The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is among the most intractable in the world. There is little contact between people with opposing views and increasing polarization and demonization in discourse, not only between Israelis and Palestinians, but between supporters of either “side”, exacerbated by the current uptick in violence. Against this backdrop, people-to-people programs have proliferated, many applying “contact theory”: exposing conflict actors to each other in ways that invite a more complex understanding of the perspectives and conflict mentality. These programs see significant success in curbing trends towards confirmation bias, stereotyping, and zero-sum thinking and successfully introduce complexity. But does this lead to action?
Working to cultivate more constructive Jewish communal engagement on the conflict, the organization Encounter provides American Jewish leaders–who already have extensive exposure to Israeli perspectives–with access to Palestinian perspectives and narratives firsthand. Through experiencing “productive discomfort” in an “emotionally safe” environment, participants transform through moments of disruption from previously held narratives, and are guided through the process of integrating others’ perspectives into their own understanding of the conflict.
Staff observations, interviews with alumni, and a recent survey indicate that exposure to Palestinian narratives has succeeded in changing individuals’ attitudes. Alumni express a greater interest in the lives of Palestinians and the impact of the conflict on them, believe in the importance of programs exposing their peers to Palestinians and have shifted away from an “us-vs-them” orientation towards a more complex and nuanced understanding of the conflict.
However, evidence points to much less action on the part of alumni than hoped. Many alumni express confusion or doubt, having moved from certainty to nuance and complexity. They are left feeling unsure of the role they can and want to play and are sometimes less likely to take action on issues surrounding the conflict than before complexity was introduced. One commenter indicated, “I am in some ways more hesitant to talk about [the conflict]. I suppose this can be attributed to my own more complex feelings about the situation.”
More research into motivations behind what leads people to action, and the interplay between understanding the complexity of a conflict and subsequent desire and ability to act, would benefit not only the myriad organizations relying on people-to-people contact programs but interventions on the conflict writ large.
Photo Credit: Israel & Palestine by Rusty Stewart is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.