Striving for the same without bridging the divide: unwilling to face the resemblances?
MSc Thesis S. Woudsma
S4444094
Radboud University Nijmegen Faculty of Management Sciences
MSc Human Geography Specialization in Conflicts, Territories, and Identities
Supervisor: Dr. H.W. Bomert August, 2019
Abstract
The present study was conducted to understand how mutual recognition between Israeli and Palestinians can be achieved through the process of reconciliation and what is required to set this process in motion. For that purpose, both qualitative and quantitative methods were used, whereof 225 respondents participated in a questionnaire and four participated in qualitative interviews. The target group consisted of Israeli and Palestinian citizens of different ages and socio-economic backgrounds. The results of factor analysis show that mutual recognition and living in harmony is the most crucial factor supporting the achievement of reconciliation. This is explainable, as mutual recognition is an inherent part of reconciliation itself, where their processes overlap. Other factors that are important to achieve
reconciliation are reduced anxiety toward ‘the other’ and reduced collective threat, mutual understanding of violence, and perceived equality. Limiting factors of reconciliation are limited contact between Israelis and Palestinians, lack of freedom of movement, perceived inequality, and the Israeli government due to corruption and lack of democracy. Finally, this theses discusses various methodological limitations.
Acknowledgments
This Master Thesis is the final requirement for my graduation as a Master of Science in Human Geography at the Radboud University in Nijmegen. I would like to start this thesis by taking the opportunity to thank the people who have been supporting me throughout this process.
First of all, I would like to thank Bert Bomert, who supervised me during this process. Although we did not have the chance to meet often, partly due to my internship in Jerusalem, I experienced the guidance as pleasant. Secondly, I would like to thank my friends and family, who helped me with finishing this
process, but also for the coffee breaks and endless sessions in the university library. Also, I would like to thank everyone who participated in my research and thereby helped me graduate.
Table of contents
1. Introduction ... 6
1.1. Societal Relevance ... 9
1.2. Scientific Relevance ... 11
1.3. Research Objective and Research Question ... 12
2. Literature Review and Conceptual Framework ... 14
2.1. Definition of Reconciliation ... 14
2.2. The Process of Reconciliation ... 15
2.2.1. Basic principles and stages of reconciliation ... 16
2.2.2. Conditions for reconciliation ... 17
2.3. Mutual Recognition... 21
2.4. Common Identity Development ... 23
2.4.1. Intergroup contact and social identity ... 25
2.5. Overview of Theoretical Framework and Analysis ... 27
3. Methodology ... 30
3.1. Research Design ... 30
3.2. Data Collection Method ... 31
3.2.1. Quantitative method ... 31 3.2.2. Qualitative method ... 33 3.3. Pre-test... 35 3.4. Sample Design ... 35 3.4.1. Quantitative method ... 36 3.4.2. Qualitative method ... 38
3.5. Data Analysis Strategy... 39
3.5.1. Quantitative analysis ... 39
3.5.2. Qualitative analysis ... 40
3.6. Reliability and Validity ... 41
3.6.1. Quantitative method ... 41
3.6.2. Qualitative method ... 42
3.7. Ethics ... 43
4. Results ... 44
4.1. Principal Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis ... 44
4.2. Descriptive Analysis ... 48
4.3. Pattern Analysis ... 49
4.3.2. Reduced anxiety and collective threat ... 52
4.3.3. Mutual understanding of violence ... 53
4.3.4. Equality ... 54
4.3.5. Freedom of movement ... 54
4.3.6. Limited contact... 55
4.3.7. Identity ... 56
4.3.8. Israeli leadership ... 57
5. Discussion and Conclusion ... 58
5.1. Discussion ... 58
5.2. Conclusion ... 61
5.3. Limitations and Future Research ... 63
References ... 65
Appendix I: Questionnaire ... 71
Appendix II: Factors Used for the Questionnaire ... 83
Appendix III: Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis ... 88
Appendix IV: Pearson Correlations ... 96
Appendix V: Pattern Analysis ... 103
1. Introduction
“From now on, it is not automatically Jew against Arab and Arab against Jew; it is the Jews against Arabs who support peace, and those, Jews and Arabs both, who oppose it [...] it is not Palestinians against Israelis and Israelis against Palestinians; but it is Palestinians and Israelis, who believe in the big dream, and those Israelis and Palestinians who believe
in the small hope…”
(Harevern, as cited in Dajani, 2006, pp. 40-41)
The Israel-Palestine conflict is characterized as intractable due to the perceived zero-sum
outcome by Israelis and Palestinians alike, with regard to both their own and each other’s national identity and existence (Kelman, 1999; Kupermintz & Salomon, 2005). In a study about the dynamics of this conflict, Brecher (2017) argues that this unresolved conflict “began in civilizational belief terms (Islam vs. Judaism), with the emergence of a proselytizing Islam in the seventh century. It became manifest in intercommunal terms (Jewry vs. Palestinians) in 1881, with the beginning of the Return of the Jews to the Land of Israel. It was transformed into an interstate-intrastate protracted conflict (Arab states and the Palestinians vs. Israel and Jewry) in mid-May 1948” (pp. 13-14). This intrastate/interstate conflict commenced after World War II, characterized by competing nationalism, irreconcilability, and emerging violence between Israel and Palestine (Brecher, 2017). Because both Israelis and Palestinians claim the same, namely their ‘homeland’, both demand full legitimate rights over the same territory; space has become the core of this conflict rather than religion, as was initially the case (Handel, 2009; Moaz, 2013). In this respect, after the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords, the ‘national’ character (Arab/Israeli) of this conflict changed toward a sociopolitical character (pro-peace/anti-peace) (Dajani, 2006; McVittie & Sambaraju, 2018). Besides, in the current conflict Palestinians not only include Arabs and Muslims, but Christians as well (Rekhess, 2002).
The Oslo Accords were signed by Yasser Arafat, then leader of the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO) and Yitzhak Rabin, Israeli Prime Minister (McVittie & Sambaraju, 2018). Arafat and Rabin wanted an agreement in order “to set out principles for cessation of immediate conflict and recognition of the parties’ respective positions” (McVittie & Sambaraju, 2018, p. 101). The Oslo Accords
tried to develop the relations between Israel and the Palestinians, leading up to and integrating reconciliation between them (Rekhess, 2002). However, the signing of the Oslo Accords has failed to bring peace and equality between the Palestinian minority and the Jewish majority (McVittie & Sambaraju, 2018; Rekhess, 2002). The Oslo Accords had a different effect than initially hoped for, resulting in: “[a] growing sense of neglect, marginality, exclusion and disrespect [that] engendered frustration, anger and bitterness” (Rekhess, 2002, p. 33). The Oslo Accords did not lead to a change in the attitude of the Jewish leadership toward the Arab minority population in the Palestinian territories (Rekhess, 2002).
Nevertheless, Kelman (2004) characterizes the mutual recognition between the state of Israel and the PLO “as the most important feature of the Oslo Accord” (p. 112). Mutual recognition represents the opportunity to negotiate, which touches upon the communication between the two parties.
Acknowledgment of each other’s rights is important in order to achieve mutual recognition (Turner, 2006).
Until now, Israelis and Palestinians have still not succeeded in reaching a compromise or
agreement that is more attractive or has a less unattractive fallback (Thrall, 2017). According to Hammack (2011), “the desire to geographically define the region in such a way as to exclude the aims of that rival nationalist movement, to deny the legitimacy and the possibility of Palestinian identity, would seem to reproduce a status quo of conflict, rather than to move toward peace, reconciliation and mutual recognition.” (p. 129)
However, to reach an appropriate solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, a profound societal transformation in personal attitudes is required. This societal transformation requires going beyond the scope of diplomacy, toward a development that favors the coexistence of Palestinians and Israelis (Doubilet, 2007). Moreover, this transformation requires “filtering down to the grassroots level” (Doubilet, 2007, p. 51). Peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians is necessary, considering that their relationship is seriously worsening (Halabi & Sonnenschein, 2007).
Hammack (2011) describes the most common interaction between both parties as “framed within the structural configuration of conflict and its inevitable existential insecurity” (p. 25). Identity
(Hammack, 2011). Moreover, in order to find a way to live together, it is required to develop a common and shared identity between Israelis and Palestinians (Kelman, 1987). Social interaction in the form of intergroup contact is required for the achievement of a common identity (Hewstone et al., 2008).
However, achieving peace is the ultimate goal that people strive for in order to resolve the conflict. Peace is, therefore, dependent on reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians, in addition to coexistence and cooperative relations (Kelman, 1987). According to Kelman (1987), in referring to the similarity between both parties, those outcomes are necessary “because of the nature of the land that both people claim” (p. 348). Without a framework of mutual recognition between both parties, negotiations are impossible (Kelman, 1987). In addition, identity development calls for social interaction, which is inherent to the process of reconciliation (Hammack, 2011). The process of identity reconstruction is, according to Hammack (2011), complex.
The problem is that both parties deny the legitimacy and identity of ‘the other’; thus perpetuating the conflict instead of moving toward peace (Hammack, 2011). As stated before, the process of
reconciliation contributes to the goal of reaching peace. However, in order to focus on peace building, there has to be a link between the spirit of reconciliation and sustainable peace, which both Palestinians and Israelis have desired for decades (Dajani, 2006). To achieve reconciliation, it is necessary to
accomplish “a relationship between the parties founded on mutual legitimacy” (p. 208), in order to restructure their social and political relations (Dajani, 2006). Regarding the opening quote of this thesis, Dajani (2006) argues that Palestinian and Israeli perspectives are divergent, the greatest differences lying in their beliefs, values, and interests – believing in the Big Dream desire to deny ‘the other’ and separate from them, while the Small Hope supports living together in harmony, security, and a belief in peaceful coexistence. In other words, believing in the Small Hope is essential to the process of reconciliation (Dajani, 2006).
Reconciliation signifies restoring harmony and relations between former enemies after conflict resolution, which is necessary for solving intractable and zero-sum conflicts (Bar-Siman-Tov, 2004). Furthermore, the process of reconciliation is a major contribution to peace making; it is connected to forgiveness as reconciliation can establish equality (Hamber, 2007; Murakami, 2018). Reconciliation “not only accepts the other into one’s moral community, but also establishes or reestablishes a positive,
cooperative relationship among the individuals and groups estranged by the harms they inflict on one another” (Deutsch, Coleman, & Marcus, 2011, p. 64). Therefore, reconciliation ensures the stabilization of peace relations in internal conflict by building mutual trust and providing mutual assurance (Bar-Siman-Tov, 2004). However, achieving reconciliation is, according to Bar-Siman-Tov (2004) the most difficult condition, because it calls for a deep cognitive change in beliefs, emotions, identity, and ideology.
1.1. Societal Relevance
The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is still one of the most significant conflicts worldwide and complex dilemmas the international agenda is facing (Gerner, 2018). This research is relevant because of the societal importance of the ongoing and protracted conflict in Israel and Palestine. The conflict is deep-rooted within a struggle over territory where both parties have competing claims (Stapelberg, 2016). The intractability of the conflict is not because Israelis and Palestinians have dissimilar visions, but rather because their claims coincide in many respects: the right to a state and a monopoly on victimhood (De Swarte, 2014).
The conflict is mainly characterized by the search for national identity and self-determination by Israelis and Palestinians, influenced by ‘the other’ (Gerner, 2018). Identity plays an important role in this conflict, where both parties suffer from identity issues. In case of the Palestinians, their identity has been shaped by a deep sense of victimhood and injustice. However, in light of the Holocaust and other persecutions and pogroms throughout history, the same applies to Jews. In the “discourse on the present Palestinian-Israeli conflict”, both parties consider themselves to be victims (Dajani & O’Malley, 2015, p. 4; De Swarte, 2014). Deutsch et al. (2011) argue that “the relationship between conflict and justice is
bidirectional [as] injustice breeds conflict, and destructive conflict gives rise to injustice” (p. 67).
Moreover, the core of the Israel-Palestine conflict is situated in territory and state recognition (Stapelberg, 2016). Referring to the (failed) effects of the 1993 Oslo Accords, the aim was to establish mutual
“recognition of identity and rights to existence between the two adversaries, and ultimately, conflict resolution through a two-state solution” (Stapelberg, 2016, p. 9). It is socially important to return to the intentions of the Oslo Accords, namely mutual recognition between Israelis and Palestinians (Rekhess,
2002). Reconciliation is a social process and phenomenon that is connected to daily social lives (Murakami, 2018). The results of this research might contribute to a better understanding of the implications of reconciliation, which is socially important when considering the ongoing conflict.
The battle of national claims and state power characterize the Israel-Palestine conflict, where Israel rules over Gaza and occupied West Bank through military conquest (Hajjar, 2017). Human rights violations against Palestinians result from imbalance in power, where Israel is more powerful, and controls and abuses the less powerful Palestine (Deutsch, 2008; Hajjar, 2017). On the other hand, according to Deutsch (2008), intractable conflicts even arise from imbalance of power between parties, where in this case the imbalance of power ensures this conflict stays intractable. However, Israel benefits from the Palestinian weak position, where the Palestinian Authority has limited powers in negotiations and
is institutional subordination (Hajjar, 2017). Palestinians are, according to Azoulay (2014), in this situation the visible victims, where the human rights violations date back to the creation of the State of Israel. However, the recognition of Israel by the international community has partly ensured that the Jewish Israelis are raised to accept the systematic human rights violations of Palestinians’ rights. As this seems to protect their own survival, violations become tolerated by the Israelis where they willingly join to cause these violations (Azoulay, 2014).
So, according to the above-mentioned scholars, the state of Israel is partly responsible for ongoing violation of human rights of Palestinians, where on the one hand Jewish Israeli citizens became part of this system, and on the other hand have passively accepted this neutralization of the violations (Azoulay, 2014). In his study on human rights in Israel and Palestine, Hajjar (2017) maintains that: “since there has never been an independent state of “Palestine,” Israel further argued that the Palestinian people could not be the rightful sovereigns of the West Bank and Gaza because there is nothing in international law that prescribes the recognition of sovereignty to a “non-state” or anything that demands the creation of a heretofore nonexistent state in territories seized in war.” (p. 23)
Since 1994, violations of Palestinians’ human rights have increased dramatically. This period is characterized by full-scale occupation and increasing violations (Hajjar, 2017). The ongoing inequality makes attention to this issue socially important.
1.2. Scientific Relevance
Recent literature has shown that mutual recognition is urgent, but it remains unclear how this should be reached. Much research has been done about the present situation but in general, knowledge is lacking on how particular developments concerning mutual recognition and reconciliation should be initiated and by whom. In various previous studies on reconciliation, scholars and practitioners alike have stressed the importance of achieving reconciliation. However, specific empirical and theoretical knowledge about how this framework of mutual recognition and reconciliation can be created is sparse. Given these shortcomings in the existing literature, it is relevant to focus on how such a framework can be developed. For this reason, this research is scientifically relevant, in the sense that its results might contribute to the development of new insights about reconciliation and the framework of mutual recognition.
By focusing on the process of reconciliation, this research tries to offer new perspectives and insights in this ongoing conflict. As Bar-Siman-Tov (2004) argues, interest in the concept of reconciliation has only surfaced in peace studies during the last decades. Scholars and practitioners alike uncovered that conflict resolution as such does not necessarily stabilize peace. For this reason, it is scientifically relevant to gain more and better understanding about the conditions for stabilizing peace and to offer new perspectives. Moreover, without reconciliation there is an increased risk of renewed violence or a new conflict (Bar-Siman-Tov, 2004).
Dajani and O’Malley (2015) recommend undertaking further research into “experiencing the suffering of the other” (p. 4). They did research on the impact of such experiences on feelings of empathy and reconciliation, within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Research about mutual recognition of each other’s national identity and existence, connected to reconciliation has not been conducted yet. This means that there is an obvious gap in the scientific knowledge. Regarding the process of
reconciliation, by examining the experiences of suffering of ‘the other’, this research will focus on mutual recognition to achieve “empathy, tolerance, peace, and reconciliation” (Dajani & O’Malley, 2015, p. 4). On the other hand, Huddy (2001) recommends to rather uncover the processes of identity formation and development as it is important to understand how identities are acquired. This research will explain the link between identity formation, reconciliation, and mutual recognition. Finally, given the protracted and zero-sum character of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, reconciliation is crucial in stabilizing peace
(Bar-Siman-Tov, 2004). Since in the end the intention is to achieve peace in Israel and Palestine, more scientific knowledge and attention is required. The results of this research will provide concrete suggestions for moving forward.
1.3. Research Objective and Research Question
Despite the fact that the 1993 Oslo Accords did not succeed in establishing mutual recognition between Israelis and Palestinians, this research will contribute to the process of reconciliation to which Israel and Palestine initially referred in this agreement. Until today, Israel and Palestine have not succeeded in putting the process in motion. This conflict is characterized as being deep-rooted and protracted, linked to the identity complexity. Given its intractable character, ongoing violence, and human rights violations, this conflict is still pressing. Besides, it is also pressing at an international level, as external, third powers are strongly involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Although this investigation does not aim to solve this intractable and ongoing conflict, it is socially and scientifically important to make a positive contribution to the solution of this conflict. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to fill the gap in the existing literature.
The overall objective of this research is to understand how reconciliation can be achieved and what is required to set this process in motion. In addition, this research also aims to investigate what can contribute to creating a framework of mutual recognition between Israeli and Palestinians, in which local actors from both Israel and Palestine recognize each other’s rights to national identity and existence. This research produces knowledge which might contribute to the further development and specification of the process of reconciliation. The aim of this research is to develop well-founded insights that are applicable to and can be used in the conflict between Israel and Palestine in order to bridge the wide gap between them. The central research question of this thesis is:
How and to what extent can Palestinians and Israelis develop a framework of mutual recognition of each other’s identity and existence through the process of reconciliation?
This main research question is supported by the following sub-questions:
I. What is required to accomplish reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis? II. To what extent is there a relationship between mutual recognition and the process of
reconciliation?
2. Literature Review and Conceptual Framework
The following sections address concepts and theories about reconciliation, followed by such about the requirements of mutual recognition and its relationship with the process of reconciliation. Furthermore, attention is paid to the development of a common identity. This chapter concludes with a theoretical overview and a conceptual model.
2.1. Definition of Reconciliation
Scholars of reconciliation have framed and defined the term ‘reconciliation’ in various ways. Kelman (2004) describes reconciliation as a process that stimulates the development of trust and “the transformation of the relationship toward a partnership based on reciprocity and mutual responsiveness” (p. 119). Phillips (1998) argues in addition that nations mainly focus on building trust and therefore maintaining friendly relations. Furthermore, reconciliation between individuals, in this case Israelis and Palestinians, is based on harmony and restoring friendship. This corresponds to Bar-Tal’s (2009) argument that reconciliation requires perceiving the conflict between both parties as solvable. Furthermore, it also requires that, in this case, Israelis and Palestinians should recognize each other’s legitimate needs, contentions and actions in order to develop peaceful relations (Bar-Tal, 2009). Moreover, Kelman (2004) frames reconciliation in the context of successful conflict resolution, which is going beyond characterizing changes in each other’s identity. In order to realize reconciliation, the process requires individuals to change the psychological element in the (group’s) identity, since reconciliation is seen as a psychological process that takes place between competitor groups. Although this change is understandable, it is difficult to realize, particularly in the case of an existential identity conflict. Negation of ‘the other’ is a fundamental element of one’s own identity that cannot be discarded easily; however, this does characterize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Kelman, 2004).
In his psychological analysis about reconciliation, Bar-Tal (2009) argues that this process is not necessary in every intergroup conflict. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, however, reconciliation is
applicable given its extensive violence that has lasted for a long time. When conflicts continue for a longer period of time, there is a notable accumulation of hate, preconceptions, and enmity. After a while, events
related to the conflict structure individuals’ collective memories, that change people societal beliefs. As a result, individuals from at least one generation becomes structured and socialized in the conflict
environment, without being aware of another reality (Bar-Tal, 2009). In other words, reconciliation is appropriate when parties in conflict sustain conflicting goals and oppose peaceful resolution and harmony (Bar-Tal & Bennink, 2004; Chun, 2015). Therefore, the process of reconciliation is continuous and should not be measured by its degree or existence (Chun, 2015).
Regarding the effects of reconciliation, Ross (2004) distinguishes between a weak and a strong version of reconciliation. The weak version refers to ending violence and beginning constructive relations between two or more parties, while the strong version refers to a complete transformation of relations between two nations (Chun, 2015; Ross, 2004). While definitions of reconciliation can be divergent, according to Chun (2015) they agree on the fact that the process of reconciliation is about “changing [a] hostile relationship between two nations in conflict to a friendly and harmonious one” (p. 318). Translated to this study, the process of reconciliation implies restoring harmony and relations between Israelis and Palestinians.
2.2. The Process of Reconciliation
The reconciliation process entails a major societal transformation that purposes changes in the psychological repertoire of individuals within groups. Thus, reconciliation can be perceived as a psychological process that contributes to the development of peace, which is the best way to build sustainable peaceful relations. However, this process requires a change in attitudes, beliefs, motivations, emotions, and goals about the conflict and about the relationship between the parties in conflict – in this case Israelis and Palestinians (Bar-Tal, 2009). The reconciliation process is framed and examined at several levels. The various processes are described, concluding with an aggregated form.
2.2.1. Basic principles and stages of reconciliation
Deutsch (2008) outlines six basic principles related to building harmonious relations after a destructive conflict. Although the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is still ongoing, those principles apply to this conflict, given that the process of reconciliation requires the construction of harmonious relations as well. The first principle, mutual security, refers to “mutually verifiable disarmament and arms control” (Deutsch, 2008, p. 64). Just as one’s own and ‘the other’s’ security is important, so mutual respect is important in civil society where both sides must treat ‘the other’ respectfully. On the other hand, maintaining cooperative relations is impossible without humanization of the other. Moving away from dehumanization calls for changing the perspective of ‘the other’ as the enemy. Next, Deutsch (2008) frames fair rules for managing conflict, that refer to equality among parties, and curbing the extremists on both sides as principles of
reconciliation. Gradual development of mutual trust and cooperation is the last principle that is needed for building harmonious relations (Deutsch, 2008).
Hamber (2007), on the other hand, describes three stages to reconciliation: replacing fear by nonviolent coexistence, building confidence and trust, and moving toward empathy. Although these stages are not defined in the same way as Deutsch’s (2008) basic principles, they correspond to each other. Coexistence is related to the principles of mutual security, respect, and humanizations of ‘the other’, while
development and building trust overlap as well. However, Hamber (2007) adds the influence of empathy, which has to go along with building democracy without eliminating feelings of anger, nor implying forgiveness or harmony.
Dajani and O’Malley’s (2015) interests are in experiencing the suffering of ‘the other’, focused on in what manner those experiences can influence feelings of empathy, and eventually, reconciliation. Therefore, they believe empathy is required for peace and reconciliation, which is in line with Huyse’s (2003) last stage toward reconciliation.
In conclusion, all of the above-mentioned theories apply to this study about reconciliation, considering that the theories of Deutsch (2008) and Hamber (2007) are principally in line with each other, except few added principles given by Deutsch (2008). Additionally, Dajani and O’Malley (2015) support the concept of empathy.
2.2.2. Conditions for reconciliation
In his ‘Reconciliation as Identity Change’, Kelman (2004) identifies five indicators for
reconciliation that serve as conditions for revising one’s own identity, adjusting to ‘the other’s’ identity. In other words, all of these conditions are considered to enable transformations “in the collective identities of the conflicting parties, with particular emphasis on removing the negation of the other as a key element of each group’s own identity” (Kelman, 2004, p. 124). The first condition, mutual acknowledgement of the other’s nationhood and humanity, refers to mutual recognition of the other nation. Secondly, development of a common moral basis for peace, contributes to moving beyond. Confrontation with history is the third condition, which is focused on making a transformation of ‘the other’s’ truth and history into one’s own narrative (Kelman, 2004). Acknowledgment of responsibility, refers to mutual acceptance and forgiveness of
responsibility for the wrong each party has done to ‘the other’. This condition requires mutual forgiveness of the actions of the past. This is followed by establishment of patterns and institutional mechanisms of cooperation. Although this last condition in itself cannot lead to reconciliation, cooperation can support the processes of peacebuilding and political openness (Kelman, 2004). When all those conditions are met, changes in the collective identities of both groups become possible, with an emphasis on moving away from a negation of ‘the other’ as a part of one’s own identity (Kelman, 2004). In summary, these indicators for
reconciliation are also applicable to the case of Israel/Palestine, since the principles mainly overlap with the principles described in the previous paragraph. Additionally, Kelman’s (2004) theory is of significant importance due to its focus on the transformation to collective identities, which is one of the areas of interest of this study.
Sluzki (2010) describes the path from conflict to reconciliation through six stages: confrontation, truce, collaboration, cooperation, interdependence, and integration. In his study, Sluzki examines the evolutionary process toward harmonious coexistence (integration), see Figure 1 below. In comparison to Kelman (2004), Sluzki (2010) includes, in addition, the perceived (non-)zero-sum game outcomes, emotions, and narratives in his study. Sluzki (2010) investigates a process where particular stages toward integration have to be completed, whereas Kelman (2004) reflects on the indicators for reconciliation without a specific order. Sluzki’s (2010) process purposes to move through the different phases in order to achieve non-zero-sum negotiations.
Figure 1: Process toward harmonious coexistence (Sluzki, 2010)
The first two stages, confrontation and truce, refer to the principles of a zero-sum game between both sides: whatever is gained by one side entails a corresponding loss for the other side. Confrontation is the first step, starting from a point of broken relationships and communication, with a strong
“involvement in hostilities intending to damage the other party’s life, livelihood, or well-being” (Sluzki, 2010, p. 59). Truce refers to coexistence of both parties without violence, while they still suspect bad intentions on the part of ‘the other’. Sluzki (2010) argues that with the presence of a powerful independent party the enactment of animosity is curtailed. Although at this stage parties experience zero-sum
outcomes, the emotions of humiliation and forgiveness are muted. The next two stages still assume zero-sum outcomes, but to a lesser extent; and collaboration is followed by cooperation. At the end of this road to reconciliation are interdependence and integration, including cautious and friendly trust (Sluzki, 2010). This process contributes to understanding the conflict of Israel/Palestine, as this conflict is characterized as intractable due to the perceived zero-sum outcomes (Kupermintz & Salomon, 2005). However, this study is less focused specifically on emotions and narratives, making this theory, compared to the earlier ones, less applicable to this research.
The main outcome of Gibson’s (2004) study on South Africa is that accepting reality and truth about the country’s apartheid history tends to lead to reconciliation. Understanding the past contributes to reconciliation, and to acceptance and tolerance between groups as well. Transferred to the case of
Israel/Palestine, dealing with the past refers to each other’s suffering, where Jews suffered as a result of the Holocaust and Palestinians still suffer from the current inequality in Israel and constrained freedom. On the other hand, Gibson (2004) argues that reconciliation is also depending to a substantial degree on contact, which in turn is dependent on several factors: equal statuses, common goals, intergroup
cooperation, and support from authorities, law, and custom. Mutual respect is also a fundamental element, which refers to treating people as individuals (Gibson, 2004).
Rouhana (2004) argues that the mutual processes of reconciliation mostly depend on the extent of power relations and power asymmetry between the groups. The so-called high-power group, in this case the Israelis, has lower risks and costs “in terms of threats to national identity and national narrative, political restructuring, and permanent political loss” than the low-power group, in this case the
Palestinians (Rouhana, 2004, p. 38). Moreover, the Israelis try to avoid such processes, meaning that the Palestinians have no tools to impose reconciliation, despite their interest in the process of reconciliation (Rouhana, 2004). Because of these power asymmetries, it is hard to apply reconciliation to the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict. Gibson (2004) also argues that it is hard to achieve reconciliation when groups are not able to accept the truth about the past. On the other hand, truth not only leads to reconciliation; groups that are more reconciled are also more likely to accept the truth. This causal relationship is explained in Gibson’s (2004) study on white, Asian, and colored South Africans. However, as Gibson (2004) shows, this is not applicable to every group, as acceptance of truth among black South Africans did not lead to reconciliation. On the one hand, Gibson’s (2004) theory seems applicable to the
Israel/Palestine case regarding the conflict’s characteristics, but on the other hand, it is unknown and cannot be said with certainty if this is related to Israelis and Palestinians, as Gibson’s (2004) study outcomes show this is not applicable to every group.
In his study on the relations between Japan and South Korea, Chun (2015) introduced three stages of reconciliation. The first stage, procedural reconciliation, refers to signing a peace agreement or treaty between two or more parties. The next stage, material reconciliation, refers to a more passive form, namely foreign aid and economic cooperation. The last stage, ideational reconciliation, takes places when groups are able to build sustainable relationships (Chun, 2015). However, Chun’s (2015) stages and conditions for reconciliation focus on interstate conflicts, while this research focuses on a different level, given the
intrastate/interstate characteristics of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Therefore, Chun’s (2015) theory appears to be less applicable to this study.
Hewstone et al. (2008) point to three stages of reconciliation: intergroup contact, intergroup forgiveness, and intergroup trust. The first stage explains that intergroup contact is required for the
development of a common identity between groups (shared identity). Positive interaction between group members can reduce hostility, where empathy toward ‘the other’ is also important. Intergroup forgiveness on the other hand, “transcends the past, not by forgetting past hurts and pain, but by absorbing them so that they no longer diffuse into a continuing cycle of violence” (Hewstone et al., 2008. p. 207). In other words, mutual forgiveness is important to moving beyond the past, which is necessary for reconciliation (Tam et al., 2008). Finally, intergroup trust has several positive consequences as it is the key perception in peace building (Hewstone et al., 2008). Trust is therefore a requirement for forgiveness, where both processes are in line with each other (Tam et al., 2008). This concept is in line with the previous theories, given that the components correspond to each other. Although their study is based on Northern Ireland, it is relevant to the conflict in Israel and Palestine as well, as both conflicts are characterized as intergroup conflicts.
The various approaches to reconciliation show the complexity and multiplexity of this process, which include several important factors and indicators of reconciliation. Translated to this study, these theories given by several scholars contribute to the development of a comprehensive theory regarding the key factors for the achievement of reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. The overview of this theoretical analysis will be given in one of the following sections together with mutual recognition and common identity development, which is also summarized in the conceptual model. The next section will illustrate the relationship between reconciliation and mutual recognition.
2.3. Mutual Recognition
“If we don’t live together, we’ll die together.” –
(Philpott, as cited in Baumann, 2009, p. 108)
As mentioned in the previous sections, mutual recognition is an important condition to complete the process of reconciliation (Rouhana, 2004). Bar-Tal (2009) argues that reconciliation consists of, among others, mutual recognition, which is necessary to build peaceful relations between parties in conflict. This section contributes to the outline of this research on how a framework of mutual recognition can be created.
Reconciliation is, according to Brooks (2012), an activity of mutual recognition, where people experience freedom and equality. Mutual recognition is also important for the formation of one’s own identity that must be realized through social dialogue (Schaap, 2004). In other words, mutual recognition calls for the construction of a shared identity, which includes mutual trust and respect among equals (Brooks, 2012).
Mutual recognition is inseparable from the process of reconciliation. In order to make this process successful, according to Poiares Maduro (2007), it is necessary that this process is completely presumed and supported by the political process. The role of extant alternative organizations is also important. Their ability to co-manage mutual recognition and ensure that the political process is able to recover the frequent and implicit policy issues (Poiares Maduro, 2007). As Poiares Maduro (2007) claims, in order to achieve mutual recognition, it is important for states to go beyond recognizing ‘the other’ and their norms as equal to their own. This argument is in line with Bar-Tal (2009), who believes that
reconciliation consists of (among others) mutual recognition and mutual trust.
In order to deal with the past and live together in peace, it is necessary to understand ‘the other’s understanding’ of violence. This process is two-sided and impossible without empathic understanding and recognition from both sides; therefore, “the main focus must be on mutual recognition of victimhood while acknowledging the suffering and loss on both sides” (Baumann, 2009, p. 121). So, rebuilding social relations between Israelis and Palestinians requires mutual recognition of their suffering and
understanding how ‘the other’ understands violence. In this respect, Feinstein and Dajani (2000) agree with Baumann, arguing that mutual understanding of each other’s concerns, needs and constraints is necessary; both sides must be met in order to resolve the conflict, where both parties have to understand ‘the other’s’ needs, visions, and purposes.
Kelman (1987) addresses a dilemma concerning negotiations between different groups: “How can each side enter into a process that raises the other’s hopes without raising its own fears?” (p. 358). Mutual recognition is the answer to this dilemma, where groups recognize each other’s right to national self-determination, as in this case, in the land they both claim (Kelman, 1987). Acceptance of those rights accompanies mutual recognition, which therefore positively contributes to the perception of the zero-sum characterization. In other words, the creation of a framework of mutual recognition of each other’s rights is necessary for negotiations. Furthermore, it is important that both sides feel guaranteed that their national existence is non-negotiable. Kelman’s argument is in line with Dajani (2006), who in his study brings up the three famous no’s: no conciliation, no recognition, no negotiations. Additionally, Rekhess (2002) sees the current Jewish-Arab relations as a serious reason for concern which should change; this change must include “principles of equality, tolerance, mutual respect and recognition of the legitimacy and right of every group to its own national existence, without disqualifying the existence of the other” (p. 35).
For this research, it is required to investigate the necessary factors that contribute to mutual recognition. This section has highlighted the importance of mutual recognition in the process of reconciliation, as outlined by various scholars, as well as the relevant factors. In summary, the theories described in this paragraph contribute to the understanding of the relationship between mutual
recognition and the process of reconciliation. It became clear that the process of mutual recognition has an extensive overlap with the process of reconciliation and is therefore inseparable from the latter. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the overview of this theoretical analysis will be given, summarized in the conceptual model.
2.4. Common Identity Development
“The value of identity is that it situates us in relation to an ultimate good. While our identity is partly constituted through relations of recognition, it is also partly worked out through self-interpretation and articulation.”
(Schaap, 2004, p. 526)
This quote refers to mutual recognition that forges identity and shapes the way people think of themselves. As mentioned in the introduction, common identity development is imperative in moving to reconciliation and mutual recognition between Israelis and Palestinians (Hammack, 2011). The Israel-Palestine conflict is mainly characterized by the search for national identity and self-determination, where both groups suffer from identity issues (Gerner, 2018). A threat to the collective identities results between groups that are in conflict witch each other within a society (Hammack, 2011). In his study, Hammack (2011) uses the Israel/Palestine conflict as an example of where acceptance of ‘the other’s’ groups identity and the desire for ‘national self-determination is often interpreted as necessarily invalidating the identity of ‘the other’, where both parties “desire a monopoly on political and territorial control” (p. 328). The 1993 Oslo Accords initially aimed at establishing mutual recognition of identity and existence (Stapelberg, 2016).
According to Hammack (2011), the main obstacle of this conflict is that both Israelis and Palestinians deny the legitimacy and identity of ‘the other’. Thus, the process of reconciliation requires individuals to change an element in the (group’s) identity, which is difficult to realize in this existential identity conflict (Kelman, 2004). In order to move to a common identity, social interaction and practice is required (Hammack, 2011). The development of identity is a social process, that is also formed by the narratives of history of culture (Paasi, 2003).
Kupermintz and Salomon (2005) argue that intractable conflicts, such as the one between Israel and Palestine, are deeply rooted in identity and its perceived role in the conflict. According to Kelman (1987), this perceived role of national identity structures the zero-sum assumption between both parties; “this view had led to a mutual denial of each other’s identity and right to exist and systematic efforts to delegitimize the other” (p. 347). In order to accomplish reconciliation, it is important to make a transformation in identity, so as to find a way of living together (Kelman, 1987). In addition, Brooks
(2012) argues that mutual recognition is about shared identity, whereby individuals have to construct a mutual understanding of political justice. In other words, mutual recognition is about understanding and social involvement, which therefore is important to the creation of shared identities among individuals.
Before further debating the issue of a common identity, it is important to address the differences between the construction of Israeli and Palestinian identities. In Kelman’s (1999) study about the
interdependence of Israeli and Palestinian national identities, he argues that the development of a transcendent identity is needed in order to find a long-term resolution of this conflict. Transcendent identity refers to a shared and particularistic identity between members of two different nations, in this case Israelis and Palestinians, who live and hold citizenship in two separate states (Kelman, 1999). To develop a transcendent identity, it is necessary that both groups are able and ready to distinguish state and land. This is important as Israelis and Palestinians are living in two separate states but are “destined to share the same small land and its limited resources” (Kelman, 1999, p. 587).
This process calls for an identity development for both parties, in order to achieve effective cooperation, peaceful coexistence, and eventual reconciliation between the two groups (Kelman, 1999). The nature of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians impedes this development, where negative interdependence between the two identities has been created. This threat to each other’s group identity is further exacerbating, as both sides experience ‘the other’ as something negative for its own identity, where they consider themselves as victims. However, it is important that developing a transcendent identity should not damage the respective identity of both parties, nor to be a threat to it. When people perceive ‘the other’s’ identity as a threat to their own identity, it is impossible to develop a transcendent identity between two groups (Kelman, 1999).
Conflicts are generally caused by the need for identity, security, and recognition of one’s group. In order to resolve conflicts, it is important to satisfy those basic needs on both sides. It is especially
important to satisfy the need for identity, as identity appears to be the most important need of individuals. Identity is formed through the process of social interaction and exchange with its environment (Burton, 1990). This links with Hammack (2011), who argues that social practice and interaction constructs identity. Fearon and Laitin (2000) also believe that identities are socially constructed, arguing identity refers to social categories; those categories are similar to labels that individuals give to each other. They
distinguish labels by: 1) rules of membership that have the power to decide who becomes a member of a category, and 2) sets of characteristics (such as needs, physical attributes beliefs, moral commitments) that are typical for members of a social category. Since social categories are the result of human actions and speech, it appears they are not fixed and are able to change. This means that membership rules of certain categories do not restrain identity development (Fearon & Laitin, 2000).
Summarized, it became clear that the development of a common identity between Israelis and Palestinians is important. This social process requires social interaction and practices in the form of communication, considering identities are socially constructed.
2.4.1. Intergroup contact and social identity
Contact between two groups, for instance between Palestinians and Israelis, can foster the development of a common identity and promote positive transformation from ingroup prejudice and negative attitudes toward the outgroup in a conflict (Hammack, 2011). Variables that have positive effects on intergroup contact include reduced anxiety, reduced individual and collective threat, and reduced ingroup identification. Reducing anxiety for ‘the other’ is crucial for improving intergroup relationships and positive ingroup contact (Dovidio, Gaertner & Kawakami, 2003; Pettigrew, Tropp, Wagner, & Christ, 2011). Reducing individual and collective threat is also important for intergroup contact, as negative contact (or not having contact) can appear when individuals feel threatened. Finally, reducing ingroup identification is important to ensure that group members will develop a categorization of groups. In other words, it aims to create acceptance of the outgroup and to ensure that group members ‘like’ the outgroup members as well (Pettigrew et al., 2011).
However, empathy, intergroup trust, and forgiveness have also positive influences on intergroup contact, and as it results from the previous section also for the process for reconciliation (Pettigrew et al., 2011). Finally, equal status and cooperative atmosphere also positively contribute to intergroup contact (Halabi, 2004). Equal status refers to the mutual experienced equality between two parties, and the cooperative atmosphere refers to a setting where intergroup cooperation is made possible. Summarized, certain factors
overlap intergroup contact and the process of reconciliation, and that have a (indirect) positive influence on both processes.
On the other hand, social identity refers to members of social groups, either by choice or birth, where their groups identifications form the central elements of their social identity (Postmes, Haslam, & Swaab, 2005). According to Hammack (2011): “intergroup conflict can be exacerbated when social identities are accentuated. That is, when between-group differences in social identities are emphasized in a society or between nations, the identities themselves become highly accentuated among individuals. This accentuation, in turn, contributes to the intractability of conflict.” (p. 329)
Social identity theory refers to group processes, its membership, and intergroup relations, with a focus on the relation with self-conception (Hogg, 2006). For reconciliation it is important to reduce the categorization of individuals into groups, to prevent differentiation between groups (Postmes, Haslam, & Swaab, 2005). This means that if social identity within groups is strongly emphasized, it has negative influences on the process of reconciliation.
According to Postmes, Haslam, and Swaab (2005), communication serves as the interface between individuality and social identity, which is in line with Hammack’s (2011) intergroup contact theory. Put another way, communication supports constructing a common identity among groups and contributes to reducing differences in identity (Postmes, Haslam, & Swaab, 2005).
Translated to this study, to foster the construction of a common identity between Israelis and Palestinians, intergroup contact and communication are necessary. Therefore, several factors have a positive influence on intergroup contact. These are summarized in the theoretical overview and conceptual model.
2.5. Overview of Theoretical Framework and Analysis
Figure 2: Conceptual model
This conceptual model gives an overview of the supporting factors that, resulting from the theoretical analysis, support the achievement of reconciliation. The different theories and insights are schematically illustrated, where the main concepts are displayed and summarized in Figure 2. Resulting from the theoretical analysis, it appears that several factors can support the achievement of reconciliation. First, coexistence of both parties contributes to the process of reconciliation (Sluzki, 2010). Replacing fear by nonviolent coexistence between them is a crucial factor (Hamber, 2007). Also, confrontation with history and the truth of ‘the other’ is important for the achievement of reconciliation, just as mutual respect, where both sides must treat each other respectfully (Deutsh, 2008; Kelman, 2004). Intergroup cooperation is also one of the requirements of this process, that is supported by a cooperative atmosphere and empathy between the two parties (Halabi, 2004; Gibson, 2004; Sluzki, 2010). Within this ingroup cooperation, equal status and fair rules (equality) are very important in order to manage the conflict (Deutsch, 2008; Gibson, 2004; Halabi, 2004; Rekhess, 2002). Reduced anxiety Reduced individual threat Reduced collective threat Reduced ingroup identification Freedom Intergroup contact Common identity Mutual understanding Mutual recognition Reconciliation Intergroup trust Empathy Intergroup forgiveness Coexistence Confrontation Mutual respect Intergroup cooperation Equality
Appearing from the theoretical analysis, intergroup contact is required for the development of a common identity between Israelis and Palestinians (Hewstone et al., 2008). Common identity is imperative in moving toward reconciliation and therefore toward mutual recognition as well (Hammack, 2011). In order to attain a common identity, change in both identities is required, where they have to find a way to live together (Kelman, 1987). However, intergroup contact can foster the development of a shared identity (Hammack, 2011). Intergroup contact can be fostered by the following factors (colored yellow in the conceptual model, Figure 2): reduced anxiety of ‘the other’, reduced individual and collective threat, and reduced ingroup identification (Pettigrew et al., 2011). Overall, intergroup communication between both Israelis and Palestinians supports constructing a common identity (Postmes, Haslam, & Swaab, 2005). Mutual trust, empathy for ‘the other’, and intergroup forgiveness can foster intergroup contact but also the achievement of reconciliation (see Figure 2). Building mutual trust is one of the stages to reconciliation, which has positive influences on this process (Hamber, 2007; Hewstone et al., 2008). Moving toward empathy of ‘the other’ is crucial for intergroup contact, where experience suffering for ‘the other’ has positive impact on reconciliation (Dajani, 2006; Hamber, 2007; Pettigrew et al., 2011). Therefore, intergroup forgiveness is also a major factor for both intergroup contact and reconciliation, as it transcends the past so both parties do not have to live longer in violence (Hewstone et al., 2008). Acknowledgment of
responsibility and accepting the truth about a country’s history are important to achieve (intergroup) forgiveness (Gibson, 2004; Hewstone et al., 2008; Kelman, 2004). In other words, without accepting the truth and its history it is hard to achieve reconciliation (Gibson, 2004).
Most scholars are in line with the fact that mutual recognition is crucial for the achievement of reconciliation, which therefore is inseparable from the reconciliation process (Kelman, 2004; Rouhana, 2004). In order to maintain mutual recognition, mutual acknowledgment of ‘the other’s’ nationhood and humanity is required, just as the development of a common identity between both parties (Brooks, 2012; Kelman, 2004). In addition, for the achievement of mutual recognition it is important that both recognize each other’s right to national self-determination (Kelman, 1987). Finally, both processes overlap to a certain extent, as many factors are (indirectly) required for both reconciliation and mutual recognition (see Figure 2). Mutual understanding is the last crucial factor for mutual recognition and indirect for the process
for reconciliation. Mutual understanding of ‘the other’s’ violence and that ‘the other’ has its own needs, purposes, and visions, is hereby particularly important (Baumann, 2009; Feinstein & Dajani, 2000).
Taken together, the factors that are described above (written in italics) and given in the conceptual model, are used as framework for the research methods.
3. Methodology
This research is a quantitative and qualitative study with the purpose of investigating how reconciliation can be achieved in Israel/Palestine and what is required to set this process in motion. The following chapter describes the methodology and analysis strategy of both methods used.
3.1. Research Design
This study aims to examine the requirements for reconciliation and how to build a framework of mutual recognition. In order to research how reconciliation can be achieved, a mixed method approach has been applied. The main approach is the quantitative method, which aims to explain the relationship of the variables outlined in the theoretical framework, in relation to reconciliation. The quantitative method used to collect data is an online questionnaire, directed at both Palestinians and Israelis living in the state of Israel and Palestinian territories. The quantitative data provides the extent of the relationships between variables, while qualitative data can clarify and explain those relationships (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The qualitative method, in the form of individual in-depth and semi-structured interviews, has a supporting role in this research in order to further illustrate the relationships of the variables in relation to reconciliation.
Given that both quantitative and qualitative methods are used, this combination outweighs for the limitations of each approach. In other words, due the use of triangulation, different methodologies
complement each other so they are stronger together (Young, 2007). The combination of both methods contributes to a general reflection of the study and simplifies the relationship between variables (Young, 2007). Finally, qualitative and quantitative data are in some ways virtually inseparable; good research should use both methods. Atieno (2009) also argues that “this doesn’t detract from the qualitative information” and “opens up new possibilities for interpretation that might otherwise go unutilized” (p. 17). This is in line with Young (2007), who argues that both processes are different and have different instruments of measuring, where their combinations result in new possibilities. Due this combination, the same social phenomenon is examined by different methods (Young, 2007). For this reason, qualitative and quantitative methods are combined in order to create new insights and deepen the analyzing process.
The combination of quantitative and qualitative methods was chosen so as to contribute to finding answers to the shortcomings in the existing literature. Both methods contribute to developing new insights and perspectives in reconciliation and mutual recognition among Israelis and Palestinians. The existing literature includes empirical and theoretical knowledge about the importance of achieving mutual recognition and reconciliation, albeit with a lack of clarity about the required framework of both
processes.
3.2. Data Collection Method
Respondents for this study for both quantitative and qualitive methods were reached via e-mail and through social media, as Facebook and LinkedIn. Due the sensitivity of this conflict it was chosen to reach participants ‘online’. Resulting therefrom, two respondents were reached that were interviewed in person. This online data collection ensured privacy for the participants, but also for the researcher. Also, the online data collection made the accessibility of this questionnaire better as many individuals and groups have moved online (Wright, 2005). According to Wright (2005), communicative activities that take place through this medium are still increasing, which makes it also possible to reach a significant number of respondents in a short period of time (Wright, 2005).
3.2.1. Quantitative method
The first and main approach of this research is an online questionnaire, conducted in English. A prime reason for choosing the quantitative questionnaire method is that findings of qualitative methods cannot be extended to wider populations while quantitative findings can (Atieno, 2009). Questionnaires are appropriate for studies such as this one, concerning facts, beliefs, attitudes, opinions, and behaviors investigated in this research (Rowley, 2014). This quantitative method also contributes to the large-sample analysis, including a wide diversity of questions that are required for multiple and comprehensive results (Baker, Singleton, & Veit, 2011). Therefore, questionnaires can provide more detailed information, due to the large-sample analysis. This method provides data that is collected and interpreted systematically, purposely to gain data that is required for the study’s objectives (Khalid, Abdullah, & Kumar, 2012). In
other words, this approach provides unique knowledge for a specific study, that complements the results gathered from large-sample analysis. On the other hand, surveys allow examining a wide diversity of questions and provide flexibility in terms of distribution and data analysis (Baker et al., 2011).
The Likert rating scale has been used in the main part of the questionnaire, except for the
demographic question. The five-point Likert scale includes a range of answers, from 1 ‘strongly agree’ to 5 ‘strongly disagree’. This scale ensures flexibility, an ability to obtain a summated score or value, and is also easy in its composition (Baker et al., 2011). Additionally, Likert scales are suitable for studies that focus on attitudes and behaviors. For this reason, this rating scale was used which provides participants with different lists of statements. Participants were asked to “select a response that best represents the range or degree of their answer” (Hulley, Cummings, Browner, Grady, & Newman, 2013, p. 229). Each variable consisted of one of multiple items, in order to ensure the reliability of the factor. The full list that is used as a framework for the questionnaire can be found in Appendix II.
The following elements were considered while developing the survey: acquiescence, central tendency, order of answer options and pattern answering. First, “according to the acquiescence effect, respondents have a tendency to agree rather than disagree with statements” (Baker et al., 2011, p. 42). For this reason, statements were formulated positively. Second, the notion of central tendency refers to the phenomenon where participants are reluctant to choose extreme options. A neutral alternative is added in the possible answers to the statements, which increases the validity and reliability of this research. Next, the order of answer options is determined by positioning ‘negative’ alternatives to the left, since people “are more likely to use the negative end of the scale when listing the alternatives from poor to excellent rather than the other way around” (Baker et al., 2011, p. 42). Finally, while answering, respondents are likely to choose a particular routine or pattern. This is hard to avoid but can be considered during data analysis by recognizing those patterns in the data set (Baker et al., 2011).
The questionnaire was spread using social media, specifically Facebook groups, to reach a large number of people, and the so-called snowball method to extend the network. This sampling method is thus a mix between convenience sampling, built from accessible cases of a networking site, and purposive sampling, where researchers use the network that is likely to generate the most valuable data (Rowley, 2014).
Baker et al. (2011) argue that questionnaires should satisfy four criteria: “(1) apply to everyone, (2) be relatively easy to answer, (3) be sufficiently engaging to encourage respondents to continue, and (4) be germane to the key focus of the study (connectedness)” (p. 47). This study focuses on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and therefore Israelis and Palestinians alike are included in both methods. The questionnaire was available for both groups, and questions were formulated in an understandable way for everyone. ‘Simple’ language, short and clear formulations, and no ambiguity, have all been taken into consideration. In order to encourage participants to continue the survey, a maximum of nine statements and two topics per one page were used. Finally, the questionnaire and the interviews were both adhering to the theoretical analysis, as it is important to cluster questions on the same topic, scaling technique or both. This makes it easier for participants to answer. For this reason, questions were clustered in three subjects: conditions for reconciliation and mutual recognition, intergroup contact, and social identity (Baker et al., 2011). These clusters were based on the theoretical analysis of the frequent components, illustrated in the conceptual model. Finally, the last part of the questionnaire is an open question, that includes qualitative data as well. This question was the following: ‘If you have additional thoughts or comments on this survey/research, please note them down here.’ This question gives the respondents the freedom to give any thoughts or comments, which can be important to this research. This addition to the qualitative method of this research is also analyzed according to a qualitative data analysis method, which will be explained in the following paragraph. The questions of the survey can be found in Appendix I.
3.2.2. Qualitative method
In this research, a qualitative form of data collection is used to investigate the motives, thoughts, and feelings of individual Israelis and Palestinians in addition to the main quantitative method. The interviews were used in addition to the quantitative method in order to explain the phenomena, covered by the questionnaire. Qualitative research focuses on verbal data and is of specific relevance for the study of social relations, diversity, and sub-cultures. Therefore, as in this study, it is necessary to examine subjective experiences and meanings, local knowledge, and practices from both parties to obtain different perspectives (Flick, 2009). People’s perspectives are more likely to be expressed in interviews rather than in for example observations, which is a different qualitative approach. The choice was made to use
interviews as a qualitative approach in order to reconstruct social theories (Flick, 2009). In their study on methods of data collection in qualitative research, Gill, Stewart, Treasure, and Chadwick (2008), state that “semi structured interviews consist of several key questions that help to define the areas to be explored, but also allow the interviewer or interviewee to diverge in order to pursue an idea or response in more detail” (p. 291).
Semi-structured interviews in general offer flexibility, which allow both the interviewee and interviewer to discover or elaborate on valuable information that initially may not seem important (Gill et al., 2008). During the interviews, the role and behavior of the interviewer is extremely important. The interviewer should be “flexible, objective, emphatic, persuasive” and a good listener (Fontana & Frey, as cited in Flick, 2009, p. 162). Objectivity of the interviewer is of particular importance during interviews. In light of the deep-rooted conflict and its sensitivity, it is important to prevent participants from dominating the interview, so as to establish objectivity (Flick, 2009). Interviews are structured and based on the conceptual model, including several topical areas, developed after analyzing the relevant theories that are part of the theoretical framework (Flick, 2009). The interviews were conducted in English and lasted for approximately one hour, depending on the time interviewees had available and particular circumstances such as internet connectivity (Brown, 2010).
Because of the sensitivity, individual interviews were used instead of focus groups. Focus groups would have been an interesting and a value-added method, as this method focuses on how issues are constructed among various groups and therefore also generates discussions between groups. Furthermore, those discussions might have exposed how opinions are produced among groups, how they are expressed, exchanged, and suppressed in everyday life. Focus groups might also cause diversity and difference between groups (Young, 2007). In comparison to individual interviews, group discussions might expose “views that are not correct, not socially shared or extreme” (Young, 2007, p. 197). However, because of the sensitivity and the political circumstance of this conflict, the focus group method was considered to be less suitable for this research regarding this conflict which is both intractable and long-lasting.
3.3. Pre-test
In order to examine whether the survey and the included questions and instructions were clear to participants, a pre-test was conducted. Moreover, the pre-test aimed to control whether the questions were understandable and to control the outline of the questionnaire. Pre-tests of a research instrument strengthen the validity, range, and reproducibility of a study, since a multitude of errors are removed (Hulley et al., 2013). The questionnaire was shown to five respondents, which gave new insights into possible complications the researcher was not aware of. Based on the pre-test, several modifications were made to the questionnaire. First, the amount of questions per page proved to be too long, as participants suggested that it was hard to focus. Specifically, every page had initially (approximately) 16 questions, which was reduced to a maximum of nine questions. This number of questions appears to be well-arranged and not distracting. In the demographic questions, not every question had an ‘open’ choice, which was changed after performing the pre-test. However, it appears that participants prefer to have the possibility to give free answers, especially because of complexity of this conflict. Finally, the instruction of the questionnaire on the first page was also adjusted. This instruction was curtailed and made as compact as possible, in order to avoid that participants would discontinue this questionnaire. In other words, shortening the instruction aimed to make this questionnaire appear less time-consuming and therefore, more attractive to fill in.
3.4. Sample Design
The respondents of this research are Palestinians and Israelis, who lived or have lived in the state of Israel or the Palestinian territories. Except for this requirement, no distinction was further made in age, gender, religion, socio-economic background, or other aspects. The questionnaire is the main method in this study and has therefore the largest sample size (N=225). The qualitative methods, on the other hand, has four participants, which is an additional method that supports the quantitative method.
