66. Why Is It So Difficult to Resolve the Israeli- Palestinian Conflict by Israeli Jews? A Socio- Psychological Approach

Young Children in Intractable Conflicts

“…Moreover, a specific focus in schools on changing relations with Arabs in general, and particularly with Palestinians, has been rare in the last few years. The violent encounters between Israelis and Palestinians and the hostile rhetoric of some of their leaders create a negative climate that contributes to the propagation of conflict-supporting narratives on both sides (see Magal et al, in press). This point raises the importance of examining intergroup attitudes from both groups’ perspectives (for studies among Palestinian children in this context, see, for example, Brenick et al, 2010; Edres, 2006; Nasie & Bar-Tal, 2012; Teichman, Bar-Tal, & Abdolrazeq, 2007).…”

“…In fact, they are viewed genuinely as not only contributing to the shared system of beliefs that is needed in every group, but as functional societal beliefs that enable the violent struggle for goals that are perceived as crucial and sometimes even sacred for the collective identity (Brewer, 2011; Oren & Bar-Tal, 2014; Tajfel, 1982). These themes were found to dominate the Israeli-Jewish culture of conflict that was hegemonic during the 1950s-1970s and is still dominant in many of the formal and informal institutions as well as in the channels of communications (Bar-Tal, Halperin, & Oren, 2010; Magal et al, in press). Various studies provide evidence to this observation: studies of public opinion (Oren, 2009), studies of school textbooks (Adwan, Bar-Tal, & Wexler, in press; Bar-Tal, 1998a, 1998b), official national ceremonies (Arviv-Abromovich, 2010), films (Shohat, 1989), theatrical plays (Urian, 1997), children’s literature (Cohen, 1985), youth’s newspaper (Golan, 2006), and adult literature (Ben-Ezer, 1992).…”

“…In addition, the findings showed that activation of the ethos of conflict in response to stress facilitated processing of ethos-consistent information and hindered the processing of ethos-contradictory information. Sharvit also proposed that the ethos beliefs exist in the psychological repertoires of most members of Israeli-Jewish society who have undergone socialization process in the reality of intractable conflict, whether with rightist, centrist, or leftist political orientation, even among those who have rejected the ethos beliefs and adopted alternative beliefs as a result of later learning (see also Bar-Tal et al, 2010; Magal et al, in press). Moreover, by the time Israeli Jews reach adulthood, the ethos beliefs likely have had a long history of activation and would therefore be chronically accessible.…”

“…In addition, Israeli Jews are exposed through their life to all the cues of intractable conflict because the violence with its chronic threat dominates the individual and collective life (wars, military operations, violent encounters, terror attacks, rocket attacks, rhetoric of Arab leaders, etc.). Thus, Israeli Jews are not only socialized during their young years to accept the conflict-supporting narratives, but through their entire life in Israel, they are exposed to them, they are relevant to their life, and they go through experiences and receive information that reinforce their validity (see Bar-Tal, 2007; Bar-Tal et al, 2010; Magal et al, in press).…”

“…This situation is also observed in other intractable conflicts such as in Cyprus, Sri Lanka, or Turkey. One reason for this situation, as we diagnose it, is that dominant leaders, as well as majority of the public, have remained entrenched in their societal beliefs, 1 collective narratives, 2 and ideologies that propagate adherence to the status quo, de-legitimization of the rival, glorification of the in-group, and collective self-perception as victims of the conflict (Bar-Tal, 2013; Bar-Tal, Raviv, & Arviv-Abromovich, in preparation; Kelman, 2007; Magal, Bar-Tal, & Halperin, in press). That is, their collective memory and ethos of conflict with the accompanied shared emotions serve as socio-psychological barriers to peace-making that prevent exposure or absorption of alternative information that could potentially lead toward a peace-building process (Bar-Tal & Halperin, 2011).…”