Graduate School of Social Sciences M.Sc. Conflict Resolution and Governance
Managing Contradictions:
Civil Society in Israel
Barbara Israel Acha Reis
Supervisor: Dr Martijn Dekker
Second Reader: Dr David Laws
August 2017
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the people that have helped me through the process of writing this thesis.
I am very thankful to my family: despite the distance, they were always present to support me through the process.
Thanks to Dr Martijn Dekker for his insightful guidance and encouragement through the process. And to Dr David Laws, for paving the way through the course and for his helpful inputs.
I would like to thank all the interviewees for their collaboration and patience. Without them, this thesis would not have been possible.
I would also like to thank Thomas Hasek for his patience and help.
Last, but not least, special thanks to my fellow students and friends.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ... 4
Chapter 2: A Theoretical Framework for Analyzing Intractable Conflict ... 7
2.1) Action ... 8
2.1.1) Theory of Action: Freedom and Plurality ... 8
2.1.2) Theory of Action: Espoused Theory and Theory-‐in-‐Use ... 11
2.2) Frames, Narratives, and the impact on Collective Action ... 12
2.2.1) Beliefs, Frames, and Narratives ... 12
2.2.2) Authority of Existing Dominant Frames and Attempts to Challenge Them ... 14
2.2.3) Interpretative and Strategic Frames ... 17
2.2.4) Frames and Collective Action ... 20
2.2.5) Strategic Framing: Identity Politics ... 24
2.3) Conflict Transformation ... 26
2.3.1) Lederach’s Perspective on Conflict Transformation ... 27
2.3.2) Miall’s Perspective on Conflict Transformation ... 29
2.4) Chapter Conclusion ... 30
Chapter 3: Research Design ... 33
3.1) Methodology ... 33
3.1.1) Case Study ... 33
3.1.2) Fieldwork ... 34
3.1.3) Document Analysis: Media Content and Speeches ... 37
3.1.4) Thesis Outline ... 38
3.2) Limitations ... 38
3.3) Ethics Statement ... 39
3.4) Chapter conclusion ... 40
Chapter 4: Frames and Perceptions of the Conflict ... 41
4.1) First Dimension: Where is the intractability of the Israel-‐Palestine conflict coming from? ... 41
4.1.1) Historical Causes ... 45
4.1.2) Identity and Religion Causes ... 49
4.2) Second Dimension: Where is the Israel-‐Palestine Intractable Conflict going? ... 55
4.2.1) Practical Conflict Solution ... 56
4.2.2) Ideological Conflict Solution ... 60
4.3) Chapter Conclusion ... 62
Chapter 5: Actor’s Practices ... 66
5.1 Advocacy for System Change: Top-‐Down Approach ... 67
5.1.1) Practices: Challenges and Strategies ... 68
5.1.2) Practices: Goals and Achievements ... 71
5.2 Advocacy for Society Change: Bottom-‐up Approach ... 73
5.2.1) Practices: Challenges and Strategies ... 75
5.2.2) Practices: Goals and Achievements ... 81
5.3) Chapter Conclusion ... 83
Chapter 6: Conclusion ... 87
Bibliography ... 94
Annex: List of Interviewees ... 98
Chapter 1: Introduction
“Intractable conflicts are violent, revolve around goals viewed as existential, perceived as having a zero-‐sum nature and being irresolvable, occupy a central position in involved societies, require immense material and psychological investment, and last for at least twenty-‐five years.” (Rosler et al., 2017: 115)
The Israel-‐Palestine conflict is deep-‐rooted, long-‐standing, and intractable. It has several narratives and players, each with their own different goals. Distinct attempts at peace agreements have been made in the past, but none has been capable of stopping the violence and really ending the conflict. To achieve a durable peace, many scholars and practitioners in the field agree that a core aspect is civic engagement: civil society can play an important role in different ways and at different stages in the development of a peace process.
The need for civil society to understand the current framing of conflicts and develop practices that address these conflicts has increased, especially with the growth of nationalistic tendencies around the globe that can contribute to the escalation of conflicts. Moreover, the dominant media and international press coverage tend to present conflicts through headline stories that reaffirm polarizing frames and neglect the nuances that might provide the basis for transformation. My aim in this thesis is to address this feature in the Israel-‐Palestine conflict by exploring the diversity and complexity with which the conflict is framed and addressed by Israeli-‐Jewish civil society organizations that seek to address it.
Civil society itself is a contested concept. Here I work from the definition of civil society as “the sector of voluntary action within institutional forms that are distinct from those of the state, family, and market, keeping in mind that in practice the boundaries between these sectors are often complex and blurred” (Paffenholz and Spurk, 2006). I focus on three categories of civil society: (a) actors in Non-‐ Governmental Organizations; (b) actors in Think Tanks; and (c) actors and activists in Civil Movements.
In Israel there are over sixty1 civil society organizations that work directly with or close to the conflict with the Arab-‐Palestinians. They contribute to advances in the social, cultural, and political fields and are active in proposing different approaches to the conflict. I borrow the term used by Gamson (1995) and refer to the individuals that form these organizations as challengers because they challenge the dominant framing of the conflict and, at the same time, seek to challenge the status quo of constant conflict. These individuals form what I call the “challengers movement”: a social movement within the Israeli-‐Jewish civil society.
Despite the wealth of research on civil society, I believe that we know very little about the individuals who work within these categories in Israel. This contributes to a limited awareness of the complex views that characterize Israeli-‐ Jewish civil society, especially when it comes to addressing and acting on the conflict with Palestine. Few studies have sought to grasp the perspectives on the conflict held by civil society organizations, considered the characteristics and patterns of operations within the organizations that make up civil society, or sought to understand their complexity. The lack of up-‐to-‐date empirical work on Israeli-‐Jewish civil society framing and practices towards the conflict hinders the ability of actors outside this sector to understand what role these organizations are playing—and can play—in the conflict. The individuals who work in civil society organizations have views that differ in significant ways from the broad state-‐centered and media narratives, which is puzzling. By studying their perspective and actions, I aim to provide a view of the complexity with which the conflict is understood and addressed within Israel and thus to take an initial step towards remedying the empirical gap.
The study focused on agency exercised at the micro-‐level in order to obtain new insights into the macro: the conflict. The data collected in the study is based on a civil society niche within the three categories mentioned above, whose work relates to the conflict. The unit of analysis of the research comprises individuals but also relates to the organizations and movements they belong to. The objective is to gain insights into the perceptions of individuals addressing the conflict within Israeli-‐
1 Just on the NGO monitor website, there are reports of 58 NGOs based in Israel, although the
Jewish civil society – encompassing their framing of the conflict, their efforts to change the status quo, through their practices and strategies – and to find out if these features together might be compatible with the concept of conflict
transformation. I seek to understand how individuals make sense of the conflict in
action, and also in their effort to give meaning to it.
It is important to note that the focus is not on the different groups within Israel, but on one group engaged with the conflict. I focus on individuals within Israeli-‐Jewish civil society who are shown to share common elements but who have contrasting components in their perspectives and actions. The story presented is mainly about these contradictions. This thesis does not aim to solve these inconsistencies, but to uncover and analyze them in order to promote a better understanding of a feature of the conflict. Similar work could be done in the Arab-‐ Palestinian civil society niche.
I use three strains of theory to analyze the empirical findings from my research: theory of action, framing, and conflict transformation. The aim of this thesis is to answer the following question: How do individuals within peace-‐oriented organizations in Israel frame and address the conflict with the Palestinians?
The thesis is organized as follows. Chapter 2 presents the theoretical framework used to make sense of the findings in conceptual terms and delineate specific sub questions: action, framing, and conflict transformation. Chapter 3 presents the research design that I employed to obtain the data that addresses the research question. This includes the case study criteria, document analysis, and fieldwork methods, along with ethical aspects and limitations. In Chapters 4 and 5, findings and analysis of the research are described, analyzed, and discussed. In this process, they are linked to the literature presented in Chapter 2. Finally, Chapter 6 presents the conclusion together with a summary of the findings, as well as a brief discussion of implications and recommendations for further research.
Chapter 2: A Theoretical Framework for Analyzing Intractable Conflict
This chapter outlines the theoretical conceptual principles that I use as tools to analyze the findings: theory of action, framing, and conflict transformation. I have chosen these theories because they help one to understand the conflict situation from the civil society perspective, to explore the case featured in this study and to analyze the intractable Israel-‐Palestine conflict. The concepts are linked throughout the thesis, melding together with the empirical findings. They also draw the boundaries for the analysis.
In order to answer the research question posed in this thesis, I first present the concept of action. The theory of action is helpful in analyzing the practices of the individuals within Israeli-‐Jewish civil society. As Arendt (1958) argues, speech and language are necessary to give meaning to action, linking them to freedom and plurality, and showing the action connection to framing: Who the individuals within Israeli-‐Jewish civil society are is revealed through their speech.
The data collected for this research is examined through two other theories of action, “espoused theory” and “theory-‐in-‐use” (Argyris and Schon, 1996). The design of these two theories is also helpful to articulate a conception of the individuals’ speech and the individuals’ practices and to show which questions of goals, strategies, and achievements can be addressed and analyzed in a detailed manner.
Afterwards, I present the concept of framing. The theory of action is intertwined with framing theory: the frames the individuals’ use to address the conflict is the theory they espouse. As the individuals interviewed are classified as
challengers, a framing theory is helpful in making sense of the individuals’ speech
and understanding what they are challenging.
The intractability of the Israel-‐Palestine conflict is based on perception, and understanding the perceptions of the individuals within the Israeli-‐Jewish civil society is key, because it guides their actions. Therefore, a framing theory provides insights for the analysis of the reasoning behind the individuals’ actions. Framing is also used to analyze and understand the story the interviewees want to tell about the conflict, and how they come to be classified as challengers of the status quo.
I present some of the key components of the framing theory, such as interpretative and strategic framing, examine the links between the advantage of dominant frame and the difficulties of challenging this dominance, and show the connection between framing and social movements and the importance of the relation between identity collective politics and framing.
Lastly, I look into conflict transformation theory. Since the individuals within Israeli-‐Jewish civil society compose the challengers’ movement, their actions have a positive orientation towards the conflict that can be classified as a transformational perspective, one that aims to challenge the status quo and transform the conflict. Conflict transformation theory is the actual espouse theory of individuals but is also useful as a counterpoint to their practices and for analyzing their theory-‐in-‐use, which allows me to answer the research question, on how the individuals within Israeli-‐Jewish civil society are addressing the conflict.
2.1) Action
In order to understand the actions of individuals within Israeli-‐Jewish civil society regarding the intractable conflict with the Palestinians, one must consider the link between speech and action and the specific features of how the interviewees reveal themselves. The concept of action is presented here in two ways: first, I present Arendt’s (1958) theory of action and its central features; and then I present the theory in action in two forms, “espouse theory” and “theory-‐in-‐use,” (Argyris and Schon, 1996) including the relation it has with frame analysis.
2.1.1) Theory of Action: Freedom and Plurality
“To act, in its most general sense, means to take an initiative, to begin […] to set something into motion. […] It is in the nature of beginning that something new is started. […] The fact that man is capable of action means that the unexpected can be expected from him.” (Arendt, 1958: 177-‐178)
According to Arendt (1958), freedom and plurality are the two central features of action, where freedom is the ability to begin and do the unexpected. To begin
something new cannot happen in isolation: action requires a “space of appearance2 which is the public realm” (Idem: 220), and that is plurality. Components of plurality are equality and distinction, from which it is possible to understand that each individual can act and relate to others in unique ways. This feature is especially interesting for the analysis of the data collected in this thesis, because the individuals within Israeli-‐Jewish civil society distinguish themselves from each other while being equals, because they share values and the collective Jewish identity: there is a plurality among equals. Action is also related to speech and is sustained by communication:
“Without the accompaniment of speech, at any rate, action would not only lose its revelatory character, but, and by the same token, it would lose its subject, as it were; not acting men but performing robots would achieve what, humanely speaking, would remain incomprehensible.” (Idem: 178)
According to Arendt (1958), speech is necessary to identify agency in action. Individuals’ identities, the “who,” is revealed through speech. If this revelation does not happen, the meaning and relevance of action are lost. Without the stories, without the speech and language, there would be no justification for the individuals’ actions in addressing the conflict with the Palestinians.
All action happens in a “web of human relationships” (Idem: 183), and it is not possible to know in advance how the beginning of something and the meaning of it will be perceived, because they happen in an existing web. So the stories – the narratives – are told by others and not by the perpetrators of the action themselves (Arendt, 1958: 184). In short, the meaning of one’s actions depends on others that narrate and frame the story.
These story narratives need audiences, as pointed out by Jasper (2004). It is the audience that holds the memories and also tells the stories. And these audiences
2 As Arendt (1958) defines, the space of appearance is “where I appear to others as others appear to
me, where men exist not merely like other living or inanimate things, but to make their appearance explicitly.” (Arendt, 1958: 198-‐199)
are the ones that frame the stories and narrate them in a certain way, relating to the concepts of framing: everyone has the ability to narrate and to frame the events. Arendt (1958) also points out that the capacity to act entails power, which is based on persuasion. Arendt’s (1958) concept of power can be directly linked to the authority of existing dominant frames (Hajer and Laws, 2006) because, as she points out, power is a product of action and only exists in actualization, just like dominant frames:
“Power is actualized only where word and deed have not parted company, where words are not empty and deeds not brutal, where words are not used to veil intentions but to disclose realities, and deeds are not used to violate and destroy but to establish relations and create new realities. Power is what keeps the public realm, the potential space of appearance between acting and speaking men, in existence.” (Arendt, 1958: 200)
Interestingly, Arendt (1958) says that the limitation of power is other people. This is not accidental because power is conditioned to plurality. So this can be paired to the following: the limitation of the dominance of a existing frame is the existence of challengers – “other people” – that defy the existing ideas and want to narrate the story in a different way. The relationship between the dominant frame and the way the interviewees, the challengers, defy this dominance and this power is analyzed in this thesis.
And lastly, there are two other features of action: unpredictability and irreversibility (Ibid.). With regard to unpredictability, Arendt (1958) mentions that the full meaning of an act can only be revealed when the action has ended, and no actor can predict the outcomes or control the consequences. And irreversibility means that no action can be undone; it happens in a web of human relationships, and the reactions to an action cannot be reversed. It should be noted that Arendt (1958) proposes a remedy to these features through the ability to forgive and promise: they mitigate the irreversibility and attempt to predict action.
2.1.2) Theory of Action: Espoused Theory and Theory-‐in-‐Use
Coupled to Arendt’s (1958) theory of action, Argyris and Schon (1996) define “theories of action” as “values that govern the choice of strategies and the assumptions on which they are based” (Idem: 13). The “theories of action” have two forms: “espoused theory,” which is used to explain an action or activity, and “theory-‐ in-‐use,” which is the performance of such action or activity (Ibid.).
These two forms of theory have practical implications for this analysis. They are used to analyze the speech and the practice of the individuals within Israeli-‐ Jewish civil society. It is important to understand the individuals’ frames of the conflict and how they act on these frames.
Argyris (1976) argues that “theory-‐in-‐use” has two components: the first is values that people try to satisfy – he calls it “governing variables” (Idem: 44); and the second is “behavioral strategies” (Ibid.).
According to Argyris (1976), one’s espoused theory does not always match one’s theory-‐in-‐use in that one’s discourse may not necessarily be reflected in one’s actions. He argues that usually the theory people espouse is not the same as the one they use, because they are usually blind in this respect. People are “programmed” to theories in use, which prevents them from reflecting on their actions.
These concepts are important for analyzing the individuals’ practices in this thesis. The interviewees’ espoused theory is two-‐fold: to challenge the dominant frame of the Israel-‐Palestine conflict and to transform the conflict. This is presented in detail in the findings chapters. The interviewees’ discourse is that they frame the conflict in a different way than the dominant narrative in place, and, in doing so, they transform the conflict. But it is important to also analyze whether their theory-‐ in-‐use (their practices) actually challenges the status quo and transforms the conflict: whether their theory-‐in-‐use and their espoused theory are the same or not.
One interesting way of ascertaining whether these theories are in agreement with each other is through “reflection-‐in-‐action” as described by Schon (1983). A type of reflection is frame analysis, which has great relevance to practitioners’ actions: “Their frames determine their strategies of attention and thereby set the directions in which they will try to change the situation, the values which will shape their practice” (Idem: 309).
To reflect on actions of the individuals within Israeli-‐Jewish civil society, their theories of action are analyzed and presented in the form of “espoused theory” – the frames they use in their discourse and the conflict transformation prospect – and then in the form of theory-‐in-‐use – their practices as a form of transforming the conflict and challenging the status quo. Next, the framing theory and the academic features of conflict transformation theory are presented. The theory in action is a common reference point linking them for the analysis of the individuals’ speech and practices.
2.2) Frames, Narratives, and the impact on Collective Action
In seeking to explain how the Israel-‐Palestine conflict is understood and portrayed by the individuals within Israeli-‐Jewish civil society, the concept of framing offers important insights as a social production and a non-‐structural factor (Hajer and Laws, 2006). Distinct frames arise as different parties attribute other meanings to the same set of events; there are different patterns of interpretation of the facts.
Framing is political. Analyzing the different frames used to address and define the Israel-‐Palestine conflict offer significant insights in the way different people interpret the conflict and, therefore, how they act towards it. The individuals interviewed for this thesis seem to challenge dominant existent frame about the Israel-‐Palestine conflict and to reframe them. Even though reframing will not end the intractability of a conflict, the awareness of the different frames can influence the conflict, helping individuals to understand it and to find new solutions for it.
An additional relevant feature of this research is the connection of framing and collective identity in the context of a movement, as the individuals interviewed compose what I have earlier defined as the challengers’ movement – how framing certain aspects of collective identity influences the action of challenging the existing frame of the narratives in the conflict and how they influence the actions taken towards the conflict.
2.2.1) Beliefs, Frames, and Narratives
One of the factors that shape the intractability of the Israel-‐Palestine conflict is the relation between frames and action. The existing frames regarding the conflict
analysis of this thesis is the individuals within Israeli-‐Jewish civil society, but the analysis encompasses the organizations where these individuals operate. The individuals shape and are shaped by the structure they are in – they limit and are limited by it as well. There is an interrelation between the individuals’ goals and the objectives of where they are inserted (NGOs, think tanks and social movements). The analysis in this thesis is done as argued by Hajer and Laws (2006), focusing on individuals and institutions.
Each group has ways of “making sense” of the facts, where individuals perform and position in relation to a situation. This entails three aspects: beliefs, frames, and narratives (or discourse). Understanding the distinction and the relation between these aspects is the key to understanding and analyzing the conflict.
Beliefs are what people use to find their preferred explanations for events, according to a set of values that encompass individual and collective identities (Ibid.). The group of individuals analyzed in this thesis are part of the Israeli-‐Jewish civil society, and even though they have the same collective values – association to a Jewish identity and Zionists, for example – there is a plurality of beliefs among the individuals interviewed, a plurality of “sense making” of events within this collective, which is a strong point of analysis.
Frames center around language, which “highlights the communicative character of ordering devices that connects particular utterances (a speech, a policy text) to individual consciousness and social action” (Idem: 256). Frames are “recognized and active in the relationship between facts, values, and action.” (Idem: 258). Frames are tied to beliefs, and this research explores the interplay between them and how people apply them regarding the Israel-‐Palestine conflict. The way certain aspects of the conflict are framed and believed to be true by the majority of people and politicians influence the way they address and see the conflict. It also influences the measures being taken towards it – from government, civil society, international system, etc. – which contributes to the intractability of the conflict.
This thesis reveals how the individuals within the Israeli-‐Jewish civil society are disturbing the status quo and the general beliefs regarding the conflict, responding to the existing frame, challenging it.
In addition, Hajer and Laws (2006) claim that frames operate between belief and doubt – taking into account experiences – to guide actions. Frames are a structure and a boundary in that they provide interpretation of events and problem identification (Ibid.).
And narratives are a way of story telling; they are adaptable to challenges. Discourses are “patterns in the social life, which not only guide discussions but are institutionalized in particular practices” (Idem: 261).
There is a distinction between these three aspects (beliefs, frames, and narratives), but their interaction is the underlying condition to understand how civil society in Israel perceives and addresses the conflict with the Palestinians. Through the narration of events, framing happens, according to a set of beliefs – which locates and positions groups of people in different places within the Israeli society. The interaction of the three aspects and where the individuals interviewed are positioned is embedded in a larger context. Each aspect reveals interesting features that guide actions. The analysis demonstrates the existence of a plurality of voices in the Israeli-‐Jewish civil society.
Framing is an ongoing process and it happens in Arendt’s (1958) web of human relationships, where other framing processes are happening at the same time. I will now present the concept of existing dominant frame and how individuals challenge it.
2.2.2) Authority of Existing Dominant Frames and Attempts to Challenge Them In Arendt’s (1958) “space of appearance” and existing “web of human relationships,” there are structural existential frames that provide reason and sense making of the world to people. Existential frames are a structure that provides certain stability and guidance to individuals on how to behave, without which there would be chaos. In the case features in this thesis, the structure is the intractable conflict between Israel and Palestine. There is no existential doubt about its existence.
But if something exists, it can be questioned, doubted, and challenged. And framing is an ongoing process, where agency is key; it is something that requires
active engagement of people. Framing in the “space of appearance” (Arendt, 1958) is a continuous process, and in the case of the conflict situation, framing is political:
“Yet framing is an inevitable part of politics […] Frames make up the cognitive structures with which people can understand issues, form preferences, and share a common set of references for discussing them with others. Frames are inevitable.” (Calvert and Warren, 2014:2)
In the existing “web of human relationships” (Arendt, 1958), there are existential frames that are dominant, as Hajer and Laws (2006) highlight. In the case presented, the dominant existing frame has hegemony on how people interpret and see the Israel-‐Palestine conflict.
“A dominant frame is one that functions to produce a pre-‐deliberative consensus, usually defining a problem as being solely of one type, or admitting only one possible solution. Regardless of the particular topic, dominant frames work primarily by committing people to a range of associated claims, and excluding alternative considerations or unfamiliar solutions.” (Calvert and Warren, 2014: 8-‐9)
The dominant frame maintain the sense of the world and how the majority understands facts and values, and it has an authority on shaping people’s views (Hajer and Laws, 2006). Dominant frame also has an advantage because it is more readily available and is sustained by the members of the society and by the politicians, offering explanations for events and ways to cope with the circumstances of the conflict in a way that they perceive as reasonable: it is a habit (Ibid.). Therefore, the existing frames in place “sustain belief: better to accept the dominant framing than to open up a settled question to doubt” (Idem: 258). They are embedded in society, embedded in peoples’ routines, and endured in their experiences. In the analysis chapters of this thesis, I will demonstrate what some aspects of the dominant existing frame about the Israel-‐Palestine conflict are, and
how they contribute to the intractability of the conflict, because the existing frame can sometimes be an impediment to achieving new goals (Shmueli et al., 2006).
There is a struggle between dominant existing frame and challengers (Gamson, 1995): “To change, or even to reflect on a frame then is to work against habit and further marginalize the already provisional stability beliefs provide” (Hajer and Laws, 2006: 259). Thus, those that attempt to challenge the dominant and existing frame to bring another perspective face a lot of resistance, because it goes against the common pattern in society. The analysis of this thesis will also demonstrate how the individuals within the Israeli-‐Jewish civil society challenge the existing dominant frame of the conflict, pairing this challenging as these individuals’ espoused theory (Argyris and Schon, 1996).
Shmueli et al. (2006) also argue that existing frames—and dominant ones— can “contribute to escalation and polarization, thereby impeding productive change” (Ibid: 6). Therefore, reframing aims to:
1) Clarify perceptions of issues in dispute. In this case, expand the issues of the Israel-‐Palestine conflict that are being discussed as causes of the conflict and causes impeding a resolution.
2) Adjust the groups’ interests and actions. In this case, identify what the significance of certain issues for the parties is and how to act towards them – so as to answer what the main concerns of each side of the conflict are.
3) Identify contested and divergent themes, so that opportunities and common goals can be bridged. For example, identify what is holding back a peace agreement.
4) Identify areas where there is fundamental disagreement between the groups, so they can be respected.
These aspects are demonstrated throughout the findings, coming into play when the individuals within Israeli-‐Jewish civil society challenge the hegemony of dominant and polarizing frame, opening up space to debate the issues mentioned above.
The challengers usually challenge the existing frame of the conflict in a strategic way. They do so in pursuit of a goal. Strategic framing follows from the
demonstrated in the findings section, is employed by the individuals interviewed (the challengers), in an attempt to achieve their goal of changing the status quo of the conflict and to appeal to members of the public and government to actively engage in the conflict, linking it to a common ideal and claims of a peaceful future without conflict.
2.2.3) Interpretative and Strategic Frames
Referring to Kaufman and Smith (1999), Shmueli et al. (2006), argue that actors – or disputants/challengers – can use the frames interpretively or strategically; they can give more significance to some aspects and downplay others, although the lines of strategic and interpretative action are blurred (Hajer and Laws, 2006: 258).
“As interpretive lenses, frames help us make sense of complex situations in ways internally consistent with our world views, giving meaning to events in the context of life experience and understandings. As strategic tools, frames help rationalize self-‐interest, persuade broader audiences, build coalitions, or promote preferred outcomes.” (Shmueli et al., 2006: 1)
Interpretative frames bring clarity to complex situations, simplifying them in a selective way. But frames in a communicative context, where the intention is to convince others, are strategic: individuals pose frames in a way to attain their goals – in the case of this thesis, the goals of individuals within the Israeli-‐Jewish civil society.
Shmueli et al. (2006) argue that frames are linked to meanings (being crucial to negotiations). But again, reframing is difficult because it requires some risks from those attempting to do it – because of the authority of existing dominant frame (Hajer and Laws, 2006), as mentioned above.
To be able to achieve this capacity of reframing, Shmueli et al. (2006) list a number of techniques for reframing in intractable conflicts. These techniques are missing in the broad dominant approaches and frames regarding the conflict, but can be identified as present in the practices and theory-‐in-‐use of the individuals within the Israeli-‐Jewish civil society interviewed for this thesis. These techniques are
important as strategies when analyzing the individuals’ practices and actions regarding the conflict with the Palestinians.
The techniques are as following. First, there are the processes to reduce tension and escalatory cycles through “active listening around specific disputing parties” (Idem: 7). In this case, the disputing parties are the Israelis and Palestinians. Second, there are the story and narratives processes, where one party of the conflict can listen to the perspective of the other party. In this case, there are some NGOs that promote activities where Israelis are listening and learning about Palestinians’ narratives, and vice versa. And thirdly, there are the processes of seeking common ground and areas of agreement between the parties involved in the conflict – again, between Israelis and Palestinians.
These three techniques are present in the practices of the individuals’ interviewed. The first two are mainly strategies used by those whose goals are to promote change in the society (bottom-‐up approach), and the latter is present in those whose goals is to promote change in the government (top-‐down approach).
Focusing on the need to understand strategic choices – of individuals and of organizations – as the foundation of political action, Jasper (2004) argues that the “strategic field” (Idem: 5) is composed of several entities. The entities that he delineates provide a setting of the field and the context within which strategic choices are made. Jasper (2004) enumerates as follows:
1) Simple (individuals) and complex (groups) players, who have different loyalties that encompass individual interests and other entities. In the case presented in this thesis, simple players are the individuals’ interviewed, and complex players are the organizations they are inserted in (NGOs, think tanks, social movements).
2) The players have different goals – in the case presented, the general one is to change the status quo and transform the conflict. But goals are unstable, and a set of actions to attain those goals happens at the same time. For example, there are individuals’ who work in organizations whose goal is to influence public policies, and whose aims are to change Israeli government’s actions towards the conflict, in a more political way. While there are individuals that work in organizations whose
organize events for these kids to interact with each other through sports in a non-‐ political way. So their strategies to achieve those goals will differ, because the very nature of the specific goals differs.
3) Arenas, which is where action happens. As will be presented in the findings sections of this thesis, there are the formal and informal contexts where the individuals’ act towards their goals. In the example above, those whose goals are to influence the government act in formal arenas. In the same example, those individuals’ whose activities center around sport activities for youth work in informal arenas. And one relates to the other: “An outcome in one arena is sometimes only a starting point for action in another” (Idem: 5). If the individual whose work is directed towards public policy achieves a goal in the formal arena, the result can resonate in the activities of the individuals’ that work with youth in the informal arena.
4) Resources and skills that players employ. Jasper (2004) defines resources as “physical capacities” (Ibid.), such as money and technology and how it can reflect in the actions. An example of these features is that some of the civil society organizations have international funding, being able to hire professional staff to address their activities, while other organizations operate mainly depending on volunteers. And, of course, these factors have influence on the strategies these two will use.
5) Positions in the Arena are also important when it comes to the strategic choices. Some individuals are in prestigious positions, having more access to government decision-‐makes, being able to influence on governmental decisions, while others are not. Therefore, the strategies used by the individuals also depend on the position they occupy.
6) Audience, for the players’ actions, that can be internal or external. The strategies employed are according to which public one aims to reach— if it is within the civil society or outside of it.
For example, individuals within think tanks act in a different arena, have different resources, and are positioned in a different place than those individuals within an NGO or a social movement. The relevance of those entities relies on providing the context where the individuals interviewed are inserted and where the
challenging of the existing dominant frame takes place. It is possible to recognize factors that influence their actions and strategic choices.
In choosing which action to take, individuals face several dilemmas. The individuals respond to those dilemmas considering the context elements presented above. The responses will differ from individual to individual. As in how they choose to address challenges posed to their work, for example (I will explain in more details in Chapter 5), in most cases—if not all, the individuals reported facing the challenge of lack of interest of people in addressing the conflict. How they try to respond to these challenges differs. Individuals in think tanks do it by organizing workshops and seminars – this is because their goals are to influence government policies. Think tanks are composed of people with professional skills, people who have access to economic resources, operate in a formal arena, have a prestigious position, and target a certain type of audience (mainly politicians). And those individuals that operate in social movements do so through marches and demonstrations; this is because their goal is to influence the general public’s perception of the conflict. Social movements are mainly composed of volunteers, whose skills are their willingness to change, but are people that come from a variety of professional fields; they have limited access to economic resources and they operate in an informal
arena. Their position is somewhat in the margin of the society, because they often
cause disturbance in the society and the audience they target consists of general members of the public, those who are external to the social movements.
It is interesting to examine and compare these choices and what they mean, even though the individuals have distinct entities. It is possible to draw similarities, explain actions, and identify the effects and contradictions; these are also explored in detail in the findings section.
The general idea behind strategic framing is to obtain a specific goal. The strategy and goals of the individuals within Israeli-‐Jewish civil society are closely related to collective action that is explored next.
2.2.4) Frames and Collective Action
Continuing with the idea that frame analysis is key to obtaining a deeper knowledge about the conflict, and considering that the focus of this study is the individuals that
compose the challengers’ movement within the Israeli-‐Jewish civil society, it is relevant to lay out the relationship between framing and collective action. Since the strength that challengers aim to have is to weaken the hegemonic power of the dominant frame and change the general perception of the Israel-‐Palestine conflict, this can be done through collective action.
According to Benford and Snow (2000), social movements utilize collective-‐
action frames as a way to give significance to events in a political way: “This denotes
active, processual phenomenon that implies agency and contention at the level of reality construction” (Idem: 614). The authors also defend frames as a way to “guide action” (Ibid.), legitimizing activities and creating or reaffirming beliefs. The challengers’ movement frame the conflict in a political way, and grasping the interpretation of events provides significance to their actions.
According to Benford and Snow (2000), framing fulfills some tasks in social movements. They describe three components of “core-‐framing tasks” processes (Idem: 615-‐618): diagnostic (focus on blame and responsibility – identification of sources of a problem – where the problem is); prognostic (propose solutions to a problem, usually refuting propositions of opponents: counter framing – what should be done about the problem); and motivational (call for action through agency – who should act and why one should act). These are specific features that I use to analyze the frames.
These core framing processes are linked to existing dominant frame, especially because the dominant frame about the conflict usually have a diagnostic character: it narrates a story of the conflict focusing on who to blame, contributing to intractability of the conflict. While reframing by the individuals interviewed usually has a prognostic character (mainly individuals within think tanks), because they propose solutions – how changes in the governmental policies can help solve and/or mitigate the problems with the Palestinians. The reframing by the interviewees also has a motivational character, focusing on who has the responsibility to act towards the conflict situation – usually the individuals believe that actions to find a solution for the conflict should come from the government – and why people (and here they mean everyone – government and society) should act to change the conflict situation, because the conflict affects everyone daily lives.
