often used to determine who is right and who
is wrong in a situation of conflict. The narrative or collective memory that each group has of the
history further directly impacts the way they view the present (Gur-Ze’ev & Pappe, 2003) and with
that how they view the other. In short, the narratives that the different groups in the Israeli
Palestinian conflict have of their respective history, are often seen as legitimization for the actions of
the groups in the present.
16
A religious headdress worn by Jewish men
38
4.3.5 Denial of the other’s history and collective memory
According to Israeli social scientists and historians Gur-Ze-ev and Pappe (2003) it is not only one’s
own history that matters in a conflict, but almost as important is the destruction of the collective
memory, the denial of the other’s historical narrative of history. They argue that each side wishes to
see themselves as the sole victim while minimalizing or even denying the victimization of the ‘other’.
Each side aims to position their own narrative as the dominant one. Further, to retain its dominant
position, the narrative of the other is marginalized, excluded and or destroyed. Gur-Ze’ev suggests
that Zionism,17 for example has worked continuously on mystifying the Holocaust while at the same
time denying the effects that the Nakbah had on the Palestinians (Gur-Ze’ev, 1998: 161-177). The
Palestinians, on their part, continuously refused to acknowledge the scale and significance of the
holocaust to the point of denying it (Nevo, 1989). More recently, denial was replaced by what could
be called a “strategic acknowledgement” of the holocaust (Gur-Ze’ev & Pappe, 2003; 95). A good
example of this strategic acknowledgment can be found in the work of the Palestinian poet and
writer Tahir Al-Makutal;
“Many years ago you were collapsing under the murders of Dachau. Your
father was slaughtered in the Warsaw ghetto. You suffered the agony of
your sister’s rape in Auschwitz. Have you forgotten? How could you
constitute a new Auschwitz in the center of the desert? How did you dare
to transfer a people from its land? How did you dare to burn the children?
Have you forgotten? (Al-Matukal, 1989: 63)”
The Palestinians compare the holocaust, where the Jews were the victims, with the Nakbah and the
occupation with the Israelis being the perpetrators. It is an attempt to discredit the victimhood that
the Jews have of the Holocaust, thus making the Palestinians the sole victims in the present
equation. The “other’s” collective memory is used against them (Gur-Ze’ev & Pappe, 2003). Another
example of this phenomenon is that some Palestinian portray themselves as victims of the holocaust
as well. In this view the Jews have been compensated for the tragedy of the holocaust at the
expense of the Palestinians. Furthermore, the Palestinians are also victims of the Nazi regime, being
victimized by the second generation of victims of the holocaust (Habibi, 1986: 27). As one can see,
both camps, use, distort and manipulate the other’s collective memory, so that the other’s actions in
the present are deemed illegitimate.
17
A movement for (originally) the reestablishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish
nation in Israel.(Oxford dictionary)
39
The youth did not explicitly indicate the historical narrative or historical events as being influential
on their image of the other. However, during the focus group interview many did refer to historical
events. All the Palestinian groups regularly referred to the events that occurred in 1948 as a
legitimization of the anger towards the Israelis. “They threw our family out of their houses and
murdered our people.” was seen by many as a reason for hatred towards Israelis now. Although less,
the Israelis also referred to historical happenings in connection with their image of the other. Their
arguments often referred to the legitimacy of Israel and implicitly in that the illegitimacy of the
Palestinian state. It seems that, while the youth did not indicate history in their list of influences, the
historical narratives do influence the image that the youth have of the other. It is used as a way to
legitimize one’s own opinions while devaluing the opinions of the other.
4.3.6 Culture of victimhood
In the section above I spoke about the attempt of each side to be portrayed as the victim. This
attempt is also seen in the culture of the different groups. Atsmon, director and founder of
Windows, noted that Jewish holidays are focused around a sense of victimhood. Each holiday is the
memoriam of the Jews survival of some catastrophe. It may be the slavery of the Egyptians or the
rule of the Persians, but nearly every holiday is shaped around how the world is ‘against them’. The
sense of victimhood is also found in the insistence of the Israelis that they are the victims of Arab
aggression (Bar-Tal, 2007) The Israeli tendency towards victimhood is also noted by some authors in
connection to the often extreme reaction Jews have to acts of “anti-Semitism” (Finkelstein, 2008;
Klug 2003; Finkelstein, 2003). These claims have been heavily criticized by many (Yair, 2001). The
Palestinians claim victimhood as well. The Palestinians greatest traumas, the Nakbah and Naksa, are
relived each year. Israel is often portrayed as a as an imperialist power, sometimes comparing Jewish
soldiers with Nazis (Oren & Bar-Tal, 2006). Nadler and Schnabel examined this frequent use of victim
terminology in Israel and Palestine. They argue that this competition for victimhood is actually a
competition for moral social identity and superiority (Nadler & Schnabel, 2006). To be the victim,
one needs to portray the ‘other’ in the conflict as the perpetrator. This competition for the moral
high ground actually leads to a culture of othering in each society.
In the image that the youth have of the other this search for victimhood also returns. One of the
Jewish participants remarked that what he found most irritating about the Palestinians was the
Palestinian propaganda. The fact that the Palestinians were always portrayed as the underdog, the
victim seemed to irritate him to no end. The sense of looking for the role of the victim also came
back in the narrative of the Palestinian youth. Phrases such as “they did this to us” or “They took our
40
land” clearly place the youth in the victim position and the other in the position of the perpetrator. It
seems that all the groups are prone to the influence of the culture of victimhood.
4.3.7 Society, family, friends and othering
“Our generation was born with the fear. Before we learned to say anything, we said ‘fear’ (Abir in
Windows magazine, 21, 2005)”
The overall culture of Othering presented in the previous sections was not explicitly named by the
majority of the youth as a factor. Only one of the participants in all of the interviews named it
explicitly. It was one of the participants of the ‘48 young journalist group from Tamra, who noted
that culture influenced his image of the ‘other’. When asked to explain this claim further he simply
stated “our culture seems to tell us that we should hate the Israelis”. The rest of the participants did
not name it as a factor explicitly. I believe though that this culture of othering was revealed through
other factors of influence that the youth presented. Below I will discuss three different influences
that depict this culture of othering; family, peer pressure and society.
4.3.8 Family and othering
Family is a factor that all of the youth note in their list. Some respondents explained this as meaning
the influence that their ‘nuclear family’ has on them. Others also incorporated their extended family
in the term. Theories on the influence that family has on the formation of images of the other seem
to be rare in the literature. One article highlighted that the influence that other factors, such as
media, have on a child is particularly connected with their family background. Their upbringing
defines what information is considered legitimate and what is rejected as untrue (McCool, Cameron
& Robinson, 2011).
Family influences form the foundation of socialization, norms and values in the formative years of
childhood. The stories of the Jewish young journalists from the Gi’vataim group are a good example
of this influence. They all come from a small city near Tel Aviv. The youth, as well as their facilitator
described the city as being politically centrist. The centrists in Israel have however been moving to
the right and have become more and more anti-Palestinian. The participants, however, come from
left wing families. Their parents are relatively pro-Palestinian. Although the rest of their
surroundings are anti-Palestinian, the influence of their family background was very clear to most of
the participants.
The amount of influence that the participants from the different groups ascribed to their families is
noteworthy. Whereas the Jewish groups, both in the Video and in the Young Journalist group listed
41
family influence on relatively low levels of importance, the Palestinian groups almost always listed
the family as one of the most important influences on their image of the other. The difference in
culture could be used to explain this difference however I am not certain that makes the difference.
What is clear is that all the respondents of this study included family as an important factor in their
image of the other. The families of the participants were, at least to some extent open to their child
participating in Windows. Although the parents themselves may have felt some fear towards the
other, they were supportive in their children’s attempts to meet the other. In Chapter 5 this will
prove to be an important factor in the de-othering process. What has become apparent in this
chapter, is that the youth experience the influence of the families as instilling, at least to a limited
extent the culture of othering in the them.
4.3.9 Pressure from peer groups
It has long been established that the relationships between peers form an integral component of
adolescent’s socialization (Hartup, 1983) and facilitate individual development of a sense of identity
(Erikson, 1963). Peer pressure is an important part of this socialization, for it is the primary
mechanism for transmitting group norms and maintaining loyalties among group members. Clasen
and Brown’s (1985) definition of peer pressure captures this mechanism, when they say it is the
pressure to think or behave along certain peer-prescribed guidelines (Clasen & Brown, 1985). It has
been shown that there is some correlation between peer pressure and the image of the other.
Individuals are more prone to express tolerance for racism following a peer’s expression of racist
views, and less tolerance after a peer condemnation. (Crandall, Eshleman & O’Brien, 2002;
Blanchard, Crandall, Brigham & Vaughn, 1994) The views of the individual are adjusted to the
current peer consensus ( Killen & Stangor, 2001).
The effects of peer pressure can vary. On the one hand, conforming to peer pressure can be
explained through Social Reality Theory as follows; “the goal of understanding and connection drives
individuals to verify their experiences with others, and to express attitudes and behaviors that are
recognized and valued by others” (Hardin & Conley, 2000). On the other hand rejecting peer
pressure can be explained as a self-identifying measure through looking at Deviance Regulation
Theory (Blanton & Christie, 2003). This theory notes that “individuals often reject attitudes and
behaviors of peer groups as a means of self-definition” (Blanton & Christie, 2003). These two
theories present two very different ways of dealing with peer pressure, which have very different
effects on the viewpoints of the individual.
42
Pressure from friends and other peers is a prominent factor in the culture of othering that is
imbedded in both Israeli and Palestinian society. This was corroborated by many of the participants
as a factor that influenced their image of the other. Logically, the social context of the participant
determined the extent and the content of the experienced peer pressure. One of the Jewish groups,
the Gi’vataim group presented a good example of peer pressure. When asked if they had ever gotten
into discussions with friends or other peers, one of the participants started telling the following
story; Two members of the group were scouts. As a part of the course to become a guide, the scouts
had to do a presentation about a subject that interested them. Wanting to share the work they had
done in Windows, they did a presentation on their involvement in the project. “So when we started
the presentation nobody even listened. They started to scream at us. They heard that we said Arabs
and just thought about that. They yelled that we should kill the Arabs. We stupid leftists were worse
than the Arabs. For months after the presentation a big group of the kids would not talk to us. And
now when the subject comes up, they give us such angry looks, like do not say anything! (One of the
participants from Gi’vataim, April 2011).” This example shows how fierce and aggressive peer
pressure in a situation of conflict at times can be.
The Palestinian of 67 participants from Bethlehem were greatly influenced by their friends
and classmates in their image of the other as well. Classmates in school told them about the
‘accidents’ they or their family had had with Israeli soldiers or settlers. Parents of classmates have
been locked up, severely hurt and even killed. “What can you say? Not all of them are bad?” one of
the participants remarked. They are looked at angrily as soon as the subject comes up. The stories
they heard impacted their image of the other greatly in a negative way. The same was true for
participants from Jaffa (Palestinians of ‘48), but in another way. One participant of the Jaffa group
mentioned that in discussions with friends and peers, she often tried to argue why she and her peers
were different from the Israelis, that they are Palestinians. According to the participant, many of her
friends argue that they being Palestinians of 48 and Israeli citizens, are now Israelis. They feel that
being Israeli is the situation that they are in and they might as well behave as such. In other words
the participant from Jaffa has to argue with her peers why they as Palestinians are different from the
Other.
These three groups seem to have a reaction that fits in with the Deviance Regulation Theory
(Blanton & Christie, 2003). It is important to remember that the clashes that these groups had with
their peers were after joining windows. The experiences they had with peer pressure before this
might have been different, but has not been explored in this study.
43
The Jewish Tel Aviv and the Palestinian of 48 Tamra group seemed to have less clashes with peers
about the image of the other and their reaction to peer pressure seems to fit more into Social Reality
Theory. Everybody in the field told me that in Tel Aviv the majority of the people are left wing, proPalestinian. Although the participants from Tel Aviv noted that their friends and classmates have
some kind of influence on them, they weren’t able to give the kind of examples that the other
groups had presented. The Tamra group did not seem to clash with their peers due to the fact that
they had an image of the other similar to their peer group. The peers of the participants generally
seem to convey the culture of the society in general more strongly than the parents of the
participants; sometimes negative towards the other, sometimes positive.
To summarize; the culture and society surrounding the different youth participants differs strongly
and is of great influence in their image of the other. It might be through friends, family, the public
opinion or some other way. The influence of society and with that the culture of othering remains.
Salomon, (2010) when writing about the success rate of peace building initiatives indicates the
importance of society for the image that people have of the other. The difficulty according to him for
having a long term effect on the image of the other through such initiatives depends greatly on the
societal support for the initiative and the changed perspective. If society, either by means of family,
friends or any other way, appears negative towards the change in the person’s ideas, the likelihood
of permanent effect is diminished and the image of the other will likely revert to its old state
(Salomon, 2010).
4.3.10 Personal experiences and othering
“Once I was standing on the balcony. I looked down at my chest and there was a little red light point
right on me. It was the light that soldiers use to aim their guns with. I was so scared and ran inside”
(One of the participants from Bethlehem, April 2011).
“They are not always bad. We had soldiers that helped us when we needed food and gas” (One of the
participants from Bethlehem April, 2011).
“Every time when people hear us speaking in Arabic we get dirty looks.” (One of the participants
from Tamra, may 2011)
“I felt that it couldn’t be true, that it couldn’t be that my brother was added to the list of those
44
murdered.” (Jewish participant writing about her brother dying in a suicide bombing, Windows
magazine, 20, 2005)
These are examples of personal experiences that the youth have had with “the other”. Some were
positive, but most of their experiences were negative. Especially the Palestinians participants, from
both the 48 and the 67 groups, included personal experiences in their list of influences. They often
had had negative encounters with Israelis, both with the army and with Israeli citizens. It is
interesting to see that the Jewish groups were the ones who least included personal experiences in
their list. They often indicated that they had a minimal amount of contact with Palestinians. If there
was any contact it was never extensive. “We run into them in the street sometimes” or “My dad’s
cleaning lady is Palestinian” were the kinds of contact that the Jewish youth told me about. In our
conversations they indicated that they saw this as a loss.
Fiske and Tailor (1991) indicate that when it comes to personal experience it is older children that
are more likely to build their image of the other on it than younger kids (Fiske & Tailor, 1991). There
seems to be a difference in the processes used by children from different ages to develop an image
of the other (Aboud, 1988; Bar-Tal & Teichman, 2005). Coutant, Worchel, Bar-Tal and van Raalten
(2011) argue that because the basis for the image of the other is different for different ages, the
approach to altering this image should be different as well. They argue that altering an image that is
based on personal experience is more difficult and strenuous then that of an image based on other
sources of information. In other words the influence that personal experiences has on the image of
the other is potentially big. Applying this to the different groups at Windows one could assume that
the image the Palestinians have the other, being based on more personal experiences, would be
more deeply anchored, than that of the Israeli participants. This will be further discussed in chapter
six.
4.4 Conclusion
Othering is a form of self-identification, which especially in situations of intractable conflict can take
on extreme forms. The Israeli Palestinian conflict is one of these intractable conflicts and my
empirical material indeed shows that othering has become a part of life. The youth interviewed all
indicated how they viewed the other and what factors had influenced them in thinking this way.
Although there are small differences between the levels of influence that these factors have on the
groups and on different individuals, almost all of the factors discussed in this chapter were seen in
every scheme.
45
There are several factors that influence the image of the other, with each having different levels of
influence on the groups and individuals. The schemes drawn by the participants show that all of
these factors were relevant for the participants of the Windows project. Interestingly, the factors
“history” and “culture” were hardly included in the lists made by the youth. The importance of
these factors was solely emphasized by the theoretical literature. It is plausible that the youth may
not consciously realize that these factors have had an influence; subconsciously it is very probable
that they have. If not directly, then indirectly through the other factors. It is also important to note
that although in this chapter the factors were discussed separately they all are interconnected and
have an influence on each other. This will further be explored in Chapter 6.
As shown in this chapter there are many factors influence the image that we have of the other. In
the context of Israel and Palestine, the majority of these influences push towards developing a
polarized image; an image of fear and anger. In the next chapters we will see if joining in a project
like Windows can have an impact on the influence these different factors have.
46
5. Windows, channels for communication
Since the beginning of the 1980’s more than a hundred planned intergroup contact interventions
between Palestinians and Israeli’s have been carried out each year. These range from one time
meetings to long term programs, from activities with young children to discussions between
university students and professors, to meetings between mothers of victims of the conflict (Maoz,
2011). This research focuses on one of these projects; “Windows channels for communication”. In
this chapter the background, methods and goals of the project will be discussed. A theoretical
framework of intergroup meetings in conflict will be presented and the work Windows does will be
placed in it. The difficulties and issues caused by the complexity of the Israeli Palestinian context for
the work Windows does will be discussed as well.
5.1 The formative years
The idea for the Windows channels for communication program started to take form in 1990.
Graphic designer Nina Yavitz told her friend Rutie Atsmon, now the director of Windows, about the
South African children’s magazine Molo Songolo. This multilingual African magazine was published
during the apartheid years, in the three major languages of the country; Afrikaans, Xhosa! and
English. It was a way to break through the stereotypes and create some understanding of the others
in the country. Atsmon and Yavitz, already activists then, were convinced that a similar magazine
would fit the Israeli and Palestinian context well: “It gives children in virtually segregated
communities what is often their only opportunity to see each other as human beings through stories,
games and puzzles.” Yavitz explained in the magazine Telfed in 1998 how Molo Songolo worked in
South Africa and declared; “this is just what we need in Israel! A children’s magazine in Hebrew and
Arabic” (Telfed, 1998).
It was a long process of thinking, planning and discussing before the first magazine was published in
1995. One of the first issues to address was to ensure that it would not solely be a Jewish project. A
joint Palestinian Israeli venture was deemed essential for the projects viability. Initially it was very
difficult to find people from both sides willing to get involved in the program. “Everybody we talked
to said we were crazy” Rutie Atsmon told me. “Nobody seemed to be able to envision what we were
hoping to do. Who needs it? Who wants it? Why would anyone be interested in that?” However after
a while - Atsmon could not give the exact date- they were able to get a joint group together focused
on communities in both the mixed city of Jaffa and Jewish Tel Aviv. Unfortunately, in the first years
the Occupied Palestinian Territories were not part of the project. Soon it became clear to the
organizers that the magazine should be not made by adults for children, but by children for children.
47
According to Atsmon they “went to a school in Jaffa and in Tel Aviv and collected some kids
recommended by their teachers. We began to work with them based on this concept”.
Children in primary school helped create the first magazines, a much younger group than the
present editorial groups. It was a kid’s magazine, full of color, drawings and games. The focus was
mostly on different cultures, music, and sports. Articles about the children’s favorite soccer teams,
the lives of Eskimo’s and magic tricks filled the magazines. Human rights and values were often
included in some way or form in the magazine, but the conflict was rarely addressed. At times the
differences between the different groups were addressed or children would write in to describe
their situation. It was however not prominent. The goals, in this period, were quite different from
what they are now. After the first magazine was published, the Jerusalem Post interviewed Rutie
Atsmon. She spoke about the magazine being a language-teaching tool for both sides. It was also
seen as a way to expand Arabic children’s literature, which according to her was less developed than
Israeli children’s literature. She also said that making the magazine was a way for the ‘young
journalists’ *i.e. the children+ to get to know each other by working on articles together and
experiencing the summer workshops. And that was really what it was in the beginning, a children’s
magazine made by children for children.
5.2 Windows in theory; the contact model
The strategy that Windows used in building understanding and influencing the image of the other in
the first years coincides with what in sociology is called contact theory (Allport, 1954; Amir, 1976).
The peace building model based on this theory is called the ‘contact model’ (Mc Cauley, 2003; Berg
2000). This model’s basic assumption is that “contact between people – the mere fact of their
interacting – is likely to change their beliefs and feelings toward each other” (Amir, 1969). According
to this theory, intergroup contact can, under certain conditions, be effective in reducing hostility and
prejudices and create more positive attitudes between groups. In other words, contact can lead to
“de-othering” (ibid.).
The primary conditions cited for effective intergroup contact are: (a) equal status of both groups in
the contact situation; (b) ongoing personal interaction between individuals from both groups; (c)
The interaction of the different groups according to this theory should be based on mutual
dependence; in which members of both groups work together toward a common goal; (d)
institutional support- consensus among the authorities and the relevant institutions about the
norms that support equality (Maoz, 2002).
48
Looking at the Windows program, we could say that they strived to create the conditions cited
above, thus the conditions necessary for an effective contact between the two groups. During the
first years, the groups consisted of Israeli Jewish children and the “1948” Palestinian children.
Though in Israeli society there was clearly an unequal status between the two groups, in the project
the two groups had an equal status. The kids remained in contact during the year by writing each
other letters and working together on a common goal, the magazine. In the period that the first
magazine came out and the program evolved from an idea into reality, the “Oslo Peace Talks”, the
biggest attempt for peace in the region, was in full swing. There was an immense amount of
institutional and societal support for programs like Windows. It appeared that all the primary
conditions were met in the first years of Windows to be able to be successful in achieving their goals.
Although the contact theory has many supporters, as time has passed more and more critics have
surfaced. It is however important to remember that in critical discussions of the contact theory,
many claim that “contact is not enough” (Bargal, 1990; Brewer, 1996; Hewstone & Brown, 1986).
Researchers have also argued that the range of the contact model is quite limited, it reaches only a
small part of the general population (McCauley, 2003; Firwe,2002). In the first years of Windows no
research was done on the effect the program had on the youth. It is thus impossible for me to
discuss the practical effects and limitations of this ‘pure’ contact model approach for the Windows
program. What is clear is that the program continued to grow in size and the approach to the work
they were doing began to change
5.3 Growth of the program
Soon after the first magazine came out Palestinian day laborers from Gaza and the West Bank
working in the Tel Aviv region, brought the magazines home to their kids. The children saw the
magazines and were enthusiastic. A small group from the territories soon joined the program. As
children from the OPTs joined the program, it became much easier to get funding. According to
Windows director Atsmon, governments and organizations were more interested in giving money
for activities between the Palestinians of the OPTs and the Israeli Jewish kids than for activities with
the 48 Palestinians. “We were very excited to meet Palestinians from the OPT and for a while the 48
Palestinians felt lost and left out” Atsmon told me in our first interview. In that period the kids only
met in the summers. Slowly but surely it became clear that there was a need for more contact. The
meetings became a little more frequent. The children’s wish for more communication also led to an
exchange of letters that is till this day an important facet of the program. Dialogue started to
become a bigger part of the program as well. All these new developments led to a more structured
49
program. In 1999 and 2000 the organization became officially a joint organization, with a joint board,
meaning that they had equal representatives from all identity groups. In that period the “peace
industry” as Atsmon called it had really started rolling. And, as already hinted at, The Oslo Peace
process had led to a new interest from donors for intergroup projects.
“Donors paid much higher salaries than the average salary in the OPT. So the main
motivation for some people in the OPT to join organizations such as Windows was often the
money… We got cheated out of money many times. Fortunately, by the end of the 90’s we
had a core group of people who really cared for the program” (Rutie Atsmon, director of
Windows, April 2011)
In September of 2000 the second Intifada began, and the organization had to be closed for about a
month. After this month the organization reopened and started organizing meetings and discussions
about the situation for adults of the different identity groups. Not much later they started working
on the magazines again. All these activities were carried out mainly by the above mentioned coregroup of Windows volunteers and supporters who proved to be of great importance during the
years of intensified confrontation. The first magazine in the period of the intifada, number eighteen,
was published in the spring of 2001; only six months after the start of the intifada. The magazine was
already fully edited in September when the unrests started. Instead of publishing it at that moment,
the editors (adults) first went back to the kids to interview them. They asked them about the
changed situation and their feelings about it.
I would say that this issue of the magazine is a turning point for Windows. From that moment on,
the conflict started playing a larger role in the magazines. By just looking at the covers of the
magazines you can see the change that came with the intifada. The magazines, until issue eighteen,
had happy drawings, pictures of animals, or Eskimos on the cover. Issue eighteen had a children’s
drawing of a bloody peace dove, tears running down its face as it drops an olive branch out of its
beak. The entire magazine was about the conflict and the different ‘conflicting’ national identities.
Different kids were interviewed about the situation and drawings of peace and conflict filled the
pages. In a way this switch was a logical reaction to the circumstances in the country. It was
important to address the conflict in the magazine for it suddenly played a much bigger role in
children’s lives. It is interesting to see that at this moment there is a clear switch in the age of the
children working on the magazine. Although there were some young kids that wrote-in, the majority
of the interviewees and writers in this issue were fourteen or older. The next magazine was
published almost three years later in the winter of 2003. It was impossible for the kids to meet in the
50
years of the intifada. Getting permits for the Palestinians to enter Israel or to take Israeli children
into the West Bank was impossible. During this period the adult Windows board did continue to
meet and develop the program.
The editorial of the 19th issue of the Windows magazine states that it is a ‘special edition’ “ Which
will give you a glimpse into the worlds of many different young people from various places and which
will give you a clearer picture of the overall situation, enabling you to understand a little more about
what is happening and why”. The issue is titled ‘The Courage to Listen’ and it stated in the editorial
that it was meant to create a stage for the youth editorial board and youth who write in to the
magazine, to express their feelings and exchange their experiences. When looking at the magazines
that followed this issue, it is clear that this 19th one ended up not so much being a special edition,
but rather the starting point of a new path for Windows. The Youth Media Project as it became
known, evolved further. Although there were still some younger kids involved in the project, the
majority of the participants were of high school age. The focus of the magazine from then on, even
after the intifada ended, remained on the conflict. ”Our work became more psycho- social. It was
war, kids were under fire and still communicating with each other, through letters and through the
magazines.” said Atsmon. In sum, the magazine’s purpose shifted from encouraging contact
between the groups to becoming a means for developing dialogue.
5.4 Windows in theory; dialogue models
In the period described above, Windows was slowly moving towards what in theory is referred to as
Direct Dialogue Encounters (Maoz et.al. 2002) or Transformative Dialogue Contact (Gergen, 1999;
Mcnamee & Gergen, 1999). In these encounters the focus lies on dialogue, on discussing the issues
that separate and divide the ‘self and the ‘other’ (Maoz et.al. 2002). Dialogue has been
acknowledged as an important tool when challenging group conflicts. The assumption is that
dialogue can bring about changes in identity and identity construction (Holquist, 1990; Priel, 1999). It
has been described as a ‘crucial transformative process’, as a process in which groups deal with the
conflict between them, by “expressing themselves, listening to the other, and taking in or
empathizing with the emotions, experiences views and values of the other.” (Gergen, 1999;
Mcnamee & Gergen, 1999). Through the dialogue, the opposing sides come to construct themselves
and the other differently. “Extending the boundaries of the self and including parts of the other
within the self, and thus including the other within the realm of relational moral responsibility (Maoz,
2004)”. Ideally, by doing this the other, the out-group, in some ways becomes included in the ingroup.
51
Dialogue encounters are known to be very difficult and discussing intergroup issues and conflicts can
be very confrontational (Maoz, 2004). This also turned out to be true for the Windows project. The
director of Windows, Rutie Atsmon told me that she sees the process as a very slow one. According
to her, it is often a process of one step forward and two steps back. The complexity and difficulty of
these encounters are also observed clearly in the strain it takes the facilitators to work with the
youth. One of the younger groups has had four different facilitators in four years. Some of them left
because working with the youth on this subject confronted them too much with their own ideas and
fears, others had other personal reasons or did not agree with the organization unwillingness to
speak out against the Israeli youth going into the army. Nevertheless, it is clear that working on this
topic, especially by using this dialogue model is difficult.
Maoz writes about the difficulties of diverse expectations of these encounters and the lack of
willingness of people to not only hear but really listen to each other (Maoz et al, 2002). Comments I
heard in the field from different facilitators and employees of Windows mirror these claims.
Different expectations lead to different positions of the different groups in the encounters. Many
interviewees also brought up the challenge of really listening to each other. The diametrically
opposed views on the conflict often lead to discussions that end up with each side repeating their
own point of view, without really listening to each other. The same respondents said that time needs
to be spent on training the youth to really listen to each other, instead of forming responses in their
head before the other finishes speaking.
Windows continued to move towards the direct dialogue approach. Windows however did not step
away from the contact theory approach. Today, the model that Windows uses can be seen as a
hybrid of these two peace building models discussed. There has been a slight fit though in the
balance between the two: working together on the magazine has remained an important aspect of
the program, but the dialogue aspect has become increasingly more important.
5.5 Windows in practice
The remainder of this chapter will be dedicated to presenting the the hybrid model of intergroup
encounters that is the Windows program. The set-up of the program, the methods used to evoke
dialogue and the issues that Windows comes across in the context will be discussed.
Windows now works with four ‘levels’ in the program spread out over six years. The first level is a
Preparation Program, which was run for the first time in 2011. The second level is called the Young
Journalist group, the third is the Video group and the final and fourth level is called the Young
Leaders group. I will discuss each level in the following sections.
52
5.5.1 The preparation program
The first year, or preparation program, focuses on developing listening skills and opening up to the
other. In this preparation year there are no meetings yet with the other groups; all the meetings are
within one identity group. The preparation groups are much larger than the groups that work on the
other levels. This is done because during this first year children may leave the program, having lost
interest or because they may be afraid to meet the other. A select group is expected to remain for
the higher levels. Because the preparation group started this year, the effects of the program could
not be measured yet. Because of this I decided to exclude the groups in this stage in my research.
One could consider that these groups might be able to function as a baseline to measure the effects
of the program. However the starting point for each group or even person that starts in the program
is very different. It is therefore impossible to use any other group as the baseline for the
measurements.
5.5.2 Young journalists
The second level in the Windows program is called the “young journalist” group. The young
journalist groups write and edit the magazine. The Jewish group from Givataim, the 48 Palestinian
group from Tamra and the 67 Palestinian group from Jalkamuz were at the time of this research in
this part of the program. Ideally, the groups meet in their single identity groups once every two
weeks. Once every two months a joint meeting takes place. In the single identity meetings the
participants discuss what has happened in the joint meetings and other subjects that come up.
Windows does not work with a very strict structure. There is a general plan for the meetings,
however the participants themselves often introduce the subjects that are discussed. Not only is the
other discussed, but often also the own identity of the participants is examined. Different exercises
are done to clarify the different aspects of the conflict. One exercise I witnessed in a single identity
group of the Jewish young journalist group, was asking them how they would explain the conflict to
someone from outer space, who did not know anything about the history or the situation. Asking
them to look at the conflict from a different perspective made them revise and clarify their own
ideas.
Writing letters to the other groups is also a part of the single identity meetings in the second stage.
This method originated from the children’s desire to communicate outside of the sessions. The
letters are written alone or in small groups. The facilitators check the letters for statements that
could be offensive. “We talk with the kids; what do you want to get across? What is your goal? Do
you think it will work like this?” Atsmon explained to me. After this check the letters are sent to a
translator and then sent to the other group. Atsmon is enthusiastic about the letter writing process,
53
for it gives the youth time to think about their responses to each other. Some other facilitators had
other views. “The process takes too long” Tsila Zalt, an ex-facilitator of the Jewish group confided to
me during our interview, “it sometimes takes more than a month to get a response, by then we have
gone on to another subject”. How the kids see these methods and their effects will be discussed in
the next chapter.
The joint meetings have a duration of one or two days, depending on the options. The school week
of Palestinians and the Jewish Israelis is often different. In these meetings there are inter- and ingroup sessions. The joint sessions are often quite intense. Tensions may rise when difficult subjects
are discussed. Although, I could not exactly follow the discussions in the joint sessions due to
language barriers, the tension was even for me at times palpable. Some of the youth for example
started to cry during these emotional meetings. Some subjects are prepared first within a single
identity group session and then discussed between the groups. The intergroup discussions are often
debriefed in unilateral sessions to really analyze and deal with what has been said. It is not only
discussions that fill the joint meetings. Different creative exercises are used as well. Painting,
photography and acting are at times used to approach the subject from a different angle. In one of
the sessions I witnessed, the participants were asked to stage photographs portraying what they felt
their position was in the conflict. This exercise led to very diverse pictures, and a much more relaxed
way of dealing with the issues.
The joint group meetings are led by the facilitators of the three groups together. A translator is
always present so the different groups can communicate in their own language. In the group
discussions some words must be lost in translation, but nearly every word seems to be translated. In
the joint meetings the youth also work together on their respective media outlet; for the young
journalists this is the magazine, for the group in the next level these are videos. They mostly do this
in smaller mixed identity groups, each group for example working on a different article for the
magazine.
5.5.3 Video group
The group on the third level; the Video Group has more or less the same schedule, at least in theory.
In practice they often meet less frequent. The problem is, that as the participants are in there last
year of high school they are busy with their last years of school. Also, after having been part of
Windows for an extended period of time for many of the participants the interest has started to
waver. The set-up of the program however remains the same with single identity group and joint
meetings. The letter writing is not a part of the process anymore. It is also interesting to see that in
54
this older group the media work has started to have a smaller role than before. The young journalists
group spends a lot more time on the magazine than the older groups spend on the videos. At the
time of research the Jewish Tel Aviv group, the 48 Palestinians of Jaffa and the 67 Palestinian group
of Bethlehem were on this level.
5.5.4 Young leaders
The last level in the project is the young leaders program. In this part of the program the focus lies
on promoting activism. This part of the program, however, was still in the early development stages
and was not included in this research.
5.6 Non dialogue methods
Windows works with different exercises and games to build trust and an open environment. How
the kids experience these different aspects of the program and how this has affected their image of
the other, will be discussed in the following chapter. It is important to be aware that the work that
Windows does, not only focuses on the de-othering aspect through developing an understanding of
the other through dialogue, but also by other means.
An important aspect of Windows’ work is to encourage independent and critical thinking in their
participants. This encouraging of critical thinking can also be seen as a method to further the deothering process. By developing their critical thinking the youth learn to question the information or
misinformation that is given to them about the other. This is done for example by looking at current
news stories through the prisms of different news outlets. A way of addressing the biased media and
its effects presented in the previous chapter. I will discuss the effects that the youth feel these
lessons have had on the construction of their image of the other in the coming chapter.
5.7 Recruitment and keeping the youth in the program
When I asked the director of Windows Rutie Atsmon about recruiting kids for the program her face
became serious. “It’s very difficult to get kids to join the program,” she told me. It is also difficult to
keep youth of a certain age interested in a multiple year program. Reasons for these difficulty are
related to deeper issues connected to the positions of the different groups in the program and the
conflict. Rutie explained why for Israeli Jewish kids it is not appealing to join the program; “For most
Israeli’s joining Windows is bad news. Why would a typical Israeli teenager want to come to a place
where we put in their faces what the Israelis are doing in the territories? I mean, they don’t want to
know. They read a bit about it in school, and they learn enough to know that they don’t want to
55
know more about it.” In an interview with Jewish ex-facilitator Tsila Zalt this subject was elaborated
on. “It is the very first time that they [the Jewish participants in the program] are the Jewish group,
meeting the Palestinians. So this means that they are probably the bad ones. They feel a lot of guilt.”
Atsmon, the director of Windows explained to me that, not many people sign up for a confrontation
with the shortcomings of your people. The youth that sign up for the program are often already
interested in learning more about the Palestinians and are more open to the other side of the
conflict. It is a very specific, limited group. The majority of the Jewish youth participating in Windows
come from left wing families. In Israel, left wing is almost synonymous to pro, or at least open to,
Palestinians. However, even for this more open group the process that the youth go through in
Windows is difficult and confronting.
When the director of Windows Atsmon told me about how confronting being part of the program
was for the Jewish kids, I imagined that for the Palestinians it would be an empowering experience:
suddenly they are the ‘powerful’ ones in the situation. They would surely want to join. When I asked
her about it she confirmed this idea to some extent: “They can share their anger and frustration and
this is something that is good for people. It makes you feel better if you let it out. Especially if you
can take it out on your ‘enemy’ . It can be seen as empowerment.” Add to that that Windows offers
the possibility for the “67 Palestinians” to leave the Occupied territories, and at least once presents
the possibility to go abroad (there have been seminars in Italy and Scotland, depending on local aid)
one would think that Palestinians would be standing in line to join the program. There are however
other issues that make it complex/intricate for Palestinians to join. Atsmon claims that from a
Palestinian point of view, both in and outside of the territories, collaborative activities are often seen
as normalization of the occupation. Being ‘friendly’ with Israelis is seen as endorsing the status quo.
The claim is that by working together with Israelis you are actually supporting the occupation,
instead of fighting it. You are improving the situation under occupation, which should not exist at all.
According to Rutie, because of this “the support for joint activities in the Palestinian community is
very limited.” In the focus groups it often became clear that the youth were also quite aware of the
dilemma of normalization. In 2009 the Video Group made a song and a video clip about making
peace. The song is incredibly catchy and the chorus (“we want peace, we need peace oh yeah”) gets
stuck in your head instantly. The song also expressed the negative ideas that the groups have of each
other and the fears that they have. Nevertheless, when I mentioned it to the girls from Bethlehem
(Palestinians of 67), they did not seem to have good memories of the song. They frowned and told
me “yeah that was normalization.” In sum, the youth that join from each of the three groups are as
Atsmon calls it ‘special kids’. They are open to meeting and learning about the other in a context
where that is quite rare. It is important to keep this in mind while analyzing the effects of the
56
program.
5.8 Conclusion
Throughout the years Windows has developed into a hybrid of different methods and techniques of
de-othering. As director Rutie Atsmon told me “We *Windows+ are constantly in development.”
Although through the constant development the program may lack some stability, the history of the
program offers an interesting insight in the development and adaptive needs of peace building
initiatives. One sees a development of the program combining aspects of contact theory and direct
dialogue, creating a format that uses both methods, a hybrid of sorts. As shown, the youth involved
in the program, are open to meeting the other, which is rather unique given their situation; this
however does not mean that they do not have a negative image or are not fearful of the other. How
participating in the project has influenced the participants and the image they have of the other, will
be discussed in the next chapter. How they have experienced the effects of the different facets of
the program will be an integral part of this discussion.
57
6. The effects of Windows
“It showed me that I was right”
As we have seen in the previous chapter the Windows for peace project is one of the many
programs working on improving the intergroup relations between Israelis and Palestinians. In this
chapter the effectiveness of the program when it comes to de-othering will be discussed and
analyzed. In the first section of the chapter the data collected will be presented by looking at each of
the groups that participate in Windows. How do they feel that being in Windows has changed their
perceptions of the other? The influence of the social background of the different groups will be
discussed and how it impacts the effectiveness of the program. In the ensuing section the
differences between the effects Windows has had on the groups will be discussed and analyzed. The
final section will be dedicated to discussing the influence that the different methods used by
Windows have in the experience of the participants.
6.1 Jewish Video Group: the Tel Aviv group
“Tel Aviv is a bubble” “In Tel Aviv we do not have to deal with the conflict.” “If we would live in Sderot
or Ashkelon we would feel much stronger against the Palestinians” These quotes are excerpts of
focus groups with the Jewish Video Group who all come from Tel Aviv. Other respondents, but also
people I spoke to in the street confirmed these statements. Tel Aviv seems to be the one major left
wing, pro-Palestinian city in Israel. As said before, being left wing in the Israeli context is almost
synonymous to being pro-Palestinian. Although we should not forget that a large percentage of the
population of Tel Aviv still is right wing.
The Jewish Video Group consists of five sixteen year old girls18 who have been part of the Windows
program for three years. All of the participants of this group, with the exception of one, go to the
Aleph high school, a well-known leftist school. The school has a principal so outspoken against the
occupation that he was once summoned to the minister of education to explain his behavior
(Stewart, 2010). Most of the participants of the Jewish Video Group come from relatively proPalestinian families.
6.1.1 Image of the other
When the Jewish Video Group focus group was asked to say the first things that came to mind when
they thought about the “Palestinian other” the first associations were words and dates connected to
the conflict. The occupation, conflict, and dates such as 48 and 67 and other similar terms were
18
The youth will remain anonymous throughout the paper.
58
offered. When asked if the words written down were more connected to the Palestinian people or
to the conflict they responded saying that it was connected to both. However, when asked to tell
more about the Palestinian people they insisted that they did not have prejudices. They asserted,
since they did not know any Palestinians outside of Windows, “what could they say about them?”
This answer seems to balance on the edge of social desirability. It is however impossible to be sure if
this was their honest opinion or if they tried to give the answer I desired of them. I will therefore
assume their statements during the focus groups to be truthful.
The only personal contact the majority had had with Palestinians was with the participants in the
other groups. Only one girl had some contact with Palestinians outside of Windows; “But the contact
is short and you do not really talk (in depth) about things.” This group’s participants felt that being in
Windows had not really changed their perceptions of the other. It seems that the image of the other
that the Tel Aviv group had before Windows was not as negative as that of many other Israelis19.
They did express that especially in the beginning “we felt embarrassment every time we met”. Apart
from this ‘embarrassment’ they had the impression that they were open towards the other from the
start. The participants stated that they thought this image had never been ‘very’ negative because
the conflict has not really been a part of their daily life. Although the conflict is a major subject in the
streets in Tel Aviv and many people talk about it, it does not affect the daily lives of the participants.
One participant remarked, “If there were rockets falling on our house every day like the people in
Shderot, than our ideas about the other would be different”.
In the above paragraph, it become clear that the Jewish Tel Aviv group had the most positive image
of the other compared to the different groups when they joined Windows, though they admitted
that the information they had about the other was limited. Windows had an influence on improving
this knowledge. The participants spoke of Windows as having deepened their ideas of the other.
They told me that though their friends in school would most probably give the same responses to
most of my questions, their ideas behind the words were deeper. The experience that they had in
Windows- really meeting the other and hearing stories from the other side of the conflict confirmed the image that the group from Tel Aviv had before Windows. “The ideas we had before,
were based on other people’s ideas, now we know that our ideas are based on reality.” The
participants appreciated the new and different information received through Windows and
considered this to be a very important contribution of the program. Many of their answers referred
back to this fact.
19
While interviewing this group at times I had the feeling that their answers were often socially desirable or
even politically correct. In this analysis their answers are taken at face value, while realizing that the data can
be influenced by this factor.
59
*new paragraph+ Hearing the stories of the other groups and learning the other’s side of the story
was not always easy, especially in the beginning. “The first year we heard things that were
completely different from everything we knew; from school and from home. Sometimes it was hard
to hear those things that are completely opposite from what you know, and you… it’s hard to listen.”
one of the participants remarked. Especially in the beginning they found it hard not to judge the
person speaking, instead of really listening to them. While at times it was difficult, they indicated
these experiences as very important.
To sum up; the participants from the Tel Aviv group came to the program with a more or less
positive, but superficial, image of the other. The other, although unknown, seemed to get the
benefit of the doubt. The time spent in Windows has led to more firsthand knowledge of the other .
In their own opinion their image of the other has not changed positively or negatively, but rather has
deepened.
6.2 Jewish Young Journalist group: the Gi’vataim group
The Jewish young journalists are from a small town, outside of Tel Aviv, called Gi’vataim. While close
to Tel Aviv, the town has a very different political affiliation and feel to it. According to the youth
interviewed, Gi’vataim has a much stronger right wing affiliated, anti-Palestinian, population. This
statement was confirmed by their ex-facilitator Tsila Zalt; “Gi’vataim was once a very leftish city. But
today it’s not anymore.” The city is not considered extreme right wing, but is seen as a rather
centrist town. Many people in the field however, told me that centrist in Israel would be considered
right wing in many other places. The Gi’vataim group consists out of three boys and three girls. The
majority of the group has been in the project for three years. Last year also a new participant from
Tel Aviv entered the program and one of the girls has been in the program for four years. They are
all around the ages of fifteen/sixteen. It is interesting to note that the families of the participants
from ‘centrist’ Gi’vataim come from leftwing/progressive families. The new participant from Tel Aviv
comes from a more conservative/right wing family.
6.2.1 Image of the other
The Gi’vataim group is a group that is known in Windows to be very talkative and open. Over the
years the members in the group have become good friends. The ideas the group presented in the
brainstorm session can be characterized as ‘funny stereotypes’ and positive descriptions. For
example, participants wrote down Kafia20, men with mustaches and Mohammed “Because so many
20
The typical Palestinian headscarf
60
of them are called that”. These and some other statements of theirs were labeled as ‘funny
stereotypes’, for they seemed to be written down as entertainment for the other participants. Other
thoughts they had written down were more strongly connected to their understanding of the
conflict and the other. Words like Islam, Arabic, and poor were written down, but also anger, fear
and discrimination. The youth regarded themselves as having quite positive ideas about the
Palestinians, even before Windows. And indeed, especially when compared to the ideas of their
classmates, who were extremely negative about the Palestinians ( “They hate them! They have
mantras that are about Arab people, like a cute Arab, is a dead Arab. They think all Arabs are bad.” ),
The ideas of the group members themselves were not so negative. The participants were certain
that there were good Palestinians as well. They told me that it was the influence of their parents
that mad them more positive than their classmates about the other to begin with. One of the
participants suggested that it is family that may influence children to think that not all Arabs are bad.
“You still see the news and it makes you angry, but you know there is a chance that not all of them
are bad.” Coming from a progressive milieu didn’t stop them from having stereotypical ideas about
the Arabs as well. One of the participants expounded, “A kid who is born in Israel just hears about
Arabs in the news. How they kill people, about bombings and stuff. That is all you hear, so that is the
image in your head. All Arabs are the same, all Arabs are bad.” Though parents in this group seemed
to function as a positive factor on their image of the other, it was clear that even this group’s
participants still had stereotypes about the other and felt fear towards the Palestinians. This sense of
fear is well illustrated by a story of one of the participants. Before she joined Windows, if Arabs
would enter the bus, she would get paranoid and get off the bus immediately. She was afraid that
there would be a suicide bombing or some other attack. The other participants recognized this sense
of mistrust and fear.
Now that they have been in Windows for over three years, it is striking that the fear and stereotypes
have not disappeared completely. The amount stereotypes and other forms of othering that they
present is variable and depends on the individual. One of the participants stated that she still
remembers the stereotypes, but that they are buried now. Another participant stated that she still
had some sense of mistrust towards the other and that the stereotypes were still the first things that
come to mind when she meets Palestinians. The majority of the group seemed to agree with this
second statement. Apparently, the influence of all the different factors on their image of the other
cannot be completely neutralized. Although the stereotypes and negative thoughts were the first
thing that came to mind, they stated that Windows has given them tools to push back the first
negative reaction.
61
Interestingly, the youth of this group share the sentiment with the Jewish Video Group, that being in
Windows has not changed their ideas about the other but rather has deepened their understanding.
One of the participants explained it to a group of American students as follows; “I always thought
that I was right, but now I know I am.” Nevertheless it seems that next to confirming their initial
ideas Windows helped the participants of this group partly overcome their negative image of the
other.
6.3 Palestinians of 67 Video group: The Bethlehem group
The Palestinian of 67 participants in the Video Group come from Bethlehem, the West Bank. The
group consists of two participants. The group used to be larger, but due to school pressure, three of
the participants have dropped out of the program in the last year. The two participants come from
relatively wealthy Christian families. They both go to the same private school. They have been in the
Windows program for four years. The two girls often had similar opinions. Their differences were
mostly about the severity of certain statements. For example after stating that the Israelis also had
bad things happen to them, a long discussion ensued about the comparative severity with the
Palestinian suffering.
6.3.1 Image of the other
The two Bethlehem participants painted a dual picture of the other, a picture of good and bad
Israelis. On the one hand, they say, you have the normal Israeli citizens who, although often
misinformed about the Palestinians and the conflict, are innocent. They are the good Israelis. The
Israeli government and army on the other hand are the bad Israelis. According to the two girls, they
hurt and kill the Palestinians on purpose. Although they did not include the settlers21 the first time
that they spoke on this subject, in later conversations the settlers were included in the category
“bad Israeli”. It is clear why the two girls have such a negative idea of the ‘bad Israelis’; they both
have had what they call ‘accidents’ with the Israelis. There have been instances where soldiers held
them at gunpoint, friends at school have lost family members and the traditional fireworks at
birthday parties have now been banned since settlers have started shooting at the party when they
hear the exploding firecrackers. Even with these bad experiences, these two participants seemed to
be able to retain a clear distinction between the two ‘bad and good’ groups. This is quite different
from the image that their friends and classmates have of the Israelis. There have been major
discussions between the girls and the rest of their classmates, who also have had ‘accidents’ happen
to them, as well as to their families and they are very negative about the Israelis. The girls told me
21
Settlers are Israelis living in the occupied Palestinian Territories. They are often extreme right wing Zionists
who at times are violent towards their Palestinian ‘neighbors’.
62
that even before Windows they were more positive about the Israelis than most of their classmates
and interested in meeting them. The girls explained to me that this was because they also had had
positive experiences with Israelis, even with soldiers; “When it was a war situation here in
Bethlehem, all the shops were closed and we could not get any gas or food. The Israeli soldiers
helped us. They were really nice to us.” Instances like these and the fact that no one was killed or
severely hurt in their direct surroundings, seems to have enabled a slightly more positive attitude
towards the Israelis. Their ideas towards the other were evidently positive enough that they felt
open towards meeting them. Joining Windows also had another incentive. It gave them the
opportunity to regularly travel outside the West Bank. Help from the Israeli side makes it a lot easier
to get travel permits.
The experience they had in Windows has changed the perspective of the Bethlehem girls in several
ways. One of the girls confided that she had always thought that there was some good in Israelis;
“But I had no proof”. The positive experiences the girls had in Windows with Israelis formed this
proof. It also gave the girls a better understanding of why the Israelis do what they do. “Before I was
in Windows, I only saw that the Israelis did a lot of bad things against us, but after many
conversations with the Israeli youth, I understand that everything has a different side to it.” The fact
that they still have bad things happen to them while at the same time having good experiences with
the Israelis in the program has led them to the good and bad Israelis theory. They speak about the
Israeli government as the guilty party. The Israeli government is for these participants the agent who
commits the crimes against the Palestinian people. They see the citizens and even the soldiers as
duped by the government and the media. “They just believe everything the media tells them” one of
the participants remarked about the Israelis. The girls are aware that the people they meet through
Windows are not the stereotypical Israeli. It is one of the things that they said they missed in the
program; talking to people from the broader Israeli community. Nevertheless the limited experience
they had with the relatively leftist Israelis has altered their perspective strongly.
6.4 Palestinians of 48 Video group: The Jaffa group
The Palestinian of 48 Video Group proved almost impossible to reach during the research period.
Multiple meetings were cancelled. Finally, an in depth interview with one of the five participants was
held. Her comments and story will be used in the analysis. Of course, it does not represent the
experiences of the other participants of that group. However judging by stories told by adult
Palestinians of 48 and stories told by the facilitators about this group her story represents in part the
Palestinian of 48 experience.
63
The girl interviewed comes from the formerly Palestinian city of Jaffa. The city directly borders Tel
Aviv and is officially even incorporated into Tel Aviv, creating what is now referred to as Tel AvivJafo. The city, although overall remaining Palestinian, is seen by most people as a mixed city. Many
Israelis have moved into Jaffa, because it is cheaper and some for ideological reasons. The more
Israelis live in Jaffa the less Palestinian it becomes. The girl’s family has a history in Windows. Her
brother has spent time in the program and the participant’s sister is part of the Windows team. Her
father is a civil leader in the Jaffa community. She goes to Enjum Bet, an Arabic public school. Of the
Video Group she is the only Muslim and the only one that goes to this school. The other participants
all go to a private Christian school. The participant I interviewed has been in Windows for four
years. With her four years she is the newest member of her group. The others have been in
Windows one year longer. According to the facilitator of the group the others have been losing
interest in the program and stopped making an effort, while the participant interviewed is still full of
enthusiasm.
6.4.1 Image of the other
When the interviewee first started to participate in Windows, she did not feel that Window’s context
fit her situation. “I thought that the conflict was only between the Jews from Israel and the
Palestinians from the Occupied Territories. I did not think I had anything to say.” The participant
didn’t really feel part of the conflict. Her parents told her about the Nakbah. This was the only
information she had had about Palestinian history. “There is no one to tell me that I am Palestinian,
there is no one to tell me about the Nakbah.” She mentioned that a large group of Palestinians in
Jaffa see themselves as Israelis. So they should behave as such.
These influences seem to explain her relatively mild amount of othering and anger towards the
Israelis. Learning more about the situation through seems to have made the participant feel more
apprehensive towards the other. It has given her a stronger sense of being Palestinian. For example,
before she joined Windows she felt the discrimination of the Palestinians of 48, but was not able to
see it as structural discrimination. She had a limited view of her situation.
In Windows she learned about the discrimination the Palestinians of 48 by the Israeli government.
“The level of education is much lower in Palestinian schools. They probably know more now than I
will when I am 24. There are even some studies that we as Palestinians cannot start with until the
Israelis of our age get out of the army. Not because of our level, but just because they do not want
Palestinians to finish before Israelis do.” One of Window’s “Palestinian of 48” employees spoke with
them about these issues and through these conversations they gained more insight in their own
64
situation. In the same manner the history of the Palestinian people became a lot clearer to her
through the project. In the project they dive deeper into history and also hear the stories of the
other groups. She told me that “It [windows] is a place where I learn about myself, before I learn
about the others.” It appears, she also learned about herself through knowing the other. Knowing
the other better created a clearer image of the self.
Though the participant interviewed is positive about the Jewish participants in the program, her
negative ideas about the other seem to have become more profound. “I don’t know, sometimes I try
to understand them. But they came and they killed people. They came and kicked people out of their
houses. So it’s not logical to do something like that and expect me to love you like an Israeli. The
people you kicked out and killed are my grandparents. Them staying here is the only reason I am
here.” Her fear for the other is also seen in her contributions to the sessions in Windows. The
facilitator of her group mentioned that in one of the latest sessions the participant had expressed
her fear for a second Nakbah; fear that the Israelis would kick the Palestinians that live in Israel out
of the country. The fear and anger she has acquired, has made her more passionate and active in a
struggle against the occupation. It also has made her feel more Palestinian than before. In a
presentation for a group of American students she spoke passionately and angrily about the
situation of her people. She explained to the students how;
“When I talk to my friends I always tell them that I am Palestinian and that we have to
change the situation here. My friends tell me what are you talking about Palestine? Palestine
does not exist, this is the situation and you have to deal with it. They think they have it good
here. Before I did not know what to say and just became quiet, now in Windows I have
learned more and can tell them why I feel what I feel.”
Learning about the other and the self has made her own identity much stronger.
It is important to note that the participant also stated that apart from learning more about the other
and her own situation, Windows has taught her to listen to the ‘other’. “Even though I don’t agree
with the person beside me, I have to understand them. Just like me, they might have had a lot of
difficulties in their past. It can be hard, but I always try to do that”.
Enclosing, through Windows the interviewee says she developed a more negative, idea about the
other, while at the same time gaining a more profound image of herself. Although her image of the
other through Windows has become more negative, she has also become in a way more open to
listening to the ideas of the other. An important question here is, has Windows in this instance
become an othering force? Development of an awareness of her situation is an important result of
65
her process within Windows. The consequence of this awareness has seemingly negatively
influenced her image of the other, but has made her aware of her own identity. And although she
feels anger towards the other she still tries to understand the Israelis and to listen to their stories. Is
Windows an othering factor in this instance? In a way it is, however Windows also creates an
understanding of the other for the participant, forming a more complex image of the other.
6.5 Palestinians of 48 Young Journalist group: the Tamra group
The last group to be discussed are the young journalists from Tamra. Tamra is an Israeli Arab city in
the North of Israel. The majority of the population is Muslim. The group is made up of six
participants; two boys and four girls. They are all between fifteen and sixteen years old. The girls go
to one high school in Tamra and the boys to the other. The female participants have been in the
project the longest, joining Windows together four years ago. The male participants joined a year
later. The youth do not have regular contact with Israeli Jews outside of Windows. They only have
contact with them when they visit other cities, such as the nearby and larger Haifa where the youth
often go for fun and shopping opportunities. The experiences they have had with Jewish Israelis in
these contexts were generally bad. The youth told about the angry glances the Jewish people give
them when they walk by and hear them speaking Arabic. In shops Jewish people cut in line without
giving them a second glance and one participant told about a shop owner denying him service
because he was Palestinian.
6.5.1 Image of the other
The image that the participants of the Tamra group have of the Israelis is very negative. Their
comments ranged from “they stole our land” to “they are killers of Palestinian babies.” They told me
that they felt that the Jewish people did not respect nor admire them. The Israelis, according to the
participants, like the war. “Not all of them, but the majority do”. Almost everything they had written
down in the first exercise about the image of the other was negative. The participants have been in
the program for four years and remain extremely negative about the other. When asked what they
felt had changed since joining Windows, they answered “before we joined Windows we did not have
any idea that there were good Jewish people. We can see now that not all the Jewish people hate us
and that some of them want peace.” One told, “If you would ask our friends, they would say that the
Jewish people only want war and that all of the Jewish people want that.” The Jewish people the
participants meet through Windows are seen as friends by the group. “But even though I have good
Jewish friends, I still think these bad things about them” one of the girls explained.
66
Concluding, joining in Windows has made the participants of the Tamra group realize that not all
Jewish people are bad. However in their view it is only a very limited group of Jewish Israelis that are
good people. The majority of them are still seen as bad people, who want nothing good for the
Palestinian people.
6.6 Discussion of Windows’s diverse impact
The descriptions above make it clear that Windows has an influence on the image of the other for
the participants in the program. The kind of influence differs strongly. From the Tel Aviv video group
experiencing their beliefs about the other becoming anchored in reality, to the participants of the
Tamra Young Journalist group who found out that there are some good Israelis.
The difference in effect can be attributed to many different factors. Program variables based on the
organization Windows. Such as the fact that each group has a different facilitator or in some cases
has had different facilitators must have had its influence. Each facilitator fills in part of the program
in his/her own way, with his/her choice of activities and focus on certain issues (Interviews with
Kundos, Atsmon and Tsalt, 2011). The amount of time spent in the program and the evolving nature
of the program could determine some of the differences in effect as well. Each participant’s
personality also has an influence on the effects of the program for him or herself and for the rest of
the group. All these factors could and probably have played a role in the effectiveness of the
program when it comes to de-othering. It is impossible to prove the direct effects of these influences
through a brief qualitative research project as this one. Therefore this analysis will focus on several
more structural factors that may have led to the different effects of the program on the different
groups that surfaced in this research
6.7 Factors of othering revisited
The factors that lead to othering discussed in chapter 4 have a (big) influence on the degree and
form of de-othering that happens. First of all the different factors lead to a different level of
othering (as a starting point) to start with for each group and, for that matter, for each individual.
The Israeli Video Group [Tel Aviv group) started with a less (overtly) othered image of the other. The
factors pushing them towards a negative image were not that strong. Before participating in
Windows, it was mostly the media that affected their image negatively . Their friends, family and
the milieu around them was mostly left wing and relatively pro-Palestinian. More factors seem to
have negatively influenced the image that the Jewish Gi’vataim group had of the other. Although
they mostly come from leftist pro-Palestinian families, the society around them, including friends
and other peers were much more negative about the Palestinians than was the case for the Tel Aviv
67
group. The image that they articulated they had before Windows seems more negative than that of
the Tel Aviv group.
For the Bethlehem group the majority of the factors that influence their image of the other push
them clearly towards a negative image. Although some had positive experiences with Israeli soldiers
that made them slightly more positive towards the other, most participants had a very negative
starting image of the other. The Tamra group had all the factors pushing them towards a negative
image of the other. Family, friends, school, history and personal experiences all influenced their
image of the other in a negative way. The interviewed participant from the Jaffa group did not seem
to have many of the factors that the other Palestinian participants had. Though her family was
critical of the Israelis and she had had some negative experiences, the other factors had a less
negative influence. Her friends and other people around her were mostly positive about the Israelis.
In her case, the history factor played less of a negative role on the image of the other, seeing her
knowledge of Palestinian history was very limited. Thus her image of the other was less negative to
begin with than that of the other Palestinian groups. (for example the Tamra group)
To summarize: the background of the youth, the reality that they live in, informs the image of the
other with which they enter Windows.
6.7.1 Eroding forces
It seems that the factors of othering have been described in Chapter 4 have a different influence as
well. Several authors have written about so-called eroding forces, or factors that counter the effects
in discussions on the sustainable long term effects of peace building interventions (Bar-Tal, 2002;
Kupermintz & Salomon, 2010; Salomon, 2011 Kiplatrick & Leitch, 2004). Kilpatrick and Leitch (2004),
who studied peace building programs in Northern Ireland, argue that repeating the face to face
meetings or reinforcing critical elements of a program in another way is necessary to retain the
effects of the peace building action in the face of the eroding forces (Kilpatrick & Leitch, 2004). BarTal (2002) describes the intensity of these eroding forces as follows; “the changes are under
constant threat of being nullified by ongoing violence and the hatred that accompanies it, as well as
by the general belligerent social atmosphere that opposes such changes *in the image of the other+”
(Bar-Tal, 2002). Ongoing violence, belligerent social atmosphere, it seems that the eroding forces are
made up of the othering factors discussed in chapter four. While these authors see the eroding
forces as an important reason to argue for long term peace building, I believe investigating these
factors could help gain insight not only in the long term, but also in the short term effects of
Window. For they constantly tend to undermine the effects of the peace building effort.
68
When further investigating how the eroding forces influence the effects of Windows, it is important
to realize that the way the factors are perceived by the youth change through Windows. The youth
from all the groups noted media as a minimal influence. This is in part due to the fact that a big part
of the Windows project is looking at issues and events from different points of view. The more the
youth get aware of the different points of view, the less influence a biased media have on them.
Participants from the different groups also felt that being in Windows has made them more
knowledgeable. Both in the interviews with the groups from the Video Group and the Jewish Young
Journalists at least one of the youth remarked that they felt that they now knew the truth and felt
less influenced by peers and family.
6.7.2 The ripple effect
Furthermore, different contributing factors may be influenced themselves by the de-othering
process of the participants. According to the extended contact theory, when in an in-group person
(A) learns that another in-group friend (B) has close contact with an out-group person (C) this can
lead, under certain circumstances, to more positive attitudes, reduced anxiety and weaker
prejudices from person A towards C’s out-group (Pettigrew, Christ, Wanger and Stellmacher, 2007).
In other words the positive contact that the participants in Windows have with the other can lead to
a certain amount of de-othering in the people in their direct environment. This theoretical argument
has been supported by studies in a variety of countries and contexts with a variety of means
(Cameron, Rutland, Brown & Douch, 2007; Turner, et.al. 2002; Wright , et.al. 1997). This process is
what researchers in peace education also call the ripple effect (Salomon, 2011). The strength and
width of the ripple effect can vary strongly. One of the factors that has an influence on the ripple
effect is the emotional and/or physical closeness to the person who is involved with the out-group
member (Heider, 1958). Salomon 2011 argues that there should be more research about the ripple
effect and how to sustain it, as research until now has been limited. He argues, that especially in the
absence of top-down political and social changes the ripple effect would be very limited and short
lived (Salomon, 2011). There is also the question if youth create a ripple effect in the way adults
could (Cox & Struton, 1984). Would others listen to them? To relate this train of thought to the case
of Windows; there is a moderate chance that the people surrounding the participants, especially the
people closest to them, are influenced by the process that they go through. This research did not go
into the effect that the youth felt their process had on others. What is clear is that most of them do
at times share their experience with others. It is necessary to note here that in situations of extreme
peer pressure, such as in discussions in class, some of the youth admitted attempting to avoid the
discussion. Although the exact ripple effect in these cases is unknown it is likely that the youth’s
69
process in Windows may influence the othering factors of family and peers.
To conclude, while their experience in Windows influences the way the youth perceive the factors
and even can influence the factors themselves there remains a non-stop influence of these outside
factors. The youth ascribed different amounts of influence to these factors in the discussions I had
with them. These eroding forces have an important influence on the effects that the program has on
the image of the other of the youth. It is not possible to discuss the exact influence that the factors
have had on the images of the other of the groups. A short term qualitative research cannot
generate the data necessary to make such statements. It is however important to realize that the
eroding forces vary per group. The eroding forces in left wing Tel Aviv as presented by the youth are
much weaker than those that have an influence on for example the Tamra group. However there are
also other factors that have an influence, outside of the for mentioned eroding forces. I will discuss
two important forces discovered in this study below.
6.8 The friendship factor
The influence Windows has had on the different groups’ images of the other seems different for the
Video group and on the Young Journalists. In comparison, the program has led to more of a change
in the Video group than for the Young Journalists. One could argue that this is a result of the amount
of time spent in the program. I would like to argue though that the difference in time spent in the
program between the two groups is quite limited and cannot be the only factor. I believe there is
another factor that plays a role in the difference, the friendship factor.
Kuppermintz and Salomon write in their 2010 article on peace education that strong negative
emotions interfere with really seeing and adopting the other side’s perspective or showing empathy
for the experience of the other. They argue that this is especially true in situations of intractable
conflict when hearing opinions and ideas that are not consistent with one’s own world views can
lead to intense reactions (Kuppermintz & Salomon, 2010). Especially in an ongoing violent conflict
people tend to stick to their shared group perspectives (Coleman, 2003), ignoring or actively fighting
the perspectives of the other making de-othering nearly impossible. To overcome these negative
emotions, Salomon & Kuppermintz argue that “the gradual establishment of strong and empathic
interpersonal relations may be a necessary precondition” (Kuppermintz & Salomon, 2010). In other
words; friendship with the other makes it easier to look at the situation from their point of view. I
believe that herein lies an important difference between the influence Windows has had on the
Video group and on the Young Journalists. I believe this difference between the two groups is best
70
illustrated by quoting part of my observations of the start of a joint session of the Video group and
the goodbyes at the end of a joint meeting of the Young journalist:
Video group hello
“Heeee!!!” One of the Jewish
participants just walked into the
Windows office and spotted the
participants of the Jaffa group. She
gives everybody in the group a huge
hug. There is a sense of giddiness in
the air of finally seeing each other
again.
Young Journalist goodbye
“Aren’t you going to say goodbye to
us?” The Participants of the Tamra
group are getting into a cab while
the Gi’vataim group looks on. The
Tamra group quickly gets out of the
cab and some awkward goodbye
hugs ensue. Three kisses on each
cheek, but in some way it seems
forced.
The interaction between the groups on the Young Journalist level seems less warm and more formal.
During the joint sessions that I observed it was also clear that outside of the formal meetings the
Young Journalists stick to their own group. Once, Atsmon, the director of Windows, tried to mix the
groups outside of the sessions: during dinner she asked an intern of the organization and me to take
tactical places so that the groups had to mix. Nevertheless the conversation still remained mostly
within the own identitiy group. The Jewish Gi’vataim group was asked if they saw their Palestinian
counterparts in the program as friends. “Well not really friends, it’s hard to communicate” one of the
participants answered. The others chimed in. They felt that the language barrier between the three
groups was imposing friendship. The Palestinian of 67 from Jalkamuz do not speak English or
Hebrew. Without the translator being present at the official parts of the meeting, it is almost
impossible for them to communicate with the Jewish group. The Palestinian group of 48 from Tamra
speaks Hebrew and English so it is possible for them to speak with the Jewish Gi’vataim group. In the
Video Group the groups all have a basic knowledge of English and it is possible for them to
communicate outside of the official sessions.
The Gi’vataim group also noted other issues why they felt building a real friendship with the other
group was difficult; “It does not matter how long we would be in Windows, the whole culture is
different.” The participant from the group who has been in Windows the longest remarked, “they
are not interested in the same things we are. What interests me they do not care about or even
know.” Another participant added, “They listen to different music, do different activities.” In the
Video Group this difference seems to be smaller. These groups all come from big cities, have
71
internet, and there is a certain Western influence on the youth culture. All this ensures, that
although there are still a lot of differences in culture, the youth of the Video Group have more in
common than the Young Journalists. The Young Journalists all come from substantially smaller
places. The Palestinian of 67 Young Journalist group comes from a small town in the West Bank,
called Jalkamuz. In this town they do not have internet and very limited Western influence. Their
interests lies almost solely in the Arabic culture. The Palestinian Tamra group comes from a bigger
town. They do have internet and also follow Western artists. Nevertheless their cultural focus lies
mostly on Arabic cultures. The Jewish Gi’vataim group comes from a town the size of Tamra. They
have a strong focus on Western and Israeli culture. The fact that the Young Journalist seem to have
little in common when it comes to hobby’s, interest and activities makes it more difficult for the
groups to become friends. The Video Group participants seem to have more in common.
It is not just the different activities and interests that separate the youth in the Young journalist
group, but also values. An example is the interaction between girls and boys. The participants of the
two Palestinian groups on the Young Journalist level are Muslims. Physical interactions between
boys and girls are seen by them as something that is impure. The Young Journalists from both sides
have had many conversations about this with each other. “They see us as sluts” one of the girls from
the Gi’vataim group told me. The Gi’vataim group complained that they felt like they could not
always be themselves with the Palestinian groups present. They felt like they were being judged for
normal behavior. Although there are also cultural differences within the Video Group, the majority
of the Palestinians are Christians. The differences in values such as the ones illustrated above seem
less poignant.
“We have to overcome more than just the conflict in the project. There is the language barrier, the
cultures that are different. There are a lot of differences between the groups, even without the
conflict.” (Atsmon, May, 2011)
The director of Windows noted it herself, there is more to overcome than the conflict. It is more
than just the view of the conflict, or the fact that the youth are on opposing sides of the conflict that
makes the other the other. Cultural differences are difficult to overcome even without being in the
middle of a conflict.
The differences between the participants of the Video Group are noticeably smaller than between
the participants of the Young Journalists. The Video Group has English as a common language and
72
seems to have more in common with each other than the Young Journalists making the creation of
friendships considerably easier. The bond between the youth in the Video Group seems stronger
than that between the participants in the Young Journalists. Friendship as an aiding factor in peace
building, as described by Kuppermintz and Salomon, is thus more strongly present in the Video
Group. The limited influence of this friendship factor on the process of the youth in the Young
Journalists may partly explain the difference in the influence of the program between the two levels.
6.9 The personal experience factor
When examining the influence the program has on the Palestinian groups and the Israeli groups one
finds a clear difference between the two. The image of the other for the Palestinians seems to
become divided in good and bad people. The Palestinian (67) Bethlehem group articulated a
difference between the good and the bad Israelis. The Palestinian (48) group from Tamra stated that
Windows had taught them that there are some Israelis that are good, the emphasis here being on
some. The Jewish groups expressed a more widespread change in the image of the other. Both
Jewish groups expressed generally more positive conceptions of the Palestinians, without making
distinctions within the group.
One of the most obvious differences in their descriptions was further that Jewish groups did not
note any personal experiences, apart from Windows, with the Palestinians as an influence on their
image of the other. In the focus groups with each Jewish group it became clear how isolated from
the Palestinian population the Jewish participants were. The Palestinian groups all had personal
experiences with Israelis, almost exclusively negative. The Palestinian of 67 Bethlehem group has
had negative experiences with both the Israeli army and with the settlers. Although they have not
been hurt, they told me stories of several close calls. They barely have contact with ‘normal’ Israelis.
Leaving the West Bank is a strenuous endeavor and the necessary papers to leave the territories are
difficult to come by. The Palestinian of 48 Tamra group has had negative experiences with the
‘normal’ Israelis, the Israeli citizens. As shown before, they have had experiences of racism. These
experiences were both on a personal level; nasty looks and discrimination, and on a collective level;
educational and professional limitations. The Jaffa participant interviewed expressed similar
experiences though less intrusive than the other Palestinian groups.
In chapter three a theory on personal experiences and othering was introduced. Fiske and Tailor
(1991) suggested that older children build their image of the other more strongly on personal
experience than younger children do (Fiske & Tailor, 1991). Building on this train of thought,
Coutant et al (ref) argued that because the basis for the image of the other was different between
73
younger and older children a different approach was needed in altering the image. This is especially
important for the older children. Their image of the other is based more on personal experience
which is much more difficult to alter. (Coutant, Worchela, Bar-Tal and van Raalten, 2011) This is a
probable explanation for the different effects Windows has on Palestinians and the Israelis. The
image of the Israelis, which is generally not based on personal experiences, has been altered more
strongly by Windows. The Palestinians image of the other, more strongly based on personal
experience, has changed less. The effects Windows has had on the image of the groups is thus in line
with the theory presented by Coutant et.al. (2011).
Using this theory on the influence of personal experience, it is also interesting to look at the
different influences Windows has had on the image that the Palestinians of 48 and the Palestinians
of 67 have of the other. The Bethlehem group (Palestinians of 67) has had none or limited negative
personal experiences with the ‘normal’ citizens of Israel, but did have negative experiences with the
army. Consequently their time in Windows has had a stronger positive impact on their image of the
citizens of Israel and a smaller impact on the image they have of the government and the army. The
impact is very different, while other factors; such as peers and the media, remained negative about
both the army and the people. The (Palestinians of 48) Tamra group’s negative personal experiences
were with the Israeli population in general. These experiences are mirrored in the impact Windows
has had on their image of the other: It has barely changed. Windows had made room in their image
for some positive ideas; however, their personal experience with the Israelis seems to make it
difficult to alter the general image. As a response to the more positive experiences that the youth
had within Windows room a new category of other; the good other, was formed22, thus de-othering
only a small group of others, but keeping the general negative image of the other intact.
Personal experience seems to be an important factor in the influence Windows has on the image of
the other. The personal experience youth have had with the other outside the program seem to
have a major influence on their image of the other and the de-othering process. As Coutant et.al.
noted changing the image of the other that is built on personal experiences is a very difficult and
strenuous process.
6.10 The methods used by Windows
It is clear that the youth in the program feel that Windows has had an influence on the image of the
other. And it is also clear that certain factors have had an impact on the amount of influence
Windows has on the youth. Now that we know this it is also interesting to look at what parts of
22
The Jaffa group
74
Windows the youth feel has most impacted them.
As explained in the previous chapter, in the theoretical framework of peace building, Windows has
evolved into a hybrid of the transformative dialogue approach and the contact approach. How did
the youth experience the influence of the different aspects of this hybrid approach?
The director of the program, Rutie Atsmon explained that she felt that working together on the
magazine or the videos particularly had a positive influence on the youth. She saw it as a moment
for the youth to reflect on the things that were said in the discussions. Atsmon sees this as an
integral part of Windows approach. According to contact theory “contact between people – the mere
fact of their interacting – is likely to change their beliefs and feelings toward each other” (Amir,
1969). Keeping this theory in mind the youth working together should have an influence on their
image of the other.
When asked about this part of the program the youth responded critically though. None of the
participants felt that this part of the program had an influence on them. The joint activities and
games were not named by anyone as an influence. When I asked the groups about the Magazine or
Video they responded that it did not have an influence on them, or even more negatively; “The
magazine is for Rutie (Atsmon)” one of the participants remarked. The media activities, according to
Atsmon, next to being a tool for making the youth work together, are a way to extend the reach of
the program. It is important to keep in mind that the activities may have a subtle, more unconscious
influence on the youth. Working together might change their ideas without them realizing it.
Nevertheless the youth felt that the dialogue sessions had a much greater influence. Nearly all of
the participants mentioned the dialogue session between the different identity groups as the most
influential part of their experience in Windows. Although it is also seen as the most difficult part of
their experience in Windows, the youth expressed that that was the place where they learned the
most about the other. Here they felt the most progress was made.
It seems logical that the youth would experience the dialogue sessions as most effective. The
dialogue sessions are experienced as incredibly intense and difficult. The youth talk about fear,
anger and the conflict. The other activities in the Windows program seem weaker when compared
to the intensity of these sessions . One of the Tamra participants expressed the following “When we
write in the magazine we write about things that we spoke about in the meetings months ago. We
have often already moved to a new subject.” The magazine is seen as rehashing the conversation
they had in the discussions. It is not seen by the youth as a process that stands on its own.
It is interesting to note that single identity meetings were named by many participants, from every
75
group, as having an important influence on their image of the other. One of the girls from the Jewish
Young Journalist group even listed it as a more important influence on her image of the other than
the mixed group sessions. The fact that the youth are able to talk between themselves in their own
group without worrying about the other groups reaction was seen as very important. The youth felt
that it gives them the possibility to really express what they feel without being judged for it. It also
gave them the possibility to revisit the discussions with the other groups and really comprehend
what was been said. In some cases it can be seen as a debriefing. The youth also felt that it was a
place to talk about issues within their own group, before coming to the dialogue sessions with the
other group, as a preparation. Zahiye Kundos, translator and editor of the magazine and now an
interim facilitator as well, stated that it was also a place where the groups could discuss issues within
the group or within their own society. It is a place to delve into issues that are important to them,
but which might not be of importance for the other group. The different possibilities that the single
identity group gave the youth were greatly appreciated.
In the previous chapter letter writing between the groups was named as a tool as well. It was
developed in the early stages of the project, when the youth, who did not meet very often, indicated
that they wanted more contact with each other. Research has been done on letter writing as a deothering tool. Ramona Perez (2010) did a long term research on the effects that a pen-pal project
between Mexican and American fourth graders had on their image of each other. Although the
research does not involve actual conflict it was clear that, due to the border issues, the two groups
had negative images of the other. Perez found that the penpal project changed the ideas of the
other, even in the long term. She found that the letters created a space of ‘meaningful contact’. The
youth found what they had in common and built on their interactions on that (Perez, 2010). In a
non-conflict area it seems that letter writing as a tool for deothering has effect.
Atsmon, the director of Windows, indicated that she saw the letter writing in Windows also as a deothering tool. “If the youth write to each other, they cannot respond immediately as they would do in
the discussions, without even thinking. They have to think about what the other wrote and think
about what they want to write back.” In other words the letter writing would force children to slow
the communication down and ‘listen’ to each other, something that the youth as well as the
facilitators indicated as a difficult issue in the joint meetings. One would think that the letter writing
could play an important role in the project. However, when I asked the youth about it they
responded negatively. They did not feel that it had an impact. It was slow, and interaction through
the letters took weeks. Why would they have contact like that? If they wanted contact in between
the session with each other why wouldn’t they use the internet? Ex-facilitator Tsila Zalt added to this
76
that due to the slow translating process and the checking of the letters the responding took weeks.
By the time they got a reaction to their letter the groups had already seen each other or had closed
the subject.
When looking at the research done by Perez letter writing as a method forde-othering has potential.
However the use of the tool in Windows currently does not live up to these expectations. The main
reasons that come up are the low speed because of the need for translation, and …
In conclusion, in examining the different de-othering approaches Windows uses, the most effective
one according to the youth, are the direct dialogue sessions. They feel that this has the most impact.
The intense experiences in this part of the program ‘overshadow’ the influence the contact outside
of these sessions might have had on the youth. The single identity sessions, which form an important
part of the Windows strategy, are also seen as extremely important by the youth. It forms a place
where they can prepare and process the intense dialogue sessions. The letter writing, although
theoretically a potential tool, is seen by the youth as not being of influence on their image of the
other at all.
6.11 Conclusion
By using different tools Windows has had an influence on the image of the other of all the
participating groups. The effect of the program varies widely. The difference between the different
groups can be attributed to several factors. First of all the different factors that lead to othering
have an influence on the de-othering effects of the project. Several authors have discussed these
factors in relation to the longevity of peace building activities as eroding forces (Bar-Tal, 2002;
Kupermintz & Salomon, 2010; Salomon, 2011 Kiplatrick & Leitch, 2004). The different factors erode
the de-othering process made by participants of peace building activities. Other factors that have an
important influence on the effects of peace building are the friendship factor and the personal
experience factor. Kuppermintz & Salomon noted that in order for the participants in dialogue not to
block, ignore or dispute, but internalize and sympathize with the stories of the other it is important
that the participants have a deep and slowly built friendship (Kuppermintz & Salomon, 2010). There
are several cultural and socioeconomic differences that impede this process of friendship building.
The friendship factor is possibly an important factor that can be useful when examining the
difference between the effects the program has had on the video group and the young journalists. In
selecting the participants of the program this factor could be taken more into account. The personal
experience factor plays an important role in the effectiveness of the program for the Palestinian
groups. The negative experiences tend to overshadow the increased understanding of and the
77
positive experiences with the other in forming the image of the other.
78
7. Conclusion
In this research the othering and de-othering processes in the Israeli and Palestinian context were
explored and analyzed by looking at the “Windows- Channels for Communication” case. This small
program attempts to help youth from different sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to look at the
conflict and to “the other”, from a more open critical perspective. Three different identity groups;
Palestinians of 48, Palestinians of 67 and Israeli Jews work together in the program on the Windows
magazine or on video projects. Encouraging and facilitating a dialogue about the difficult subjects
that divide the groups is a major focus of the program. The research focused on the subjective
experience of the youth, both in the construction of the image of the other and in the influence
Windows has had on it. This three month qualitative field research project addressed the following
question;
How do the participants of the Windows-channels for communication project experience the
influence of the program on their image of the other?
This chapter will summarize the findings of this study. It will also address the limitations of the
study. Furthermore it will discuss how some of these findings can possibly help improve the deothering effects of Windows and of other projects.
7.1 Othering
To answer this question it was important to first investigate the othering concept from a theoretical
perspective. Othering is the human practice of comparing ourselves, as an individual or a group, to
others while at the same time distancing ourselves from them. We depict the other as being
somehow inherently different from ourselves. This distance helps to create and solidifies our own
identity as the norm (Chryssochou, 2004). In other words, there is a direct relationship between the
image of self with the image of the other. Othering is a normal aspect of human social functioning
and is not inherently a malevolent process. In extreme forms it becomes a destructive force (Maoz,
2010). Racism, sexism and xenophobia can be seen as examples of this.
In situations of intractable conflict, monolithic identities can become widespread or even the norm,
creating an especially noxious othering process. A monolithic identity is an identity that exists,
almost exclusively, through a negative, often venomous comparison with the other, often based on a
(partially) twisted view of reality. (Maoz, 2010). Othering, to the extreme level of dehumanization,
can make cruel and inhuman treatment of people seemingly acceptable (Maoz & McCauley, 2008).
Peace building in these situations becomes increasingly difficult. The image of the self is
79
interwoven/fused with the image of the other and becomes part of the dynamics of the intractable
conflict. Changing the image of the other, which thus is a prerequisite for any peace building
process, can be a slow and complex process (Maoz, 2010).
In this study the different factors that may lead to an increase or decrease in othering among youth
in the Israeli-Palestinan conflict were examined, using both literature as well as the research data.
The factors found in both theory and in the field are shown in the flowchart below:
Diagram 1; the construction of the image of the ‘other’
This flowchart shows an overview of the factors that may influence the individuals image of the
other, both negatively and positively. The meta-influences, such as history and culture influence the
individual indirectly through the direct factors of education, media, family, peers and society. These
factors constantly influence the individuals view of the other and is important aspect of constructing
the individual’s image of the other. The lines of influence between the individual and the factors
interact in direct and indirect ways. In the case of media the phenomena framing and priming have
been included, because of their importance in the theoretical discussion of media influence. See
Chapter 4 for a further explanation of these terms Part of the variation in the image of the other can
80
be explained by exploring the influences of these factors. It is important to realize that the different
factors not only influence the individual but also each other. The media for example, has an impact
on the individual both directly and indirectly as it also influences the individual’s milieu.
7.2 Influence of Windows in the process of othering
The participants experienced the Windows program clearly as influential in the construction of their
image of the other. The youth experienced the direct dialogue strategy as the most influential part
of the Windows program. The intense dialogue in these intergroup sessions made a strong
impression on all the youth. The debriefing of these experiences in the single identity group
meetings were also seen to be of influential importance. Other methods used by Windows, such as
working on the magazine, intergroup games and letter writing, seemed to be overshadowed by the
intergroup dialogue and the single identity work around the dialogue, and were not considered by
the youth as being very influential. These methods possibly have more influence than the youth
perceive.
Interestingly, though the youth did not see the letter writing as an influential factor, they enjoyed
the more informal (not institutionalized in the Windows programme) and direct communication
through the internet. It could be an interesting opportunity for Windows to use this new media as
part of the letter writing exchange. This might speed up the process, possibly making it more
relevant for the discussions and the youth. The changes that the youth experience since joining
Windows, differ between the different groups. In the study several factors were found that could
explain these differences.
It became clear that the factors which influence the image of the other, discussed above form a
constant influence before and during the program. The influence these factors have on the image of
the other can be both positive and negative. When negative, in the literature these factors are
referred to as eroding forces, which can counter peace building efforts (Bar-Tal, 2002; Kupermintz &
Salomon, 2010; Salomon, 2011 Kiplatrick & Leitch, 2004). It is important to realize that Windows has
an influence on these eroding forces as well, through the ripple effect (Salomon, 2011) and by
changing the perceptions that the youth have of the influences. How powerful these factors are,
varies in different contexts. The influence of family for example remains a stronger influence in the
case of the Palestinian of 48 Tamra group, than it has in the Jewish Gi’vataim group.
81
Two other key-factors that have an influence on the effectiveness Windows has are the friendship
factor and the personal experience factor. The strength and depth of the friendship between the
groups seems to directly influence the impact that Windows has on the participants and their image
of the other. This finding has been substantiated by other authors (e.g. Kuppermintz & Salomon,
2010). Images of the other which are based on negative personal experiences proved to be more
difficult to change, than images based on other factors. Fiske and Tailor (1991) describe that a
negative image based on one’s owns experiences is more deeply rooted and more persistent than
that of those based on other factors. This can be seen in practice by looking at the case of the
(Palestinians of 67) Bethlehem group. This group’s participants experienced many negative
interactions with Israeli soldiers and settlers. Although their time in Windows clearly has changed
their image of the Israelis in general, the soldiers and more importantly the government are seen as
bad Israelis, who are only interested in hurting Palestinians. The Tamra group, who have
experienced negative interactions with ‘normal’ Israelis, have a much more persistent negative
image of Israelis in general. In the Windows program they developed a view that some Israelis are
good, but those are exceptions to the rule. The negative personal experiences seem to limit the
impact of the program.
The different influences found in this empirical study are represented in the following scheme;
Diagram 2; The influence of Windows on the construction of the image of the ‘other’
82
This scheme builds on the previous scheme that portrayed the factors influencing the image of the
other. The factors remain equal; however with Windows a new factor is added to the fray. The solid
lines indicate the direct influence of all the factors on the individual, including Windows. The broken
lines indicate the possible change caused by Windows in the individual’s perception of the factors
and their influence. The way the perception is changed can vary, in direction as well as impact. The
amount of change in perception is influenced by the strength of the factors and the depth of the
friendship with the other participants. The Personal experience factor has been written in bold to
underline the importance of this factor. Negative personal experiences seem to limit the effect that
Windows has on improving the image of the other. The image of the other is determined by the
constant interaction between the changing perceptions of the individual and the constant shifting
influence of the eroding factors. Of course there will be other unknown factors that have an
influence as well. It is important to realize that this is a continuous process. The influence of the
factors can change. As explained earlier the factors can influence each other and through the ripple
effect the individual can even have an influence on the factors as well. The changing influences lead
to a continuous (re)construction of the image of the other. The continuity of this process was also
expressed by a participant of the Jewish Tel Aviv group; “What I am telling you now are my ideas
today, tomorrow they might be different.”
When examining the factors that influence othering and de-othering in the participants of Windows,
it is clear that one of the most decisive factors is the context in which the youth live. Their personal
experiences with the other, their social context, the influence of media and education are all
important factors in both the othering and de-othering process.
7.3 Academic and practical relevance
The different factors influencing othering and de-othering described in this study have been distilled
from relevant literature and empirical research. In the literature these factors and their effects are
discussed mostly on an individual level. I have attempted to incorporate these factors in examining
the differences in the impact that Windows has on the different groups, thus making a first step into
a more incorporated holistic understanding of the effects and impact of peace building organizations
such as Windows. This rapport can be seen as an exploration and an illustration of these factors and
their relative weight in the othering and de-othering process in the case of Windows.
Of course, this study’s limitations both in duration and population make general statements about
these processes rather tricky. The youth in the program do not represent the majority of their
83
society. The mere fact that the youth are open to contact with the ‘other’, sets them apart from the
majority. Nevertheless, I believe that the processes described in this research offer insights in the
othering and deothering process and may, with possible adaptations, be applicable to other groups.
Further longitudinal research on the factors expounded in this project, including larger groups of
youth, could give more insight in the long-term effects in the othering and de-othering process. A
long term research combined with different methods could also sidestep the limitations placed on
this research due to the focus on the experiences of the youth. In this study the youth can for
example only express the influence of the program that they experienced consciously. Factors that
had a subtle influence or changes that occurred subconsciously could not be included in this study.
A stronger integration of the individual perspective, that due to the choice of methods in this study
was missing, could possibly lead to insights that were missed in the group sessions.
Understanding these processes is not only of interest from an academic perspective. As it may give
important insights in the construction and deconstruction of the negative image of the other, it
could also lead to better practical interventions, not only for Windows, but also for other peace
building organizations. For the groups researched it appeared that the factors presented all play a
role in creating the image of the other. The weight of the factors turn out to be an important
variable in the effects and are determined by the individual and group context. Insight in how the
different factors impact the youth, can help create more informed, targeted interventions. The
feedback from the youth (groups) in this respect can give valuable input to create a more
differentiated program.
By using individual facilitators, who have their own input for each group and the integration of the
single identity meetings in the program, Windows already works with differential programs for the
different groups. The differences in the program are now based on the perceived needs and
difficulties of each particular group. Including knowledge about the factors influencing othering in
the differentiation of the interventions might improve the effects of the program. Emphasizing and
enhancing the friendship factor when developing the program and selecting the participants, may
also lead to better results. Looking at the socio-economic backgrounds of the participants or even at
the different personal interests of the participants and creating ‘similar’ groups could also have a
positive influence on the de-othering process of the groups. The chance of a stronger friendship
being built between individuals is greater when they experience more similarities.
84
7.4 Final words
In the introduction of this thesis I wrote about my first experience with othering in the Israeli
Palestinian context. In my time spent in Israel and Palestine during this research, I experienced more
othering in person. Not only in the interviews held for my research, but also in my daily life. I was
confronted with negative images of the other through media and conversations with friends. The
image of the other came up when talking to people in bars and in the street. I was shocked to realize
that hearing all these negative stories affected my ideas of both parties as well. I realized that when
I went to the West Bank for interviews I felt nervous. I was nervous to be in contact with
Palestinians, while at the same time I was most certain that there would be no problems. The people
I met there could not have been nicer, but even the second time I went to the West Bank I felt a
sense of tension. When an Arabic person got on the bus, my heart jumped even though I knew that
the chance of something bad happening was extremely small. My image of Israelis and Israel was
also influenced. I felt anger towards the Israelis and the way they treated the Palestinians. Listening
to the stories of the Palestinian youth at times, I felt that the state of Israel and the Israelis were
immoral. Being Jewish, one would expect a sense of happiness and celebration on Independence
Day of the state of Israel. However I could not in good conscience join the festivities. Living in the
region for three months and being engaged with the people’s image of the other, impacted my
image of each group, both negatively and positively. My very positive experiences with people from
all the identity groups partly countered the othered images gained by living there and working with
the youth. On an ‘outsider’, as myself, the factors that can create a negative image of the other had
a noticeable influence, even in three months. Imagine the influence the factors have for people that
grow-up in the region. It comes to show the importance of the work of Windows and similar
organizations. The participants in the program clearly experienced Windows as a positive influence
on their image of the other. In this research it was shown that the amount of influence experienced
from Windows and the apparent change of their image of the other, strongly depends on other
factors. For academic, but especially for practical purposes, researching these processes is
important. It is certain that the de-othering process is going to have an important role, if there is
ever to be peace in the region. This research is an exploratory step in unraveling these processes.
85
References
Abed, G. (1990) ‘The economic Viability of a Palestinian State’
Journal of Palestine studies, 19, 2
Aboud, F.E. (1988) ‘Children and prejudice,’
Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Allport, G.W. (1954) ‘The nature of Prejudice’
Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books
Amir,Y. (1969) ‘Contact hypothesis in Ethnic Relations”
Psychological Bulletin, 71, 5 May
Amir, Y. (1976) ‘The role of inter-group contact in change of prejudice and ethic relations’
In Katz, P.A. Editor ‘Towards the Elimination of Racism’ Pergamon, New York
Anderson, et.al. (2003) ‘The influence of Media Violence on Youth’
Psychological Science in the public interest, 4, 3: 81-110
Arfi, B. (2010) ‘”Euro-Islam”: going beyond the Aporiatic Politics of Othering’
International Political Sociology, 4: 236-252
Bargal, D. (1990) ‘Contact is not enough – the contribution of Lewinian theory to inter-group
Workshops involving Palestinian and Jewish youth in Israel’ International Journal of Group
Tensions, 20: 179-192
86
Bar-Tal, D. (2002) ‘The elusive nature of Peace education’ In Salomon, G., Nevo, B. ‘Peace education
The concept, Principles and Practices around the World’ Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
27-36
Bar-Tal, D. (2007) ‘Living with the conflict: Socio-psychological analysis of the Israeli-Jewish society’,
Jerusalem: Carmel
Bar-Tal , D. & Teichman, Y, (2005) ‘Stereotypes and Prejudice in Conflict’
Cambridge University Press
Blanchard, F. A., Crandall, C.S., Brigham, J.C. & Vaughn, L.A. (1994) ‘Condemning and condoning
racism A social context approach to interracial settings.’ Journal of Applied Psychology
79: 993-997
Blanton, H & Christie, C. (2003) ‘Deviance regulation: a theory of identity and action.’
Review of General Psychology, 7, 2: 115-149
Brewer, M. (1996) ‘When contact is not enough: Social identity and intergroup cooperation.’
International Journal of Intercultural Relations,20: 291-303
Bright, J. (2000) ‘A history of Israel’
Westminster John Knox Press
Brown, J & Cantor, J (2000) ‘Conference proceedings; An Agenda for Research on Youth and the
Media’ Journal of Adolescent health 27: 2-7
Bruner, J. (1990) ‘Acts of Meaning’
87
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Cameron, L., Rutland, A. & Brown, R (2007) ‘Promoting children’s positive intergroup attitudes
towards stigmatized groups: extended contact and multiple classification skills training;
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31: 454-466
Chryssochoou, X. (2004) ‘Cultural diversity: it’s social psychology’
Wiley-Blackwell
Clasen, D.R. & Brown, B.B. (1985) ‘the multidimensionality of peer pressure in adolescence’
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 14, 6: 451-468
Coleman, P.T. (2003) Characteristics of protracted, intractable conflict: toward the development
Of a metaframework-I’ Peace and Conflict: journal of Peace Psychology, : 1-38
Coutant, D., Worchel, S., Bar-Tal, D. & van Raalten, J. (2011) ‘A multidimensional examination of the
“Stereotype” concept: A developmental approach.’ International Journal of intercultural
Relations, 35, 1: 92-110
Cox, C. & Scruton, R. (1984) ‘Peace studies: A critical survey’ Paper number 7,
New York: Institute for European Defense and Strategic Studies
Crandall, C. Eshleman, A & O’Brien, L. (2002) ‘Social norms and the expression and suppression of
Prejudice: the struggle for internalization’ Journal of Social Psychology, 82, 3: 359-278
Entman, R. M. (1993) ‘Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm.’
Journal of Communication, 43, 4: 51–58
88
Erikson, E.H. (1963) ‘Childhood and society, (2nd ed)’
New York; Norton
Finkelstein, N.G. (2003) ‘The holocaust industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering’
Verso, 2003
Finkelstein, N.G. (2008) ‘Beyond chutzpah: On the misuse of anti-semitism and the abuse of history’
University of California Press
Fisk, S.A. (2009) ‘When Words Take Lives: The Role of Language in the Dehumanization
and Devastation of Jews in the Holocaust’ University of Canterbury. School of Humanities
Fiske, S.T. & Tailor S.E. (1991) ‘Social Cognition’
New York, McGraw Hill
France, A. (2004) ‘Young People’ in in Fraser, S. Lewis, V. Ding, S. Kellett, M. & Robinson, C. (eds)
‘Doing research with children and young people’, London, Sage
Friese, H. (2001) ‘Pre-judice and identity’
Patterns of Prejudice, 35,2: 63-79
Gergen, K. (1999) ‘Toward transformative dialogue.’ A paper presented to the 49yh annual
conference of the International Communication Association, San Fransisco, CA, 27-31
Gilliam, F.D. jr., Iyengar, S., Simon, A. & Wright, O. (1996) ‘Crime in black and white: the violent,
scary world of local news’. Harvard International Journal of Press and Politics, 1: 6-23
89
Ghanem, S. (1997) ‘Filling in the Tapestry: the Second level of Agenda Setting’ in McCombs, M.,
Shaw, D., Weaver, D. ‘Communication and democracy: exploring the intellectual frontiers
In agenda-setting theory’ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Goldschmidt JR. & Davidson, L. (2010) ‘A concise history of the middle east’
West View Press
Gray, D. (2004) ‘Doing research in the real world: chapter 2: Theoretical
perspectives and research methodologies’ Sage Publications Ltd: 15-33
Gur-Ze-ev, I (1998) ‘The morality of acknowledging/not-acknowledging the Other’s
Holocaust/Genocide.’ Journal of Moral Education, 27, 2: 161-177
Gur-Ze’ev, I & Pappe, I (2003) ‘Beyond the Destruction of the Other’s collective memory; blueprints
for a Palestinian/Israeli dialogue’ Theory Culture and Society 20, 1, 93-108
Habibi, E. (1986) ‘Your Holocaust is Our Disaster’
Politica, 8: 27-30
Hardin, C.D. & Conley, T.D. (2001) ‘ A relational Approach to Cognition: shared experience and
relationship affirmation in social cognition’ Cognitive Social Psychology : the Princeton
Symposium on the legacy and future of Social Cognition. Ed. Moskowitz, G.B., Mahwah,
NJ. Erlbaum. 3-17
Hartup, W.W. (1983) ‘Peer Relations’ in P.H. Mussen & E.M. Hetherington ‘Handbook of child
Psychology: vol 4 Socialization, personality and social development’: 103-196
New York, NY: Wiley
90
Heider, F. (1958) The psychology of Interpersonal relations
New York: Wiley
Hewstone, M. & Brown, B. (1986) ‘Contact is not enough: an intergroup perspective on the
‘contact; hypothesis’ In Hewstone, M. & Brown, R. editors, Contact and conflict in
Intergroup encounters, Basil Blackwell, New York
Hirshberg, M.S. (1993) ‘The self-perpetuating national self-image: Cognitive biases in perceptions
Of international interventions’ Political Psychology, 14, 1: 77
Holquist, M (1990) ‘Dialogism, Bakhtin and his World’
Routledge, New York
Iyengar, S. (1987) ‘Television news and citizens’ explanations of national affairs.’
American political Science Review, 81: 815-831
Iyengar, S. & Kinder, D.R. (1987) ‘News that matters: television and American opinion.’
Chicago: University of Chicago press
Jalal, D (2008) ‘Nihilism and technologies of othering: The Kurds in Iran, Iraq and Turkey’
Carleton University
Johnson, J.G. & Cohen, P & Smailes, E.M & Kasen, S., & Brook, J.S. (2002) ‘Television viewing and
aggressive behavior during adolescence and adulthood’ Science, 295: 2468–2471
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1984) ‘Choices, values and frames’
American Psychologist, 39: 341-350
91
Katz, Y. (2010) ‘Hamas used kids as human shields’
Jerusalem Post 15-03-2010
Karsh,E. (2011) ‘How many Palestinians refugees were there? ‘
Middle East Form, Israel Affairs; April
Kelman, H. (1973) ‘Violence without moral restraint: Reflections on the dehumanization of victims
and victimizers’ Journal of Social Issues, 29, 4
Kelman, H. (1999) ‘Transforming the relationship between former enemies: a social-psychological
analysis.’ In R. Tohstein (ed.) After peace: Resistance and reconciliation’ London: Rienner
Kellet, M & Ding, S. (2004) ‘Middle Childhood’ in Fraser, S>, Lewis, V. Ding, S., Kellett, M. and
Robinson, C. Doing Research with Children and Young People, London, Sage
Killen, M & Stangor, C. (2001) ‘Children’s social reasoning about Inclusion and Exclusion in Gender
And Race Peer Group Contexts.’ Child Development, 27, 1: 174-187
Kilpatrick, R. & Leitch, R. (2004) ‘Community relations and education for citizenship with the
Northern Ireland youth service’ Journal of Social issues, 54: 563-586
Klug, B. (2003) ‘The collective Jew: Israel and the new anti-Semitism’
Patterns of Prejudice, 37, 2: 1-19
Kvale, S. (1996) ‘Interviews, An introduction to Qualitative Research interviewing’
Sage Publications, thousand oaks California
Kramer, G. (2008) ‘A History of Palestine: from the Ottoman Conquest to the founding of the state of
92
Israel’ Woodstock: Princeton University Press
Kuppermintz, H & Salomon, G. (2010) ‘Lessons to be learned from Research on Peace Education in
the Context of intractable Conflict’ Theory in Practice, 44, 4: 293-302
Liebes, T & Kampf, Z. (2009) ‘Black and White and Shades of Grey: Palestinians in the Israeli Media
during the 2nd Intifada’ International Journal of Press and Politics, 14, 4: 434-453
Littleton, H.L. & Ollendick, T. (2005) ‘Negative Body Image and Disordered Eating Behavior in
children and Adolescents: What Places Youth at Risk and How Can These Problems be
Prevented?’ Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 1: 51-66
Lindsay, G. (2000) ‘Researching children’s perspectives: ethical issues’ in Lewis, A. and Lindsay, G.
(eds) ‘Researching Children’s Perspectives’, Buckingham, Open University Press
Maoz, I et al. (2002) ‘The Dialogue between the ‘Self’ and the ‘Other’: A Process Analysis of
Palestinian-Jewish Encounters in Israel.’ Human relations, 55, 8
Maoz, I. (2002) ‘Is there contact at all? Intergroup interaction in planned contact interventions
between Jews and Arabs in Israel’ International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26: 185197
Maoz, I (2004) ‘Peace Building in Violent Conflict: Israel-Palestinian Post-Oslo People-to-People
Activities’ International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 17,3: 563-574
Maoz, I & McCauley C. (2008) “Threat, Dehumanization and support for Retaliatory Aggressive
Policies in Asymmetric Conlict’ Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52: 93
93
Maoz, I (2011) ‘Contact in protracted asymmetrical conflict: twenty Years of planned encounters
Between Israeli Jews and Palestinians’ Journal of Peace Research, 48, 1: 115-125
Maoz, Z (1997) ‘The controversy over the Democratic Peace: Rearguard Action or Cracks in the
Wall?’ Internation Security, 22,1: 162-198
Marshall, S. Et.Al. (2004) ‘Relationship between media use, body fatness and physical activity in
children an youth: A met-analysis’ International Journal of Obesity, 28: 1238-1246
Masson, J. (2004) ‘The legal context’ in Fraser, S. Lewis, V. Ding, S. Kellett, M. & Robinson, C. (eds)
‘Doing research with children and young people’, London, Sage
Al-Matukal, T. (1989)’Poetry Space: poetry’
Ansar 3, Ramalla (Arabic)
Mauthner, M. (1997) ‘Methodological aspects of Collecting Data from Children: Lessons from three
Research Projects’ Children in Society, 11: 16-28
McCabe, M .& Ricciardelli, L. (2001) ‘Parent, peer and media influences on body image and
strategiesto both increase and decrease body size among adolescent boys and girls’
Adolescence, 36, 142: 225-240.
McCauley, C. (2002) ‘head-first versus Feet first in Peace education’ In ‘Peace education: the concept
Principles and Practices around the world’ Salomon G. & Nevo, B
Mahwah, NJ” Lawrence Erlbaum associates
94
Mccombs, M. (2004) Setting the Agenda: The mass media and public opinion
Malden, MA, Blackwell Publishing Inc
McCool, J. Cameron, L.D. & Robinson, E. (2011) ‘Do Parents have any influen over how young people
Apprais tobacco images in the media?’ Journal of adolescent health, 48, 2: 170-175
McNamee, S. & Gergen, K. (1999) ‘ Relational responsibility’ in S. McNamee et al. (Eds) Relational
responsibility: Resources for sustainable dialogue, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Mezvinsky, N. (2010) ‘Jewish Fundamentalism and the Temple mount: who will build the third
temple? Journal of Church and State, 52, 2: 354-357
Nabi, R. (2003) ‘Exploring the framing effects of Emotion: Do Discrete Emotions Differentially
Influence Information Accessibility, Information Seeking, and Policy preference?’
Communication research, 30, 2: 224-247
Nadler, A. and. Shnabel, N (2006), ‘Instrumental and socio-emotional paths to intergroup
reconciliation and theneed-based model of socio-emotional reconciliation’, in A. Nadler, T.
Malloy and J. Fisher (eds), Social Psychology of Intergroup Reconciliation, Oxford University
Press: New York: 37–56.
Nevo, J. (1989) ‘The attitude of Arab Palestinian Historiography towards the Germans and the
Holocaust’ in Bauer, Y. and others (eds) ‘Remembering for the future: working papers
And addenda’ Vol 2. London: Maxwell: 2241-2250
Oren N.& Bar-Tal D. (2006) ‘The detrimental dynamics of delegitimization in intractable conflicts: The
Israeli-Palestinian case’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 1: 111–126
95
Oren, M. (2002) ‘Six days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East’
Presidio Press
Perez, R (2010) ‘Narrative from the other side: the revelations and dynamics of a bi-national penpal
program in border spaces’ Children’s Geographies, 8,4: 353-361
Pettigrew, T.F. (1998) ‘Intergroup Contact Theory’
Annua. Review Pscychology 49: 65-85
Pettigrew, T.F., Christ, O., Wagner, U. & Stellmacher, J. (2007) ‘Direct and indirect intergroup contact
Effect on prejudice: a normative interpretation’ International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 31: 411-425
Pietersma, H, (2000) ‘Phenomelogical Epistemology’
Oxford University Press
Priel, B. (1999) ‘Bathkin and Winnicott’
Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 9: 487-503
Rosenberg. S. & Wolfsfield, G. (1977) ‘International Conflict and the Problem of Attribution’
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 21, 1: 75-103
Rouhana, N. & Bar-Tal, D. (1998) ‘Psychological dynamics of intractable ethonational conflicts. The
Israeli-Palestinian case. American Psychologist, 53, 7: 761-770
Rubin, U. (2008) ‘Muhammad’s Night Journey to al-Masjid al-Aqsa. Aspects of the Earliest Origins
Of the Islamic Sanctity of Jerusalem’ Al-Qantara, 29, 1: 147
96
Sa’di, A. (2002) ‘Catastrophe, Memory and Identity: al Nakbah as a component of Palestinian
Identity’ Israel studies, 7, 2,: 175-198
Salomon, G. (2004) ‘A Narrative-Based View of coexistence education’
Journal of Social Issues, 60, 2: 273-287
Salomon, G. (2010) ‘Four major challenges facing peace education in regions of intractable conflict’
Peace and conflict: Journal of Peace and Psychology, May, 2010
Sanbar, E. (2001) ‘Le bien de Absents (Absentees Property)’
Actes Sud
Schensul (1999) ‘Focused Group interviews’ In Enhanced ethnographic methods; ethnographers
toolkit 3 Walnut Creek, London, New Delhi: Altamira Press: 51-114
Scheufele, D. & Tewksbury, D. (2007) ‘Framing, agenda-setting and priming: the evolution of three
Media effects models.’ Journal of Communication, 57, 1: 9-20
Smith, D. (2011) ‘Less than human: Why we Demean, Enslave and Exterminate Others’
St. Martin’s Press
Stewart, C (2010) ‘Israeli Principal summoned over history textbook that adds Palestinian view’
The Christian Science Monitor; September 29
Telfed (1998) ‘Different Magazine same Idea’
Telfed, 24, 2
97
Toameh, K, (2002) ‘How the war began’
Mafhoum, 19 September,
Tremblay, R.E. (2000). ‘The development of aggressive behavior during childhood: What have we
learned in the past century?’ International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 129–141.
Turner, et.al. (2007) ‘Reducing prejudice via direct and extended cross-group friendship’
European review of Social Psychology, 18: 212-255
Urquhart, C. (2007) ‘Israel accused of using Palestinian children as human shields’
The guardian, March 9
Uvin, P. (1997) ‘Prejudice, Crisis and Genocide in Rwanda’
African studies Review, 40, 2
Weaver, D. H. (2007) ‘Thoughts on Agenda Setting, Framing, and Priming’
Journal of Communication 57 142–147
Yair, S. (2001) ‘The Finkelstein Polemic’
Ha’aretz, 30 March
Wester, F, Boeije, H. & Kwak, T. (2005) Methodische keuzen in kwalitatief onderzoek.
Kwalon 30, 10, 3
Wright, S.C. et.al. (1997) ‘The Extended Contact Effect: Knowledge of Cross-Group Friendships and
Prejudice’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1: 73-90
98
Internet
www.Unicef.org; country information: visited July 2011
www.defenseforchildren.org visited February 2011
http://www.zionism-israel.com visited August 2011
www.btselem.org visited July, 2011
bbc.co.uk visited july 2011
Reports
Concluding observations/comments Israel report 2002 53RD SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE
RIGHTS OF THE CHILD 11- 29 JANUARY 2010
Consideration of reports submitted by the States parties under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to
the Convention of the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict (29
january 2010)
Consideration of reports submitted by the States parties under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to
the Convention of the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict (29
january 2010)
ISRAEL: CRC issues recommendations on use of children in hostilities, Defence for children
international 2010
STATE PARTY EXAMINATION OF ISRAEL’S INITIAL PERIODIC REPORT ON THE OPAC, 2002
99
Appendix 1
Circles of influence; one of the participants from the Tamra group
100