TOC | Introduction | One | Two | Three | Four | Five | Six | Seven | Eight | Nine | Ten | Eleven | Twelve | Notes | Contributors

Private Peacemaking USIP-Assisted Peacemaking Projects of Nonprofit Organizations

Working with Conflict Groups in the Middle East: The School for Peace

by Rabah Halabi

The School for Peace (SFP) is an educational center dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict. The institution is situated in the unique joint Arab-Jewish village of Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam (“Oasis for peace”). Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam is the only village in Israel established as a mutual initiative of Jews and Arabs as a model of cooperation and equal coexistence.

     The founders of Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam shared the assumption that close cooperation between the two peoples is not only historically inevitable, but can also be of mutual benefit. The effort to establish a high level of creative cooperation between the Arab and Jewish members of the community underlies their every joint endeavor and project. The foremost of these are the community’s pioneering educational facilities, including a binational and bilingual children’s educational system, and the School for Peace.

     The main work of the SFP has been to create joint activities and encounters for Jews and Arabs throughout Israel and (increasingly) from the Palestinian territories. Since its establishment, some 22,000 Arabs and Jews have participated in these activities. The participants are of different ages, and from different areas and socio-economic groups. The main and largest project of the SFP has been its youth encounter program, which brings together 16- and 17-year-old students for a four-day residential encounter workshop. Every year the program is attended by some 1,000 students. Another important initiative includes academic courses conducted in conjunction with the social psychology departmentsf the Haifa, Tel-Aviv, Ben Gurion, and Hebrew Universities. These are annual courses that examine long-term Jewish-Arab conflict group process in the light of group theory. The courses are attended by equal numbers of Arab and Jewish graduate students in the social sciences and the humanities.

     Since the inception of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the School for Peace has been working with Palestinian organizations to conduct joint activities between many target populations on both sides.

     Many other projects are also conducted, but this article will describe the professional approach upon which the SFP’s educational work is based and which sets it apart from many other organizations in Israel and abroad. Most encounters between Arabs and Jews conducted in Israel today adopt a contact or group-dynamics approach. According to this approach, the purpose of bringing the participants together is to reduce stereotypes and to create personal or social relationships. When we began our own encounter work at the SFP we also used this approach, since it was the only one available to us at the time. However, due to growing dissatisfaction with its effectiveness in our field work, over the years we developed a quite different approach to dealing with conflict groups.

     Today, in the encounter work, our main purpose is neither to bring Jews and Arabs closer together, nor to reduce stereotypes. If this happens as a result of the meeting, all well and good. However, our principal objective is to develop the social and political awareness of the participants, and to help them to identify and articulate their own position in the conflict. We enable the participants to crystallize their opinions on the conflict based on an informed understanding of the realities. In order to accomplish this we emphasize the aspect of national identity in the group work, and place the conflict at the heart of the dialogue.

     In preparing the framework of the encounter, we aim for numerical equality between the Arab and Jewish participants. Each small group, of 12 to 15 participants, is co-facilitated by an Arab and a Jew.

     For a part of the group work, the small group is further subdivided into uni-national forums. In these sessions, the participants meet only with the facilitator of their own national group.

     The deliberate emphasis on the national group aspects of the encounter guides the work and manner of intervention of the facilitator. The facilitation is based on three assumptions. First, the essence of the group work is the encounter between the two national groups, rather than between individuals. Thus the focus of the intervention is on what happens between two groups; individuals are referred to as representatives of their national group.

     Second, the small group in which the encounter takes place is seen as a microcosm of the reality outside, with all that this implies. Processes indicative of the dominance of the majority group against the perceived weakness of the minority, for instance, are regarded as representative of parallel processes in the macrocosm. Finally, the encounter does not take place in isolation from reality. There is an interaction between what happens in the group and what happens outside, so it remains necessary to relate to external influences on the group process.

     This approach to the work is difficult for participants and facilitators alike. The conflict becomes the central experience of the group process, and this creates tension, anger, and frustration. Yet this reality, and participants are exposed to it in order to cope with it. The encounter enables them to contact and rethink assumptions and positions held, but usually suppressed, in daily life. By seeing the reactions these evoke when exposed in the binational forum, and by hearing the counter-positions and experience of their counterparts, participants are better able to understand and rethink their own.

     Due to long experience with encounter work in NS/WAS, we are able to identify typical and recurring processes in the encounter between the two groups. We seek to assure that the dynamics of the group reflect Jewish-Arab relations in Israel as a whole. If so, the identification and the understanding of these may present options for the improvement of the relations between the two peoples in the future.

     The four stages of the encounter develop as follows.

     The first stage: By carefully avoiding all references to the conflict, participants are able to maintain a pleasant and polite atmosphere in their contacts with the other group. The Jewish group sets the agenda for the discussion and controls the dynamics of the encounter. This stage represents a continuation of the relations between the two peoples in day to day life.

     The second stage: The Arab group presents its experience, bringing stories of dispossession and oppression, and of the discrimination they experience today in Israeli society. At this stage the atmosphere grows tense. The good relations between the groups experienced in the first stage are now threatened. By virtue of its moral advantage as victim, the Arab group gains in strength. The Jewish group is at first able to maintain tolerance by finding rationalizations for the suffering caused to the Arabs. However, as this grows harder, it soon begins to challenge the reliability of the material brought by the Arabs, and counters it with the Jewish version of events.

     The third stage: The Jewish group raises the issue of national security. It deprecates what it describes as the inferior moral values of the Arab group. It competes with the Arab group for the position of victim, arguing that the Jews, too, are victims of historical circumstances. This stage is characterized by a depressing and gloomy atmosphere. Much anger and frustration finds release. Just remaining in the room becomes difficult. The Jewish group is actually attempting to restore its previous position of control, yet the Arab group refuses to yield. An all-out battle breaks out between the two groups. However, when the smoke begins to clear, there is the possibility that a new, more equal relationship may be established between the two groups.

     The fourth stage: The Jewish group finds itself willing to concede a portion of its former power when it feels the advantages of a greater equality in the room. It recognizes the Arabs as a national group with legitimate rights. The ensuing dialogue becomes more equal. There is an atmosphere of conciliation, permitting introspection that allows the participants to better understand the significance and motivation behind their declarations and behavior. It should be mentioned that although there is a more equal relationship in the room, the participants are keenly aware that nothing that takes place in the workshop will alter the (highly unequal) relations between the two peoples in the external reality.

     Our experience shows that the change in power relations between the groups only takes place if the Arab group expresses its national identity in a clear, decisive, and assertive way. This comes as a complete surprise to the Jewish group, which finds it very difficult to cope with the unsettlement of the status quo. In spite of this, the Jewish participants show greater respect for those Arabs who state their demands with the highest assertiveness and determination. This respect is expressed in the fact that the principal dialogue takes place between the representatives of power in the room, rather than between those who adopt positions of compromise or weakness. If, as we believe, the dynamics of the group work reflect the external reality, we may say that an essential change in Arab-Jewish relations will occur only when the Arabs are sufficiently empowered to assertively demand their rights. The majority—in the room as well as in society—will not surrender its position of strength simply on the basis of good will, generosity, or liberal ideas.

     Since the reality outside the room is unfortunately too strong to be changed simply on the basis of educational work, our primary interest in the encounters is in the changes experienced by the participants themselves. The encounter provides them the opportunity to effect a change in themselves by developing a more healthy and humane identity. In general, the Jewish group must deal with its position of dominance and suppression of the Arab group, while the Arab group must deal with its internalization of its inferior position. In order to move forward, both groups must free themselves of the identities of oppressor and oppressed.

     Despite these opportunities for change, it must be stated that among the Jewish participants there are those who reach the conclusion that although their behavior towards the Arab group is oppressive, the existing circumstances allow no alternative. Among the Arab group, there are participants (actually very few) who refuse to break free of the internalization of the oppression. However, in the majority of cases, the encounter proves highly meaningful for the participants. Though we have not adequately researched the results of this work, personal testimonies by the participants indicate that the encounters have brought them to change their lives and helped shape their social and political identities. It is our intention next year to conduct a major research evaluation that will focus on the specific question of identity change as a result of the encounter.

Challenges

     Second, our approach presents a serious challenge for our facilitation staff. As mentioned, our working method brings a release of much anger and frustration, together with manifestations of apparent extremism. I say “apparent” because the professional literature of group work identifies a stage of extremism as a necessary precursor to a positive change in identity and mutual acceptance among the participants. Although we are well aware of this, we sometimes find ourselves drawn into the despair and frustration felt by the participants. This feeling grows even stronger when we consider the dismal reality in which we live, where change, if it comes at all, may be in the wrong direction. We often feel helpless against the powers that shape this reality. Indeed, when the irresponsible act of a single person can have a stronger influence than a thousand encounters, one can begin to doubt the effectiveness of this educational work.

TOC | Introduction | One | Two | Three | Four | Five | Six | Seven | Eight | Nine | Ten | Eleven | Twelve | Notes | Contributors

Home  |  Jobs  |  FAQs   |  Contact Us  |  Directions  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map

United States Institute of Peace  --  1200 17th Street NW  -- Washington, DC 20036
(202) 457-1700 (phone)  --  (202) 429-6063 (fax)
Send Feedback