-
Introduction
- State University of New York Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Introduction If asked, many people are likely to say that dialogue is good. It has been linked to "motherhood and apple pie," something which no one would publicly reject. (GordonzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaWVUTSRQPONML 8c Gordon, 1991:2) Attempts to establish dialogue and communication between conflicting parties are usually welcomed regardless of their content, structure, motivation, or outcome. Those who oppose these attempts are usually labeled "radicals" or "fanatics." Nevertheless, the assumption of this study is that there should be no immediate, naive acceptance or warm welcome of every dialogue setting. Thus, the following research is an in-depth examination of intergroup intervention programs whose aims are to promote peace through communication and dialogue. The conflict resolution framework utilized in the study focuses on the analysis and criticism of the parties' existing power relationship. In some divided societies such attempts to bring conflicting groups into encounter proceed without either interference or support. In others, they are encouraged by the regimes since their main assumption is nonviolence and communication, which is less threatening to the ruling regimes than demonstrating and organizing or other protest actions. These initiatives of encountering adversarial parties are usually considered to be an integral part of the forces that act for change in the relations between the conflicting parties or the different ethnic groups in the divided societies. In divided societies such as Northern Ireland, South Africa, Israel, and countries of Latin America, the attempts to establish dialogue and communication between communities have become institutionalized through youth, teachers, and professional encounters conducted by nonprofit organizations. The concept for such encounter was imported from the interpersonal and intergroup relations approach that was popular in the United States in xvii Introduction zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTS xviii the late 1960s and early 1970s. The organizers of these encounters are not only inspired by the U.S. approaches, but also receive financial aid from Western countries (i.e., Europe or the United States). Many of these encounters are implemented by organizers who rarely reexamine or question the applicability of these programs to the specific conflict or culture. A central question for this research is the extent to which these programs or intervention efforts are designed and implemented to contribute to the change process that operates to alter the social and political structure of dominance and control of one group over the others. To address such issues this book examines the intervention models applied by six of the largest Arab-Jewish encounter programs in Israel: Neve Shalom/Wahat El Salam, Giva'at Haviva, Medreshet Adam, Beit Hagefen, the Arab-Jewish project in the Van Leer Institute, and the Eshkolot project in the Unit for Democracy and Coexistence in the Ministry of Education. These programs generally involve Arab and Jewish secondary and high school students and teachers. The encounters last from one to three days. They are led jointly by Arab and Jewish facilitators. In some cases the encounter is part of an annual intervention model that the organization implements in the schools, and in other cases the two or three encounters make up the model. These programs are aimed at improving Arabjewish relations in Israel and assisting in raising more tolerant, democratic, and culturally sensitive generations. Most of these types of programs—of which there are about forty in Israel—are supported by the Ministry of Education and other governmental offices. This research examines critically the six intervention programs these organizations implement. It discusses four major concepts that were operationalized into the four following questions about each model: 1. How do intervenors and participants perceive Arab-Jewish relations in Israel? 2. What are the similarities and differences among the six intervention programs? Do they operate from the same assumptions , structure, process, content, and facilitator role? 3. How do intervenors and participants perceive the outcomes of their intervention programs? 4. How does the changing political environment impact the different programs' intervention models? The findings are presented according to two main levels of analysis, reflected in the following questions: (1) Do organizational and national affiliations influence the participants' or intervenors' perception of the four concepts? (2) What is the influence of national affiliation (Arab or [34.237.245.80] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 04:55 GMT) xix zyxwvuts Introduction Jewish) of the participants and intervenors on their perceptions of the four research concepts? By analyzing the intervenors' and participants' responses to these questions and examining the nature and design of the six intervention programs, the findings will reflect the degree of professional integrity that intervenors have and the level of...