Socio-Psychological Barriers to Peace Making: The Case of the Israeli Jewish Society

Abstract

The present article describes the socio–psychological barriers that play a major role in Israeli Jewish society in the attempts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict peacefully. After presenting the general conceptual framework of the socio–psychological barriers, our analysis of Israeli Jewish society focuses on two main aspects: conflict‐supporting beliefs that provide well‐based arguments that feed the continuation of the conflict, and emotions of fear and hatred that fuel it. Despite major changes in Israeli Jewish society through the years, many of these beliefs and emotions have remained dominant and continue to obstruct possible peaceful resolution of the conflict. They inhibit penetration of new information that could aid in facilitating the development of the peace process. The article presents the obstructing beliefs and emotions in detail, relying mostly on national surveys conducted between 2000 and 2009. Finally, it discusses the implications of the presented data and proposes ways to overcome these socio–psychological barriers.

Beliefs Predicting Peace, Beliefs Predicting War: Jewish Americans and the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict

“…The growing consensus among Jewish Israelis and Jewish Americans who endorse a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict calls into question the prevalence of a zero-sum view on the conflict, in which any concession to the other side is a loss to one's own (Bar-Tal et al, 2010;Bienstock, 2010;Caspit, 2011). Nevertheless, because Maoz and McCauley's (2005) survey study of a national sample of Jewish Israelis shows that zero-sum beliefs about the conflict predict opposition to concessions, it is possible that zero-sum beliefs are important components of the worldviews of individuals who oppose compromise solutions.…”

“…On the one hand the Jewish community has long been associated with support for a liberal ethos championing social justice and human rights; on the other hand Jewish Americans' attachment to Israel exposes them to an ethos that includes a sense of victimhood and dehumanization of the outgroup, common to societies living in an intractable conflict such as Israel (Bar-Tal, Halperin, & Oren, 2010;Lerner, 2011). Although there is a great deal of diversity in Jewish Americans' level of engagement with the Jewish community, individuals who engage with mainstream Jewish institutions tend to be exposed to the Israeli hegemonic interpretation of the conflict throughout their life course; such institutions include attending Hebrew schools, participating in Jewish student organizations in college (e.g., Hillel), traveling on free Israeli government-sponsored trips to Israel (i.e., Taglit-Birthright), and participating in Friday services where events in Israel are often discussed (Habib, 2004).…”

Peace vision and its socio-emotional antecedents: The role of forgiveness, trust, and inclusive victim perceptions

“…According to Rouhana (2004), peace and reconciliation entail various risks in terms of "threats to national identity and national narrative, political 5 5 restructuring, and permanent political loss" (p. 40). To illustrate, reaching a peaceful solution may require groups to accept collective guilt for their wrongdoing, which runs counter to their members' wish to preserve a positive, moral social identity (Wohl, Branscombe, & Klar, 2006), as well as to relinquish core religious and national aspirations (Bar-Tal et al, 2010). Thus, even group members who view peace as desirable and feasible often "talk the talk" without "walking the walk" of supporting substantial compromise; this may be particularly true of members of the more powerful group, for whom the risks and costs of peace (e.g., loss of dominance) are higher than those of the less powerful group (Rouhana, 2004).…”

Human Reaction to Threat: Examining the Interplay Between Personality Dispositions and Situational Features

“…Thus, it seems that these associations are affected by cultural differences, as was documented in other responses to emotional-provoking events (see Mesquita & Frijda, 1992 for a review). We believe that these differences may be the result of the political tension in Israel (Bar-Tal et al, 2010). Israeli participants who were high in attachment avoidance were more likely to assess the risk of the situation than more secure individuals, and to share the same level of vigilance as secure people (i.e., similar sentinel-related tendencies).…”