Ingroup attitudes and division under occupation

(1)

Ingroup Attitudes and Division Under Occupation

MSc Political Science Thesis: Nationalism, Ethnic Conflict and Development

Mohammad Mousa S2128748 June 11th, 2019

Abstract: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has customarily been viewed through the lens of a Palestinian struggle in competition with Israeli nationhood. What is seemingly lacking in this view of the conflict is an understanding that what we assume to be one single Palestinian struggle may in reality be much more complex. Conditions imposed by the Israeli state over Palestinians are intentional, calculated, and have proven effective in the physical division of Palestinians within the West Bank, Gaza and Israel. Less attention has been drawn to the potential consequences this physical division inherently means for a united Palestinian struggle. Have these externally imposed boundaries been successful in generating division among Palestinians? More importantly, what has shown to be the most salient among these boundaries? This project aims to dissect what about ingroup subcategorizations among Palestinians in the West Bank towards Palestinians living in East Jerusalem are most emphasized through first-hand accounts and ethnographic interviews with Palestinians living in the West Bank.

Supervisor: Matthew Longo

(2)

“I am from there, I am from here, but I am neither there nor here. I have two names which meet and part. I have two languages, but I have long forgotten which is the language of my dreams.”

(3)

The complexity and complications of the Palestinian question have been well documented and theorized for decades. One particular element that often arises within discussion is that of Palestinian unity in the context of achieving statehood and identity. Rightly, this has often been looked at through a political lens whereby state relationships, armed struggle and human rights questions have been defined, tested and explored. Axiomatically, there are important social dimensions and questions that must be explored in the broader context of the question of Palestine and Palestinians. In a book titled Clash of Identities: Explorations in Israeli and Palestinian Societies, Baruch Kimmerling wrote that “one of the most significant conditions…for the formation of cultural, social, and political collective identities is the existence of geographic or physical boundaries…” (Kimmerling, 2008). This raises an important question about the social impacts that imposed political divisions by an occupier have had on Palestinian groups in the West Bank who are isolated from Palestinians that live in East Jerusalem. While natural geographic barriers are present everywhere in the form of bodies of water or mountain ranges among others, the presence and installment of physical barriers in a colonial context by which passage is controlled and restricted adds an entirely different type of dimension with regards to access. In the context of Palestine and Israel, this movement is largely determined by access to permits that allow transcendence of these borders and barriers, which are granted to certain people in the West Bank while being denied to others. In many ways, this social circumstance of separation is enmeshed within the endless political problem that has faced the region for decades. However, the challenge of a unified Palestinian people and identity has yet to be entirely understood, and has only increased in complexity every year the conflict has carried on. Palestinians have become increasingly isolated from one another, creating a seemingly endless list of complications, the most

(5)

significant of which would seem to be a basis for any kind of meaningful negotiation to end the conflict.

Instinctively, we might not think of Palestinians as being divisible into sub-group categorizations. However, the existing environmental conditions that have been imposed between Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has instilled significant spatial, legal and physical boundaries between them that have accented feelings of otherness. While we cannot express blanket assumptions about the attitudes Palestinians have towards each other living in different places, it is a phenomenon worthy of deeper inspection. Consequently, this study asks the following question: How do externally imposed boundaries by an occupier generate division within an ingroup? What is it in particular about these boundaries that generates that division? Living in a place where attainment of permits is vital to the ability of Palestinians to move and interact more easily, it is worth examining how imposed restrictions end up affecting ingroup dynamics and whether or not they foster division. As such, this research question is designed to fill a gap in existing literature surrounding the division that imposed spatial boundaries can create within a group, by examining what exactly is most important in the formation of attitudes towards a group with different status, and whether an ingroup distinction is formed among a similar populous due to this division.

Prior to expanding upon the debates available in contemporary academic literature, it is useful to define and unpack some of the terms introduced in the proposed research question in order to more clearly define the perimeters of this study. Specifically, clarifying ‘externally imposed boundaries’ and the ‘ingroup division’ distinction in the context of this study are important prior to proceeding. With regards to ingroup division in the context of this study, this distinction, and the target of this study will apply to Palestinians living within the West Bank and

(6)

East Jerusalem. This study has two main goals as its primary aim. First, it will seek to establish whether or not West Bank Palestinians consider East Jerusalem Palestinians as ‘different’ or ‘other’ based primarily on the fact that their legal identification provides them with different rights to mobility and access to Jerusalem, a city of vital importance to Palestinians. Secondly, it will attempt to measure what exactly about these boundaries has shown to be most significant in fostering division, if it does exist.

2. Review of Literature and Debates

There are of course different arguments and theories as to how exactly externally imposed boundaries in a colonial environment might play a role in drawing lines within an ingroup subjected to occupation. For the purpose of this study, I will look at three possible answers and existing debates to this question, namely the discussion over contact and its effect on shaping attitudes, variance in formal markers of identification and labeling of Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the effects of cross-generational perceptions and lived experiences.

2.1 Intergroup Contact Theory and Negative Contact

At an abstract level, this debate can be had within the theoretical framework or context of contact theory versus negative contact. Literature on this debate is both extensive and well tested, with cogent arguments having been advanced on both ends. Stated simply, intergroup contact theory advances the idea that increased intergroup interaction has the effect of reducing prejudices and biases from one group onto another. This theory has proven to achieve positive results in several expansive studies, notably in one that gathered meta-analysis from 713 independent samples from 515 studies, finding that in general, intergroup contact typically reduced intergroup

(7)

prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Many other authors have argued in favour of intergroup contact, noting that “when groups are isolated from one another, prejudice and conflict grow like a disease” (Brameld, 1946). Perhaps most interestingly applicable in this general debate to the Palestinian case, is the intergroup contact theory conditions posited by Robin Williams Jr., who noted and expanded on the need for groups to share similar status, interests and tasks in order to create optimal and beneficial intergroup contact (Williams Jr., 1947).

As it stands, this debate is far from settled, and some studies and literature point in the opposite direction with regards to intergroup contact. As posited in a controlled study conducted by Stefania Paolini, Jake Harwood and Mark Rubin in 2010, intergroup contact among intergenerational members of different groups had the effect of increasing the salience of age difference in negative interactions, thereby worsening intergroup relations (Paolini, Harwood, & Rubin, 2010). Other literature also supports the idea that negative contact between groups is more strongly associated with increased racism and discrimination (Barlow, Paolini, & Pedersen, 2012). This perspective on negative contact presents an interesting distinction to intergroup contact theory, which is the emphasis on different kinds of contact producing different kinds of results.

Intergroup contact in settler-colonial constructions

Given the nature of this study and the environment within which Palestinians live, it is also important to examine the literature related to the effects of contact within settler-colonial environments. Similarities between Canada’s history of settler colonialism and state construction can provide valuable parallels into the case of Palestinian relationships with the Israeli state. The existing literature on relationships between white settlers, their descendants, and Canada’s indigenous population are well documented, and consistently provide a picture into the established

(8)

position of white Canadian’s systemic control of Canada’s First Nations, Métis and indigenous groups (Miller, 2000); (Milloy, 1999); (Henry & Tator, 2006). Jeffrey Denis examined the relationship between contact in reducing biases and prejudice among First Nations, Métis and indigenous groups in Canada and white settler populations (Denis, 2015). Through interviews of both indigenous populations and white Canadians, Denis ultimately determined that though contact was proven in reducing “old-fashioned” forms of prejudice, it did not prove capable of eradicating white Canadians superior perception of place in group hierarchy (Denis, 2015). Though this field of research continues to develop, there is a noticeable lack of existing research on the effects of intergroup contact between Canada’s indigenous groups.

Intergroup Contact/Negative Contact in Practice among Palestinians

While the literature and debate over Palestinian self-perception is far from settled, it should be noted that intergroup contact theory has been applied and explored in the context of Israel and Palestine, particularly through the lens of intergroup contact between Palestinians and Israelis. One particular study tested for and demonstrated positive effects from controlled computer mediated contact between Jews and Arabs in Israel over a period of one year, concluding that consistent digital contact reduced intergroup bias over time (Walther, Hoter, Ganayem & Shonfeld, 2015). Conversely, another similar study looking at intergroup interactions between Arabs and Jews in Israel produced results that trend towards a favourability for negative contact theory, demonstrating that Palestinian-ness and identity among Arab participants became more salient the further interactions developed (Hammack, 2010). There is however a noticeable gap in literature that centers around intergroup relations among Palestinian communities living in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza and Israel.

(9)

2.2 Generational Variance within Ethnic Groups

Equally important but sometimes overlooked is the question of the way in which different generations of the same ethnic group react to markers and environmental conditions. The literature expanding on the effects of generational perceptions and attitudes both within one group and untoward others is well detailed and provides a glimpse of the ways in which this may play a significant role in explaining internal division among Palestinians.

In a study that focused on intergenerational nuances in perception and status among Ashkenazi Jews in Israel, Orna Sasson-Levy detailed the way in which different generations of the same ethnic group perceive themselves, and the way in which this self-perception is then extended externally (Sasson-Levy, 2013). In doing so, Sasson-Levy argued that the “dominant discursive order of the time, the state and its national institutions, and the encounter with the most visible ‘other’ of the time” (Sasson-Levy, 2013) are the three most important factors in determining perceptions of ethnicity among members of an ethnic group. Other studies, such as the one conducted by Carmit Tadmor, Rony Berger, Alaina Brenick, Hisham Abu-Raiya, and Joy Benatov, explored the relationship between an older generation’s tolerance towards another group, and what that might mean in forming their own children’s attitudes towards other groups in the future (Tadmor, et al., 2017). In this research, they demonstrated a positive relationship between the older generations ability to impact and influence attitudes of the young people they raised, showing that children raised with more tolerant messaging of multiculturalism from their parents were more likely to profess similar attitudes towards it (Tadmor, et al., 2017).

Worth exploring is how intergenerational examinations have been applied in the context of internal Palestinian conflict. In an exploration of self-images and we-images related to internalized

(10)

conflict and identity, Gabriele Rosenthal concluded through ethnographic interviews and first- hand accounts that Palestinians overarching instinct was to present a homogenizing we-image whereby no external proclamations of internal conflict among Palestinians from generation to generation, or city to city exist (Rosenthal, 2016). Additional research emphasizes the fragmented and evolving nature of Palestinian identity over time due to the geopolitical changes of the conflict and its impact on perceptions of Palestinian identity across generations (Kahlidi, 1997); (Habashi, 2008).

2.3 Formal Identity Markers & Labelling Practices

Another possible answer to the question of whether or not externally imposed boundaries generate divisions within an ingroup, is to look at whether there is a prioritization of the social factors that create identity among Palestinians, or whether the value of formal markers of identity such as Passports or identity cards seem to matter more in defining themselves and unifying or drawing lines between each other. In other words, are aspects of daily life such as shared language, culture and religion more salient in defining commonality for Palestinians, or does the weight of the different type of papers they carry from city to city mean more?

The available literature on identity as a social construct is well established and expansive. Stuart Hall and Paul Du Gay detail in depth the interplay between the social construction of identity and its relationship to political and movement identification, describing a “pivotal relationship to a politics of location” (Hall, 1996). Other authors contributing to the field have similarly categorized identity as a social construct, while distancing their own definitions from the location aspect so prevalent in other works (Yuval-Davis, 2010).

(11)

Indeed, while the social construction of identity cannot be ignored and carries important value, so too does the legal status of Palestinians in Palestine, referred to here as formal markers of identity. Again here, the existing literature highlights the importance and value placed on legal status and papers held by Palestinian refugees in diaspora, Palestinian citizens and non-citizens of Israeli territory, and Palestinians currently living in the West Bank. Shourideh Molavi highlights the anatomy of ‘stateless citizenship’ for Palestinians living in Israel in Stateless Citizenship: The Palestinian-Arab Citizens of Israel, in which Palestinians in East Jerusalem are often granted a permanent residency status in Israel with no pathway to full Israeli citizenship (Molavi, 2013).

Consequences of Colonial State Labeling

When taking the effect of formal markers of identity into consideration, it is important, particularly in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to consider the source of the markers and labels assigned and delegated by the colonial state onto the subjugated population. Examples of this are far reaching and well researched, with one particular case being that of Canada’s indigenous population and its relationship with the Canadian state. As identified by Taiaiake Alfred and Jeff Corntassel, the effect of these forms of labels can often create ideal conditions for group sub-categorizations by fitting them into a state construction they never truly recognized to begin with (Alfred & Corntassel, 2005). Laraa Fitznor chronicled her own struggle with labeling, self-identifying as a Cree woman, but being labeled as ‘Aboriginal’ by the Canadian state and legislated Indian Act that governs relations between the Canadian state and indigenous groups in the country (Fitznor, 2006). This system, while different in some aspects, is parallel to what takes place in Palestine, with an imposition of formal identity markers for Palestinians generated by the Israeli state defining identities, rights and privileges that fit into an Israeli state construction.

(12)

3. Method and Research Design

The methodology for this project involved a single case study which I believe to be relevant to evaluating the scale of ingroup subdivision within colonial structures. Within the frame of a single case study, this particular project examined specifically the sub-regional variation among a single ingroup affected by imposed conditions entrenched by an occupier. As previously discussed, I examined in detail the case of West Bank Palestinian attitudes towards East Jerusalemites, a divided populous with shared language, cultural and national identity traits living under effects of spatial, political and social occupation of territory. By analysing what attitudes might exist from one group onto another given different formal identity markers, status, age or access, my aim was to identify what is most salient among these differences for respondents. In defining the utility of a single case study for this project, I will consider John Gerring’s clear definition of a case study, expressed as “an intensive study of a single unit with an aim to generalize across a larger set of units” (Gerring, 2004).

3.1 Case Selection

The examination of the intersections between colonial environments and their subjects has primarily been looked at through the lens of ingroups subjugated to oppression through colonial structures, and outgroups that tend to benefit because of those same structures, while closer evaluations of ingroup dynamics due to this division is not always considered. The examination of different groups of Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, with unequal access to one another due to permit and movement restrictions but who otherwise appear to share similar traits, provides an opportunity to not only inquire about the existence of ingroup subcategorizations, but additionally for the ways in which uneven ability to make contact or difference in age might

(13)

abstract this. It appears that for its unique population divide within a small territory, the study of Palestinian attitudes towards other Palestinians living in different conditions with differing status and rights, it might explain a larger pattern of the effects occupation and its spatial division can have on attitudes within a group.

3.2 Data Collection

The primary source of data collection for this project was to gather information directly through semi-structured ethnographic interviews which I conducted with 10 respondents both in person and over Skype. My aim was to interview Palestinians currently living in the West Bank in order to gather interpretive narratives directly from the source about the meaning of status, Palestinian identity, contact, and their own perception of Palestinians that experience different living environments than their own. In order to ensure the cogence of this project and validity of the information collected through interviews, I interviewed Palestinians in one West Bank city, with similar or identical political leanings, educational backgrounds and residency status (i.e. non- refugees). This collection of individuals only had one major variant among them, specifically that half of the respondents had been granted more access to enter East Jerusalem over their lifetime due to the status of their permits, while the other half had limited experience (four entries or less over their lifetime) entering East Jerusalem. In order to access potential participants, I identified and spoke with a community leader based in the West Bank who was able to connect me with other participants, and through conversations with interviewees, was then connected with more respondents. Each interview took between 45-90 minutes to complete, and all interviews were recorded for the purpose of transcription. In their work on qualitative interviewing, Herbert and Irene Rubin provide a simple yet telling justification for the qualitative interview method, stating

(14)

among other things that “through qualitative interviews, you can understand experiences and reconstruct events in which you did not participate…” (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). Specifically, these interviews were conducted as part of an elaborated case study, which are described as being done to understand what happened, why, and what it means more broadly (Rubin & Rubin, 2005).

In Ordinary Language Interviewing, Frederick Schaffer provides a clear model and justification for the use of interviews using simplified language. Specifically, he states that “the purpose…to engage the interviewee in a conversation…and to provide the person with occasions to use particular words of interest in ways that reveal their various meanings” (Schaffer, 2016). With this in mind, the utility of asking questions to West Bank Palestinians with regard to what exactly about externally imposed boundaries creates enduring subdivisions provided valuable insight from people who experience it daily. These questions and interpretative interview method were chosen with the goal being to gather interpretive information, as its main intention was to uncover a process of the way meaning was made for respondents, and why certain markers were more accented. The questions put forward to respondents provided me with the ability to piece together the perceptions of experiences, and determine how they differed, and whether common patterns or themes were identifiable. Finally, by selecting a group of Palestinians to interview in which some had more frequent access to East Jerusalem while others did not, I was able to measure what effect if any that access played in shaping perceptions and attitudes.

3.3 Method Rationalisation

Selecting a methodological approach that fit both theory and problem for this proposed study involved thinking about the ways in which I could effectively gather insight about the meaningfulness of line drawing. In order to most effectively do so, participants were asked

(15)

questions about various lines that exist between them in their daily lives, be they physical (checkpoints and walls), social (class status, generational gaps), and political (formal identification, land access). The interpretive characteristics of the interview process allowed me to obtain answers to whether or not ‘otherizing’ of other Palestinians living in East Jerusalem existed, thereby confirming whether or not ingroup division exists, and exactly what factors (formal identity markers, class status, contact or other factors) presented themselves as more salient in this division. As the scope of this study was limited in time, the cost of this method is demonstrated primarily through the number of participants that were able participate in the study, as well as the inherent selection bias due to the number of participants interviewed and the fact they were not selected at random. To account for this as much as possible, I included participants who I had no personal connection or relationship with. My goal with semi-structured interviews was to account for this in the detail and length of responses gathered, which was significant as expected.

3.4 Identification

This project naturally presented some opportunities for bias and error worthy of consideration and discussion. While impossible to identify with certainty what complications may have arisen, some calculations can be made as to what presented throughout the study. As the primary form of data collection for this study involved ethnographic interviews, it is important to highlight my own background, role and potential bias in this study. As an individual with family links to Palestine, my personal background should be taken into consideration as this may have had the potential to impact the ways in which answers from interviewees are interpreted. Respondents were told prior to the interview that I was conducting interviews about Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, but were not given any further information regarding the

(16)

questions that would be asked of them. Furthermore, it is possible that considering the nature of the Palestinian identity question, which in itself is contested and politicized, it may have been more difficult for Palestinians to give their honest perceptions about other Palestinians to someone they did not know or trust. For this particular case, I was able to place myself as a member of a broader Palestinian ethnic group, which I believe to have aided in gaining more detailed insight. Since the scope of the project was limited in time, and all participants were selected by the interviewer, selection bias was a factor to consider as previously identified, and information gathered through interviews cannot claim to be representative of all West Bankers. Additionally, there is a language element worthy of consideration. I conducted interviews in both English and Arabic, and as English was not the first language of some participants, it is worth considering how meanings and intentions might be intended one way and interpreted another way.

4. The First-Hand Accounts of West Bank Palestinians

With the review of literature on the subject of salience of division among a colonized group completed, this section of the project focuses on the lived experiences of West Bank Palestinian residents and their perceptions on division gathered through interviews. After having analyzed the interviews and data they produced, it was clear that three main themes seemed to re-occur through participant accounts: (i) the inverse effect of labelling by the colonizer and its role in producing ideal conditions for internal subdivision; (ii) an intergenerational diversity, or the perception thereof, in the general attitudes projected towards Palestinians from East Jerusalem from Palestinians in the West Bank; and (iii) the effect of physical separation and lack of contact in increasing the negative interpretations and lack of understanding of life conditions of Palestinians

(17)

in East Jerusalem. In the following section, I will discuss these themes in order and clarify how these themes were dissected from the interviews.

4.1 Inverse Labelling and Internal Sub-Division

As previously discussed, historical examples of labelling by colonial powers has been used as a tool to generate division among populations, with the intent of maximizing the colonizing state’s power to control for conditions it finds will suit its ultimate intentions. What is particularly interesting about this case, is that it became clear through interviews that this labelling generated a form of inverse effect. Specifically, the natural inclination may be to think of labelling as a tool for a stronger power to generate distinction between “them” or “their people” and those they seek to dominate or exert force over. While this can certainly be true, what may not be as obvious are the ideal conditions this labelling may produce in generating cleavages within the subjugated populous. This was evidenced in four particular conversations I had with Palestinians living in the West Bank, and two main features must be highlighted in examining this: (i) rather than identification cards, permits or passports coming through as most important, it was a distinction in vehicle licence plates that were arguably most salient for the interviewees; and (ii), interestingly, there were no built in questions about those licence plates in my structured interview questions- they were all brought up organically by participants themselves.

In Israel and the West Bank, the licence plate classification system is unique and naturally divisive. Cars registered by Israel, which includes all vehicles registered to residents of Jerusalem, are given yellow coloured Israeli licence plates. These plates allow for access to both the West Bank and Israeli territory, and easier passage through checkpoints (Bishara, 2015); (Witteborn, 2007). Conversely, Palestinian registered vehicles are given white and green coloured licence

(18)

plates, which do not allow for passage into Israel or Jerusalem, and are subject to more inspection at checkpoints within the West Bank (Bishara, 2015); (Witteborn, 2007). Of the six interviewees, four discussed the categorization and plate privileges that they experienced. Some respondents mentioned it in passing, while others focused on it as a significant marker of difference. Below, Salah discussed how he was able to identify a Palestinian from Jerusalem or outside of the West Bank:

Interviewer: Growing up in Nablus, do you see a lot of visitors from Jerusalem in Nablus?

Salah: It's relatively- I don't always know if they come from Jerusalem to be

honest. It is easy to spot if someone has come from outside of the West Bank because they drive vehicles that have a yellow plate, and yellow plate means that they drive an Israeli car so you can tell that they are Palestinian, Arabic speakers, but you really can't tell if they are from Jerusalem or where exactly in Israel. There is quite a lot of them, we get to see them on Saturdays quite often but, where exactly I cannot tell you.

A rather telling example of a respondent who applied more emphasis on the importance and somewhat negative feelings towards the difference in license plates is that of Husam, who explained his difficulty with the difference in plates in the midst of an explanation on life in Jerusalem.

Interviewer: How would you describe the daily experience of a Palestinian who lives in East Jerusalem?

Husam: …I don’t know, we’re similar but we’re different, you know? If

(19)

tension between Palestinians and Arab-Israelis. They come in to Nablus, they come in to Jenin, Ramallah, whatever, they have yellow- plated cars. They have nicer cars. They don’t have to follow the rules of the PA (Palestinian Authority) you know? So they drive like assholes [laughing]. We see that all the time-the guys with the yellow plates.

Interviewer: So you really notice the licence plates?

Husam: Definitely. They make it kind of obvious you know? Like they want to

show you that the rules, the same rules don’t apply to them. They make you notice them.

Interestingly, throughout the interview and as demonstrated above, Husam made it clear that he applied the label of Arab-Israeli to Arabs in Jerusalem or elsewhere in Israel, while applying Palestinian only to Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. In addition to Husam’s perceptions of the licence plates being an evident marker of a sort of “outsider” or “other”, multiple other respondents, such as Suzan, also indicated that the yellow licence plates were an easy identifier, specifically impacting certain days of the week and abilities for West Bankers to carry on with day to day life as they normally would.

Interviewer: Do you get a lot of visitors from East Jerusalem in the West Bank?

Suzan: Mhm. Yes. So, a lot of people will come to Nablus for tourism from

Jerusalem or ’48, just because we have the specific sweet that is only made in Nablus. So you can see a lot of the yellow tagged cars, and you know then that they are from ’48 or Jerusalem.

Interviewer: From your perspective, how would you say those visitors were received by residents of Nablus or of the West Bank in general?

Suzan: Some of them are received with hostility, that’s for sure. They’re here

(20)

in the West Bank. People that like, live in the West Bank won’t go out as much on Saturdays just because it’s so busy, and we’ll always say in a negative way, that “oh, they’re here” or “oh, because of them”. So, I guess, some people just don’t like the ’48 Arabs sometimes.

Interviewer: And what about you? How do you feel about it?

Suzan: Um-fine I guess. It just gets a little annoying. It becomes hard to move

anywhere in the city on Saturday’s. [Laughing] There is never any parking.

While Suzan’s response to the question did not necessarily lend the same direct negative connotations towards the license plates themselves which can be seen clearly in Husam’s response, the use of the plate colour to label and identify the outsider, in this case being the Palestinian from away, is significant in that it has provided a distinct and visual marker of someone else and a feeling of aggravation or disturbance that comes hand in hand with their presence. Moreover, unlike a piece of identification that would need to be inspected up close, a license plate can be made out from a distance, eliminating the need for physical interaction between people, and effectively eradicating another opportunity for contact. Furthermore, Suzan’s use of the word ‘tourist’ and ‘tourism’ to describe a visitor and their presence in the West Bank seems to magnify the feeling of ‘outsiderness’ that she applies to non-residents of the West Bank, whether intentionally or not. It should also be noted that the above experiences are not isolated cases. There is evidence through existing research that the distinction in license plates has long been a way for Palestinians to inter-label one another. As noted in Saskia Witteborn’s research on the expression of Palestinian identity, some interviews with Palestinians also displayed that vehicle license plates were a “symbolic marker of place and group identity” (Witteborn, 2007).

(21)

The deliberate labelling by the Israeli state through the delegation of license plate type and colour clearly stood out as salient to the surveyed group in this study. Instinctively, a fair assumption might have been that the distinction in license plate type was to separate Israelis from Palestinians. However, by assigning particular groups of Palestinians the yellow plates, which allow for more access and privileges, the Israeli state creates ambiguity and a form of hierarchy among the subjugated populous, which fosters an environment in which division is more easily nurtured. In doing so, it should be noted that the Israeli state, in seeking to create a cleavage through perceptive labeling, is successfully shaping an environment that forces Palestinians to identify with labels and a state construction that they do not perceive as legitimate or beneficial to their own cause. This in turn creates a condition in which not only the sentiments of internal divide exist and grow as a result of labelling, but the very conditions that allow them to, are further entrenched into everyday life for Palestinians.

4.2 Intergenerational nuances of difference and perception

In the midst of conversations that took place with respondents, and upon closer analysis of their answers, it was clear that there was a significant discrepancy in the ways that younger West Bank Palestinians perceived East Jerusalem Palestinians, to the way older respondents described their perceptions. Intuitively, this may not be self-evident, considering that one might imagine those living under the same circumstances might then produce the same kind of reactions. However, as respondent accounts demonstrated, there is little that can be described as linear in any of these interactions. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, being one that has spanned across multiple generations, has marked each of those generations differently. In the accounts below, two things in particular stood out in relation to inter-generational gaps in perception: (i) that those respondents

(22)

who had lived through a an earlier time when separation was not as guaranteed as it is now had more instinctively sympathetic responses to questions about conditions for residents of East Jerusalem, and (ii) that the younger respondents were able to identify and reconcile their own negative perceptions of East Jerusalem residents with the conditions they were shaped by through their lives. An example of the awareness some younger respondents expressed about the differences that might exist between generation is displayed in the conversation below.

Interviewer: So would you say then, that the opportunity you had to have face to

face contact with them influenced your perceptions?

Salah: …we never get to have those conversations face to face that actually

my generation lacks quite a bit, because the generation before me, my parents’ generation, that is, had the opportunity to go to Jerusalem when there was not much, um, regulation if I may say. I remember my dad telling me stories of when him and my mother were engaged, they would go to the beach in Haifa and it was totally fine. So, I think they had that experience of talking to people around Palestine, that I don't get. And nonetheless, the Palestinians within themselves I think, in the West Bank have a kind of segregated environment where you have people from refugee camps only interacting with people from refugee camps and people that live on the outskirts of the cities only interact with those on the outskirts, and the city people only really interact with those living in the city. I think my generation faces that problem…

A similar sentiment was expressed by Suzan, who below, provides her perspective on the nuances of perception from generation to generation.

(23)

Interviewer: Do you think that your generation, younger people, might have more access to interact and meet with Palestinians from Jerusalem? Or do you think they had more of an opportunity than you?

Suzan: I think the older generation has more of an understanding of what the

’48 Arabs actually are, more than the younger generation, because as young adults or young people, we are more prejudiced. That’s just our nature, and we don’t really understand what’s happening on the other side. But I think the older generation is more accepting to them. But, on the other hand, we- in college, the ’48 Arabs will come to these universities and they will study with us, the West Bank Palestinians, so there is a lot more interactions with that generation, but not as much acceptance.

Interviewer: One of the things you said was that you think younger generations are

more prejudiced. I’m curious to know why you have that opinion.

Suzan: Because, if you combine the history of the conflict, and the time span

that it has been, I don’t think we have the understanding of what the conflict really is. […] You know what I mean? Like- it’s just stupid conceptions of us being like, we understand this better and we can liberate Palestine, and we can do so much better than our parents did. And that’s just not possible, like this is not what’s going to happen. But the older generation just knows that, that’s not going to happen, and they know what the deal is.

While Suzan and Salah expressed similar sentiments with regards to differences in perceptions among generations, there were significant gaps in what they attributed these differences to. In Salah’s perspective, it can be concluded that the gaps exist primarily due to a diversity of experience, in which the seeds of colonial separation were planted in his parents’ generation, but began to bloom and solidify in his upbringing. In essence, there was less physical separation between Palestinians 30-40 years ago than there is now, which in his experience established a link

(24)

to intergenerational difference. Conversely, Suzan’s interpretation of intergenerational contrast boiled down to a lack of understanding that her generation, in her perspective, simply does not have. Suzan took this a step further by tying in her perception of her generation’s stubbornness into the wider Palestinian struggle for liberation, suggesting that there may be more consequences to perceptions of other Palestinians as being different or other than simply the difference itself. In another account below, Khaled provides a much more identifiably clear perspective with regards to what he feels is a difference between West Bank Palestinians and Palestinians from East Jerusalem not only from generation to generation, but more generally between Palestinians themselves.

Interviewer: You mentioned earlier that they [East Jerusalemites] are similar but

different. Are those perceptions of difference very visible or obvious to you?

Khaled: […]The degree to what we have is terrible, but I don’t want it to take

away from the institutionalized racism that they face, I mean, both are wrong. Both need to be corrected. It’s kind of a hard question to answer.

Interviewer: Do you think that kind of feeling differs from generation to generation?

Or is it all the same to you?

Khaled: Yea, I mean, probably. I think, I don’t know, it’s hard to say for sure

but I would think that yes, an older generation might see it differently. I think they’re more open to that, but at the same time their circumstances were different for sure, you know, growing up. It wasn’t the same as it is now. They got to see each other more.

Khaled’s responses to these questions demonstrate two things in particular. The first, is the strong feeling of divide or difference between him, a West Banker, and Palestinians from East Jerusalem,

(25)

who he himself describes using the Arab-Israeli distinction. Second, was that he was also of the mindset that those strong feelings might change based on age and lived experience. Another response from one of the older respondents for this project, kept consistent with the cross- generational diversity in perception, but framed it through her own experience:

Interviewer: Did your feelings about visitors from East Jerusalem change over time?

Would that be fair to say?

Hadeel: […] Now I am older, more mature and understanding about what the

history actually is. I think the occupation and the goal of the occupation is to create that separation. And when you are young, and the way the media said like "Jerusalem: more clubs, more life" while you are living under pressure and intifada and shooting and killing, you know? So it becomes easy to project your anger towards something easy for you. Now I see it like the empathy and the connection is coming from all of us almost the same. They treat us differently, but the idea is that all of us are Palestinians fighting for our identity anywhere in Palestine. So yes, I feel like age, seeing the bigger picture and being more mature helps.

What is perhaps most interesting about Hadeel’s response, is that it expanded the cross- generational discussion from a binary one (in which x generation feels one way, and y generation feels another), to one that shows growth and nuance in the same person over time. Unlike some of the younger respondents, Hadeel experienced separation and division over time, as well as the ways in which this separation evolved, and stated clearly that part of what aided in overcoming certain negative assumptions she might have made, came through her life experience. Through these interviews, a consistent pattern was established that lends legitimacy to the salience of the

(26)

effect generational change in conditions on the ground has in shaping attitudes on the part of West Bank Palestinians to those living in places outside of the West Bank such as East Jerusalem.

It is clear that the time and physical occupation has generated significant variance among generations. By maintaining the occupation of Palestinian land through multiple decades, the Israeli state has created an environment whereby the only constant from generation to generation is the physical, military and political control of Palestinian territory. It is then fair to assume that new generations of Palestinians growing up in varying conditions might assign different amounts of importance to different patterns of division, but that the division itself will remain a constant as long as Palestinians do not control their social, political and physical futures. Interestingly in this theme, respondents indicated increased feelings of otherness or division compared to generations before them, suggesting that the longer these conditions persist, the more obvious the division may become.

4.3 Physical Separation and Contact in Attitude Formation

The final section of interview analysis below focuses on the third clear theme that was established through first-hand accounts of respondents. One of the main aims of this study was to examine whether or not there was a clear link that could be made between physical contact between separated groups, and what effect that contact or lack thereof had for West Bank Palestinians in forming perceptions about others. In this section, respondents were asked specific questions about how many opportunities they had for contact with East Jerusalem Palestinians in their lives, what kind of permits enabled or restricted them from that contact, and finally, what those experiences were like and how they affected them personally. In the responses displayed below, as well as the interviews in general what was clear was that there was a clear salience assigned by respondents

(27)

to the effect physical interaction and dialogue had on shaping their initial perceptions of each other. Below, Husam, who first had the chance to meet and interact with Palestinians from East Jerusalem in Chicago, Illinois through a peace building program with fellow Palestinians and Israelis that took place when he was a teenager, detailed what effect that contact had on his initial assumptions about their lives and the kinds of hardships they faced in relation to his own.

Interviewer: How would you characterize your interactions with Palestinians from

East Jerusalem when you see them?

Husam: […] I found that I thought they had a more luxurious life than we did.

I thought their life inside there meant good paying wages, freedom of travel, all that cool stuff but I ended up meeting people-the ones that were there were all from mukhayem Shu'fat (Shu’fat refugee camp) which is not the nicest place in East Jerusalem to be around, and they experienced it as if it was living in Bethlehem or Nablus even though it's outside of the West Bank. So- uh, the conversations we had, I thought we were going to feel a disconnect between Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem because I - I came in with a prejudice that they had a better life and I was proven wrong. But, the chemistry was actually very close and regardless of the differences in papers, we connected, we felt that the troubles that they face and we face are very much similar, if they don't face even more than I do. I would even say, I would even take it to that extent that they might actually face more than I do.

What Husam describes here is a profound alteration of bias and perception alteration based almost entirely on the opportunity he had to meet and connect with East Jerusalem Palestinians. Throughout the rest of the interview Husam continued to assign particular salience to the impact

(28)

that opportunities for connections he had been lacking most of his childhood and youth had in not only being able to relate to them more, but going as far as to assign more of a burden to the life of a Palestinian in East Jerusalem than one in the West Bank. Similarly, Suzan described the shift in her perceptions of East Jerusalem Palestinians upon having her first chance to interact with them at a summer music camp when she was a teenager.

Interviewer: Would you say your initial perceptions about their experiences changed

the more you got to know friends from there [East Jerusalem] and meet with them?

Suzan: Yes. When I was younger, we used to think that the ’48 Palestinians in

Jerusalem, “oh they live normal lives better than ours because they live in Israel”. So when- I did not have the understanding about like, we’re still Palestinian just that some of us are living under the occupation and some of us are living under army rule basically. So it’s just different worlds, but I didn’t understand that. So I always used to think they don’t like us and they’re prejudiced over us just because they live in Israel and they have things that are so much better going on for them. But growing up, watching the news and now studying political science, and interacting with them, you just discover that they live worse lives than you do. Just because they live in Jerusalem, or Gaza. So like, the difference between the thought process that you have when you just interact with normal people and then you watch the news actually and talk to people that live over there is drastic. It really is. Because you will still find people in the West Bank that will say “the ’48 arabs are traitors” just because they stayed there. You know? They would say that like, “oh they think they’re better than us just because they stayed there.”

(29)

Here again, Suzan demonstrated the effect that contact had on altering her initial perceptions and original biases by providing her with an opportunity to hear stories directly from people who lived and experienced a life she had only heard about through accounts of others. Suzan’s responses also displayed the effect of environment in shaping perceptions and attitudes about others. A third account seen below given by Khaled falls in line with the perceptions faced by Husam and Suzan, while also adding a specifically interesting element to the effect of contact- notably the kind of contact and what that meant for him.

Interviewer: Do you think that the amount of contact that West Bankers have with

East Jerusalemites affects perceptions about each other in any way?

Khaled: Yeah it does. And it’s not even the amount of contact, it’s the reasons

for contact. You know? Arab-Israelis are not coming to the West Bank because they love Nablus, or Nablus means so much to them, no. They go because it’s cheaper. They go to buy shit. You know what I mean? Or they are here to see people. But, life is generally better for them inside ’48. So, that is pretty much why. Maybe it’s not so much the time, as much as it’s the circumstances under which they meet, and I’m sure that 100% affects, you know, their perception of each other. You know? This guy is Arab like me. He’s Palestinian like me. He’s only coming to me because I sell stuff cheaper. You know? But he gets to go back. He gets the privilege, he gets the luxury of taking his car across the border, um, he gets the privilege and the access to go to the place where I’m not allowed to go. You know, I’m just a means to an end for him, that’s all I am, even though we’re the same.

The distinction drawn here by Khaled with regards to the kind of contact that takes place being more paramount or meaningful than simply the amount of contact is important. This account shows

(30)

us that while simply the opportunity for contact is important for some, its meaningfulness is in fact derived from the environment in which it takes place. While not expressed that way directly through the two former accounts, both Husam and Suzan talked extensively about their positive experiences with contact taking place in settings whereby they were provided with spaces to connect with East Jerusalem Palestinians in forums that enabled extensive conversation and sharing of experiences- one in a music camp, and the other in a peace building program designed largely around dialogue. In this sense, Khaled exposed and highlighted the inherent difficulty of separation, being that even though there may be opportunities for West Bank Palestinians and East Jerusalem Palestinians to see one another frequently, the environment in which they do so matters greatly in the formation of more positive or negative social dynamics. Consistent with Kahled’s assigned importance to meaning in contact, Hadeel expressed a similar viewpoint:

Interviewer: Do you think that the amount of contact that West Bankers have with

East Jerusalemites affects perceptions about each other in any way?

Hadeel: It depends. Definitely, if we had more access to any place it would

make a difference. Or if they have access to us, and we build and plant things together, because in the end we are talking about the same people. We are saving more people. We are talking about shared culture and diversity, you know? So of course it makes you have more experience to build something together. The question is, if we are meeting, what is the goal? Do you understand what I mean? All of us when we meet right now, we're grieving. We need a space for something more healthy.

In severely restricting the conditions for frequency of meaningful contact between Palestinians from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the Israeli state is able to more easily and continuously

(31)

create ideal conditions for division. Among all participant accounts taken for this project, not one single respondent stated that more opportunities for contact did not or would not help in at least reducing negative assumptions or attitudes about another group. Furthermore, all respondents who spoke of their opportunities to make contact with Palestinians from Jerusalem in informal settings spoke of a significant personal reflection or realization that much of what they had previously assumed about a perceived inherent privilege of living on the other side of the wall was not necessarily entirely reflective of their reality.

5. Discussion

The intentional division of a subjugated populous is salient and matters in various important ways. Colonial powers typically seek to separate the colonizer and their population from the colonized and their population. While there is certainly evidence to demonstrate that this has taken place, what is also evident in the case of Palestinians is how the sub-categorizations formed within the subjugated populous by the Israeli state has aided in clouding and complicating Palestinian unity. What has been demonstrated in this project through participant accounts, are three particular themes of division that came through as common and salient to West Bank Palestinians, and the ways in which the settler-colonial model of state construction and enduring occupation of land provide the context for these themes to thrive and survive.

The accounts undertaken and analyzed for this particular project have additionally provided clarity into the process of division by a state that seeks to create conditions for colonialism. Specifically, the linear nature of division and line-drawing was accentuated: x action at y cost produces z result(s). Conversely, the achievement of a sense of unity or togetherness came through as much more ambiguous, complicated and difficult to quantify for Palestinians. Although there

(32)

were common trends as highlighted throughout this project, different aspects of division mattered more to different people, and perceptions of East Jerusalem Palestinians, while generally not positive, was not the same for every person. One expectation made prior to conducting interviews was that division would come through more clearly among Palestinians interviewed that had less permit access to Jerusalem, however there was no discernable difference in the collected responses. Another expectation, discussed in the review of the literature was that an external “we-discourse” as termed by Gabriele Rosenthal would come through strongly in talking to participants. This however, was not reflected in my interviews, with only two out of ten respondents making a clear effort to highlight their shared Palestinian identity, only to follow those statements with others that suggested a further ‘otherizing’ of those that live in Jerusalem.

The collected responses also challenge the question of the binary frame in which the conflict at large is viewed through, and could ever be resolved. Leaving aside the specific demands from all sides to obtain a just resolution to the conflict, there is evidence within these interviews that to frame the conflict as simply “Israeli-Palestinian” is at best an over simplification of the realities that exist. The practice of line-drawing by Israel between factions of Palestinians, both in subtle and clear forms has clouded and complicated unification for Palestinians, and by extension, continues to intentionally move the goal posts for an ultimate resolution to the conflict. This practice has proven effective in entrenching the colonial realities that Palestinians must ultimately overcome in order to reach a settlement that they determine to be just and acceptable moving forward.

Further research would benefit from expanding the scope of this project by including Palestinians from East Jerusalem, Israel, Gaza and the diaspora, in the interest of examining whether or not common links or trends of division extend beyond those highlighted in this thesis.

(33)

Ultimately, the aim of this paper was to establish what markers of division were most pertinent for West Bank Palestinians with regards to Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and whether or not these divisions exist primarily due to imposed boundaries by Israel. Evidently, the size of the sample undertaken for this project cannot be considered representative of West Bank Palestinians in general. With that taken into consideration, the collected responses demonstrated clear line drawing between West Bank Palestinians towards Palestinians from East Jerusalem, with the themes and origins of these divisions being traceable to Israeli colonial imposition. It is equally important to highlight that while attitudes that suggested division were clear in the sample taken for this project, many respondents also indicated willingness to re-form perceptions when given the opportunity to do so. As Noura Erakat, a Palestinian-American lawyer and scholar explains: “Fulfilling this potential requires centering our gaze upon ourselves, to recognize ourselves as free already, in order to forge a path to a future where our liberation is not contingent or mutually exclusive but reinforcing.” (Erakat, 2019).

(34)

Bibliography

Alfred, T., & Corntassel, J. (2005). Being Indigenous: Resurgences against Contemporary Colonialism. Government And Opposition, 40(4), 597-614.

Barlow, F., Paolini, S., Pedersen, A., Hornsey, M., Radke, H., & Harwood, J. et al. (2012). The Contact Caveat. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), 1629-1643.

Bishara, A. (2015). Driving while Palestinian in Israel and the West Bank: The politics of disorientation and the routes of a subaltern knowledge. American Ethnologist, 42(1), 33 54.

Brameld, T. (1946). Minority problems in the public schools. New York: Harper.

Darwish, M. (2006). The Butterfly's Burden. Port Townsend: Copper Canyon Press.

Denis, J. (2015). Contact Theory in a Small-Town Settler-Colonial Context. American Sociological Review, 80(1), 218-242.

Erakat, N. (2019). Justice for Some. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Fitznor, L. (2006). The Power of Indigenous Knowledge: Naming and Identity and Colonization in Canada. In J. Kunnie & N. Goduka, Indigenous Peoples' Wisdom and Power: Affirming Our Knowledge Through Narratives (pp. 51-77). Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing.

(35)

Gaertner, S., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 57(2), 239-249.

Gerring, J. (2004). What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good For?. American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341-354.

Habashi, J. (2008). Palestinian Children Crafting National Identity. Childhood, 15(1), 12-29.

Hall, S. (1996). Who Needs Identity?. In S. Hall & P. du Gay, Questions of cultural identity (pp. 1-17). London: Sage.

Hammack, P. (2010). Narrating hyphenated selves: Intergroup contact and configurations of identity among young Palestinian citizens of Israel. International Journal Of Intercultural Relations, 34(4), 368-385.

Henry, F., & Tator, C. (2006). The Colour of Democracy: Racism in Canadian Society(3rd ed.). Scarborough: Thomson-Nelson.

Khalidi, R. (1997). Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness. New York: Columbia University Press.

(36)

Kimmerling, B. (2012). Clash of Identities: Explorations in Israeli and Palestinian Societies. New York: Columbia University Press.

Miller, J. (2000). Skyscrapers Hide The Heavens : A History Of Indian-White Relations In Canada (3rd ed.). Toronto: University Of Toronto Press.

Milloy, J. (1999). A National Crime: The Canadian Government and the Residential School System, 1879 to 1986. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.

Molavi, S. (2013). Stateless citizenship. Chicago, Il.: Haymarket Books.

Paolini, S., Harwood, J., & Rubin, M. (2010). Negative Intergroup Contact Makes Group Memberships Salient: Explaining Why Intergroup Conflict Endures. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(12), 1723-1738.

Pettigrew, T., & Tropp, L. (2006). A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783.

Rosenthal, G. (2016). We-images and collective memories in the West Bank. In G. Rosenthal, Established and Outsiders at the Same Time (pp. 17-30). Göttingen University Press.

(37)

Sasson-Levy, O. (2013). Ethnic Generations: Evolving Ethnic Perceptions among Dominant Groups. The Sociological Quarterly, 54(3), 399-423.

Schaffer, F. (2013). Ordinary Language Interviewing. In D. Yanow & P. Schwartz-Shea (Eds.), Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn (pp. 160-171). London: Routledge.

Stephan, W., & Renfro, C. (2002). The role of threat in intergroup relations. In D. Mackie & E. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social groups (pp. 191-207). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Tadmor, C., Berger, R., Brenick, A., Abu-Raiya, H., & Benatov, J. (2017). The Intergenerational Effect of Maternal Multicultural Experience on Children’s Tolerance: An Example From Palestinians and Jews in Israel. Journal Of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(9), 1342-1348.

Walther, J., Hoter, E., Ganayem, A., & Shonfeld, M. (2015). Computer-mediated communication and the reduction of prejudice: A controlled longitudinal field experiment among Jews and Arabs in Israel. Computers In Human Behavior, 52, 550-558.

Williams, R. (1947). The reduction of intergroup tensions. New York: Social Science Research Council.

(38)

Witteborn, S. (2007). The Expression of Palestinian Identity in Narratives About Personal Experiences: Implications for the Study of Narrative, Identity, and Social Interaction. Research On Language & Social Interaction, 40(2-3), 145-170.

Yuval-Davis, N. (2010). Theorizing identity: beyond the ‘us’ and ‘them’ dichotomy. Patterns Of Prejudice, 44(3), 261-280.

(39)

Appendices Appendix A: Semi Structured Question List

1) Can you tell me your name, age and profession?

2) Can you tell me about where you were born and talk to me about your family and background?

a. Do you have family members outside of the West Bank? b. Do you see them often?

3) What kind of identification do you have? (i.e. Palestinian Authority ID, Israeli Passport, Jordanian Passport)

4) Have you previously visited Jerusalem?

a. Approximately how many times in the past year? b. Do you have a permit that enables you to visit? c. What kind of permit do you have? (if applicable) d. How do you feel about your permit/paper status?

5) Generally speaking, how would you describe your experience travelling within and outside of the West Bank?

a. Do you face any obstacles when travelling? b. What kind of obstacles?

6) Do you have friends or family currently living in East Jerusalem? 7) Do you see visitors from East Jerusalem in your city?

8) To you, what is the experience of a Palestinian living in the West Bank? 9) In your view, what is the experience of a Palestinian living in East Jerusalem?

10) Speaking generally, how would you characterize your interactions with Palestinians from East Jerusalem when you see them?

a. Can you elaborate on those interactions?

11) Would you say your interactions with Palestinians in East Jerusalem differ from your interactions with Palestinians in the West Bank?

(40)

Appendix B: Interview Transcripts (English Interviews)

(S=Salah, age 20, male, M=Mohammad [Interviewer])

M: Can you tell me your name and your age?

S: My name is Salah. I am 20 years old.

M: Can you tell me about where you were born and talk to me about your family?

S: I am the first son from my parents, I was born in Nablus, Palestine in 1998. I was kind of fortunate in comparison to other Palestinians in which my background was pretty diverse. I grew up in Palestine for about 5 years, and then we moved to Rochester in New York, and during that time period my mother obtained her second masters degree, so I grew up with, I would say, a highly motivated family for education. I have two other siblings younger than I am, one was actually born in Rochester and the other was born in the same hospital as I was in Nablus. Both of my parents are Palestinian, my dad is more religious than my mother is but, uh, both are Muslim and we were raised as Muslims.

M: Is most of your family, your extended family, do they live in the West Bank or outside of the West Bank?

S: The majority of them do, only 2 family members do not. One lives in Washington, D.C., and one lives in Canada and the rest live in the West Bank. I have a pretty big family, but almost all live in the West Bank.

M: Do most family members you have in the West Bank live in Nablus or are they in different cities?

S: Yeah, usually with Palestinians or Arab families in general we tend to stay in the areas we were born in. The Masri family is predominantly in Nablus, so most of my family is in Nablus.

Ingroup attitudes and division under occupation

Ingroup Attitudes and Division Under Occupation

Table of Contents