Summary of 2004

14-02-2004 An Excursion Along the Wall of Racism

On Saturday Feb. 14, 2004 the SFP and the Palestinian Peace Movement organized a study trip to learn about the damages caused by the dividing wall that Israel is now building. Thirty Jews and Arabs braved the cold and the rain to participate in the trip. Among them were residents of NS/WAS, facilitators of the SFP and other guests. We soon understood that the trip was also a demonstration of solidarity with the Palestinian farmers who have been cut off from their fields.

In the village of Jayusi, in the Kalkilya region, we were received by the mayor and members of the town council. Villagers explained that the wall, built six kilometers east of the green line, isolates them from their source of livelihood. They do not receive permits to pass the wall and work their land. We received a clear picture of how the wall and military authorities control the Palestinians’ lives. In theory each landowner is entitled to a permit to pass the wall and work his fields. In practice hardly anyone receives such a permit because it is usually impossible to meet the criteria required for it. Only the landowner himself can receive a permit. Proof of ownership must come from the Israeli civil administration and not from the Palestinian Authority. Organizing the papers requires registration and agreement from all the heirs who are entitled to the land, many of whom are refugees living in other countries. Taxes must be paid on the land for the past nine years, amounting to thousands of shekels that none of these farmers have. If a permit is given at all, it does not include workers or a vehicle. The gates do not open every day. On days that they do open the hours are dependent upon the moods of the soldiers who are on duty. Merchants do not receive permits to load the produce. The result is that the produce rots in the fields. The whole process is aimed at pushing the Palestinians away from their land, destroying their chances of supporting themselves, and causing them to leave their villages.



The security consideration is a farce. There are Palestinians who have permits to enter Israel, but who do not have permits to work their land. Town council members spoke of the social consequences of the wall. Families cannot afford the costs of higher education for their sons and daughters. The social structure of the families are undermined as hundreds of men are prevented from leaving their homes to go to work. The accumulative ecological damage is tremendous. Hundreds of four-hundred year old olive trees have been uprooted from the villagers’ lands in order to make room for the fence. In addition to the land lost to build the fence, refuse from the fence’s construction has filled large tracts of land. Some of the water sources have been polluted and other water sources have been taken over for the benefit of nearby Israeli settlements.

How does the State expropriate land to build a wall or a fence? Handwritten letters in poor Arabic were pinned to the olive trees and the farmers who found them brought them to the town council. The letters informed the farmers that their land is to be expropriated for the purposes of building a wall and they have one week to appeal the decision to the Israeli Supreme Court. These letters determine the fate of property worth millions of shekels. The Israeli government publicized these letters as the humanitarian act of a democracy the likes of which cannot be found anywhere else in the world. The farmers appealed to the courts and were denied on the grounds of State security needs. There was disagreement in the town over the question of whether or not to continue to struggle for rights to reach and work their fields on humanitarian grounds. There were those who claimed that they should not appeal because the courts hardly ever decide in favor of the Palestinians. The army closed the gates to their fields for two weeks during the olive and guava harvest time. The economic damage was devastating. The Palestinians have advanced new appeals. It will not surprise us if the courts respond favorably to a few of them as a humanitarian gesture that they can flaunt. After all, we know how merciful Israel is.

We came to see the violence that Israel produces. The violence is not only in the act of building a wall or a fence, but in the quiet agreement and justification of the wall on the part of Israeli citizens. The speakers repeatedly referred to the lies behind the security considerations that are sold to the Israeli people. The injustice of the wall was not the only thing that was painful to hear. It was painful to meet elected officials who felt they had to convince us that they love life, they love children, and that they are not interested in violence.



The soldiers did not open the gates that morning. Farmers returned home after waiting in the rain and cold for two hours.

(We were each asked to tell one person what we saw.)



20-02-2004 Palestinian – Israeli Facilitator - Training Course

The Nablus Youth Federation turned to the School for Peace with a request to provide a number of its members with a course in facilitating dialogue. The SFP found funding from the Dreyfus Foundation in Switzerland, and discussion and organization of the course got underway. It was decided to work with eight Palestinian and eight Israeli participants. At first we thought that we would conduct the course abroad, but after the hassles that the last Nablus group experienced on such a trip, the Palestinians asked that we try to conduct a meeting in Neve Shalom / Wahat al-Salam

.

Preparations included a request from the military authorities for entrance permits for the Palestinian participants. Making the request is simple, but the results demonstrate that the process is fictitious, providing the establishment with a cover for what they have done to the Occupied Territories. The Territories have become one big prison. Faxes, requests and paper work go back and forth as if a Palestinian who wants to enter Israel must approach the nearest military office, fill out a form, wait on line six hours and get his permit. In fact out of the nine Palestinians who requested entry permits, only four of them received one. And these Palestinians were young men and women who wanted to cross the border in order to acquire skills in facilitating dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis. After months of preparation, the course began in February, 2004 with four Palestinian women, four Palestinian men, two Israeli-Jewish men and six women.



Michal Zak and Ahmad Hijazi from the School for Peace and Majed Tbeileh from the Nablus Youth Federation coordinated the course. Muhammad Joudeh, Omar Aghbariya and Nava Sonnenschein joined Michal and Ahmad in facilitating the course. Maya Rabia and Maisoun Bedoui translated discussions.

The course was a nine-day program made up of four parts:
• Dialogue about the situation.
• Analysis of the dialogue.
• Peer Facilitation, in which each participant had an opportunity to facilitate discussion and receive feedback from the group.
• Lectures on various aspects of facilitating dialogue, and aspects of organizing projects. The lectures were conducted by Jews and Palestinians from Israel and Palestinians from Palestine.

The following lectures were given in the course:

1. The work approach of the SFP – Ahmad Hijazi.
2. Bion and the essence of the group – Rabah Halabi
3. Social Identities – Rabah Halabi
4. Facilitating the uni-national forum – Michal Zak and Muhammad Joudeh
5. The significance of language in the encounter – Michal Zak
6. Processes characteristic of Israeli – Palestinian encounters – Muhammad Joudeh
7. Soliciting Palestinian participants for encounters with Israelis – Majed Tbeileh
8. Helm’s social identity development theory – Nava Sonnenschein
9. Facilitating in pairs – Ahmad Hijazi
10. Grass-roots attempts to work towards justice and reconciliation. – Jessica Nevo


Our greatest challenge today is to conceptualize the experience that we have accumulated in conducting encounters between Palestinians and Israelis over the past three years. The knowledge that we have gained sheds light on processes that Israelis and Palestinians undergo in society at large. Some of the processes that we identify are common to all groups in conflict with which we are familiar. There are also processes peculiar to the encounter between Israeli Jews and Palestinians from Palestine. We are facilitating dialogue between two groups in conflict that are in a period of acute tension. This is already something unique. Dialogue is not usually conducted between groups while they are in the process of fighting each other. We will raise just a few points here. The Palestinians and Israelis who come to these encounters are highly motivated to work. The Palestinians take part in these projects despite a very real risk to their lives. They come with the goal of telling their stories and trying to influence Israelis, and the Israelis come with the goal of hearing the Palestinians. This is a kind of undeclared agreement that is clear to both sides. The Palestinians want the Israelis to know how bad their situation is and that despite that, there are still Palestinians interested in dialogue.



They do not want to lose their Israeli partners. When the Israelis fall into despair the Palestinians are quick to come to their side and support them, as if to tell them not to lose hope. Both groups are interested in changing the image that the other side has of them. The Israelis are afraid of terrorist attacks, but these attacks are small in comparison to the numbers killed and the suffering of the Palestinians in the routine of life under occupation. (Of course each and every life that is lost is a terrible loss, we mean that the proportion of those hurt on the Palestinian side is bigger, in comparison to the size of the society). The Israelis are afraid that the Arabs will become a majority and control Israel. The Palestinians are interested in bringing about change in the Israelis but they are skeptical of their chances of bringing across their message. As far as the Palestinians are concerned the ball is in the Israelis’ court. The Israelis are not quick to take the responsibility. They want to continue to meet and clarify issues long after the Palestinians, on their part, have completed what they have to say.

Despite the degree of asymmetry in the power relations between Palestinians and Israelis at large, the power relations between the two groups in dialogue are far more equal. Perhaps it is because the meeting is clearly between two separate national groups who are conducting a form of negotiations. The dialogue is conducted in two languages with translation and that influences the dynamics of the dialogue. Spontaneous discussion is choked and there is no possibility of taking over the discussion or moving into a language that is only understood by some of the participants. When the groups began to speak of the meeting of two cultures, an issue that is emotionally charged and that often brings a degree of arrogance to the surface on the Israeli side, we did not see the Israelis take over the discussion as they generally do. It was an encouraging sign, raising hope that relations based on equality can be built in the future. For this to happen the Palestinian side must be strong enough to acknowledge the difficulties, fears and dilemmas on the Israeli side (not an easy task for Palestinians while they live under Israeli occupation). The Israeli side must take responsibility and acknowledge the injustice it has caused the Palestinian side (also a difficult task in a time of violence and national unity). It is clear that there are people on both sides who are willing and eager to take these steps.





29-03-2004 The Relation between Gender and National Identity

Once every two months the SFP staff conducts a study day to which all of the facilitators who work with us are invited. On March 29th this year we held the second study day on the connection between gender and national identity. Dr. Fadwa Labadi from the al-Quds University in Abu Dis was invited to be our guest lecturer, but the Israeli Authorities did not grant her permission to enter Israel. As an act of solidarity and protest we decided to conduct the study day in Abu Dis and not to cooperate with the attempt to silence her voice.

Dr. Labadi invited us to the university and she invited her students to join us as well. Twenty five Jewish and Arab facilitators from the SFP took part. The town had been blockaded by the army that morning, but luckily, as we arrived the barrier was lifted. After a short ride through the alleys of Abu Dis we arrived at the university. Though the facilities were simple the campus was beautiful and the view of the desert to the east was fabulous. The view in the direction of Jerusalem was blocked by the high cement wall that has been erected along the hills adjacent to the university, cutting Abu Dis off from Jerusalem.



We walked among the campus buildings. The walls of the School of Law were covered by posters expressing mourning over the death of Sheikh Yasin. At the request of our hostess we did not speak Hebrew during our visit. Dr. Labadi spoke in Arabic and her lecture was translated into English. She analyzed what happens to women during times of war and oppression. The woman becomes a national symbol, and as a symbol she is deprived of the possibility to protest her situation. The lecturer criticized Palestinian society, commenting that also in the rest of the Arab world, as well as in Israel and the West, the woman takes part in war efforts and is then returned to the kitchen when the struggle is over. Her conclusion is that during periods of national struggle the national identity overshadows gender and religious identities in order to mobilize the group. She described the differences between the Palestinian feminist struggle during the first and second Intifada. One of her conclusions regarding the plight of Palestinian women today is that patriarchal values and the oppression of women increase in proportion to the despair of the Palestinian people.


When we left the lecture hall and entered the campus square we were shocked to see the wall being erected before our eyes and realized its implications for Palestinian society. Abu Dis, a town with 25,000 residents will be cut off from the Al-Muqassad Hospital, the only hospital that serves the town. This is not a way to achieve security. It is a way to conduct war.
A week later we all met again, this time at the School for Peace, and discussed the topic, both in same- gender and in mix- gender forums.




26-04-2004 Youth Encounter Workshops

We conduct our Youth Encounter Workshops during the course of the school year. In the 2003 – 4 school year, the three-day Arab – Jewish Youth Encounter program was one of several different SFP programs for youths. We conducted thirteen encounter workshops this year reaching six hundred Jewish and Arab eleventh grade students from twelve Jewish and eleven Arab high schools. Half of the participants were Jewish and half of them Arab. In addition to these programs we conducted uni-national workshops, long-term encounter workshops and training sessions for young leaders. This report focuses specifically on the standard three-day youth encounter program. These programs include a series of dialogue sessions in small mixed groups. They begin with personal acquaintance, and trust building exercises, continue with discussions on cultural differences and on political issues, including a simulation game where the participants negotiate on crucial topics that stand between Jewish and Palestinian citizens in Israel.

Nada Mata and Rechela Yanai coordinated the encounter programs this year. They were responsible for organizing preparatory and summary meetings with the participants, coordinating the encounters themselves, and accompanying the staff of facilitators involved in each project. With the school year coming to a close we interviewed Nada, the Palestinian coordinator, and Rechela, the Jewish coordinator and heard of their experiences. They were interviewed separately, we bring you excerpts from the interviews.

Nada
A new thing that I noticed this year was the dominance of the young Arab women in the discussions. In the simulation games they took upon themselves the roles of committee chairwomen. At this age the girls appear to be more mature. They have a sharper awareness of what is going on around them. It is disappointing that they express themselves in society much less at a later stage in life.



I noticed many differences between the Jewish schools that participated in our program. The Jewish participants from schools from Jerusalem in particular were more extreme in their views and they were harder to work with. I am not referring to disciplinary problems but to the content of what they brought to the encounter. It was very difficult for the Arabs to deal with these groups who experienced violent attacks personally. The boarding schools, schools from the periphery and the schools from the center of the country were very different from the Jerusalem schools, they suffered less from the Intifadah so they were not as involved.

When I meet Arab youths for summary discussions two weeks after the encounter, they regularly report that the meeting was very significant for them. They regard the experience as empowering. This is interesting because in staff meetings we often discuss our impression that the Arab participants appear to be weak and unable to cope with the Jewish group. It surprises us to hear that from their perspective they made important accomplishments. They give examples from the simulation game in which they stood their ground and made their voices heard. Some of them speak about how well they argued in Hebrew. Others refer to having spoken Arabic in the Jews’ presence without feeling that they must immediately translate themselves. In some cases they speak of having changed the Jews’ opinions about one thing or another. We must learn to recognize and pay more attention to these accomplishments.

The Arab youths also talk about disappointment. Three days of equality is not much time, and after that they return home to their frustrating reality. In discussion with an Arab group from a mixed Jewish – Arab town the girls said that the encounter filled them with ambition to do other things with their lives, and that the encounter gave them the feeling that they are capable of advancing change, and not necessarily in a political context alone.



We tried to identify ways in which the latest Intifada influences the encounters. In the context of the encounter the Arabs do not appear to be getting weaker, however in Israeli society at large their situation is bad, they are more frightened and silenced. This fear comes to the surface particularly in groups that are observed or recorded (one meeting room has a one-way mirror in which activities are occasionally observed, primarily for purposes of SFP study or facilitator training, by teachers or by representatives of foreign media and of foundations who support our work). This year we had an unprecedented case in which a Jewish group raised objection to observation because the participants heard that Israeli Jews in the left are being harassed in different ways. In another incident a group of Arab students from a mixed city closed the curtain of the observation window (so that the observation could not take place). In preparatory meetings in Arab schools the students ask how safe it is to speak their mind. The fear exists.

The Jewish facilitators who worked with the Jerusalem high schools had the feeling that the Jewish students became more and more right wing during the encounter. They spoke about solutions of population transfer. I am not sure that this is necessarily a negative development. These are not positions that they have acquired as a result of the encounter. The encounter gives them an opportunity to confront positions that they had not previously articulated. They become more aware of how the conflict affects them and their positions.

The question always arises regarding the contribution of the encounter to the Arabs. It is a question that always preoccupies me. Paradoxically, when the Jewish group expresses left-wing views the Arabs have less of an opportunity to confront issues that they face in the broader reality. The views predominantly expressed by the students from the Jerusalem schools give the Arab students the empowering opportunity to expose and confront the racism that they generally have to deal with under the surface in their day to day lives.



We tend to pay more attention to the influence of the encounter on the Jews and the degree to which the encounter changes their attitudes. (This negative tendency is well known to those working with minority/majority groups). There is something in the encounter that contributes more to the Jews than to the Arabs. The Arabs, as the minority group (that speaks the Jews’ language and are dependant on the majority group), know more about the Jews than the Jews know about the Arabs. For this reason the Arab uni-national discussions are important.

We have recently begun to address cultural issues that we previously ignored. The Arab facilitators feel that they are left with responsibility for disciplinary problems. The Jewish and Arab facilitators do not see eye to eye about what constitutes a disciplinary problem. The Jewish facilitators for example are not disturbed by the participants’ foul language. This is an old problem, but as an issue of discussion it has just begun to get underway. Until we reach more common ground regarding acceptable behavior, this will be a problem. The gap is sometimes as big as when one has to facilitate with a partner who works with a different work approach for example interpersonal vs. inter group approach. It may be that our ability to address such an issue is a sign that we have reached a common understanding about the more fundamental things regarding the nature of the Jewish – Arab encounter. In the last workshop the Arab girls were taken back to their homes by their teachers, to spend the night rather than stay in the NS/WAS Guest House and it was a problem for us. We addressed this issue in our staff meeting and different ideas came up for example some people suggested we do not work with such a school which discriminates, others thought we should have talked about it openly with the students, others thought it should stay as an agreement only between the two institutions, the SFP and the Arab school. These gender and cultural issues tie into questions that we have recently begun to address not only with the workshop participants but within the staff of facilitators as well since this year the SFP devoted its study days to the topic of gender and national identities.


Rechela
Every workshop comes with a surprise. The complexity of the Jewish group very much influences the workshops. Some of the groups from Jewish schools include Russians, Ethiopians and Arabs. The minority groups among the Jews connect with the Arabs as a minority group. This connection teaches the Jewish youths about the place of the Arabs as a minority. Immigrant groups know what it is to face a majority group that tries to change and incorporate the minority group. These Jewish sub-groups seem to find it easier to understand that they cannot tell the Arab minority, “Come be like us.” They understand that in the Jewish – Arab context they are coming from a position of power.

In staff discussions we addressed questions of boundaries and discipline. We, the Jewish facilitators, are much more lenient with the youth because that is their culture. The Arab facilitators feel that they have a much lower tolerance level for certain kinds of behavior. I have a problem with this subject. I remember how I behaved when I was in high school and I connect with the Jewish group. It does not bother me if someone interrupts someone else with a word here or there. The Arab facilitators see curse words as something really awful, and when Jewish kids get together I just see it as natural that that is the way they talk. It is very confusing and not necessarily clear where to set the boundaries. Should we make the rules according to what the Arabs want? Can we set guidelines for behavior during the course of the three – day workshop that clash with habits from their school and home environment? We can set rules establishing what is and is not acceptable regarding discourse within the meeting room and in the dining room. But much of what they do in their free time, the way they speak and dress and whether they smoke, is beyond our control. There is tension between the Jewish and Arab facilitators around these issues and we are accused of not taking responsibility for the students’ discipline. Other questions tie in to this discussion and as a Mizrahi Jew I often find myself identifying with the Arab side. For example it was very difficult to discuss the oppression of women and the Islamic headdress, and I think the difficulty comes from a sense of arrogance on the Jews’ part as if they represent the enlightened West coming to bring progress to the Orient. We will continue to talk about these issues, but they are difficult. It is easier for us to discuss politics than to discuss certain issues regarding the cultural meeting.



This year the Arab groups were relatively strong, and they brought positions to the discussion that were not easy to deal with. We began to work with a few new Jewish schools which exposed us to population groups that we were not accustomed to working with. The students from the Jerusalem schools had more personal experiences with Palestinian attacks and they were very involved in the political issues. When students came from Tel-Aviv and the peripheral areas we saw the difference. They are not as preoccupied with Jewish – Arab issues. We heard comments like, “Why did you bring us to this workshop, it doesn’t interest us, and we’re in the Left anyway.” We had to learn how to work with youths that do not at first express a lot of interest in what we are trying to do. We also worked with Jewish groups from underprivileged areas and this presented other challenges because they do not see them selves as part of the ruling majority. We often (unconsciously) keep a close watch on the Jewish group as if we feel we have to protect the Arab group, and suddenly we were faced with Jewish groups from a lower socio-economic level that changed dynamics of the encounter that were familiar to us.

This year we met groups of Arab Christians from the north who no longer fit the patterns that we identified in previous years. We had become accustomed to hearing from them that everything is fine. This year they joined other Arabs and challenged the Jews, making the latter work hard. Most of the Jewish participants who I talked to after the workshops indicated that the encounter confused them and moved something. Participants who claimed to be “in the Left” began to examine the significance of their positions. I held a summary discussion in a high school that was known for its right wing leanings and I was astounded by what I heard from the students. They spoke about equality, about oppression and about the need to give the Arabs rights. The teachers told me that on the bus ride home from NS/WAS the students lectured the security guard that accompanied them about Arab rights. In the school they calmed down a bit because they faced the larger group of right wing students who had not been in the encounter and it is tough to remain in confrontation. During the workshop the facilitators sometimes fall into despair and feel that we are not doing enough. But we are doing something. We are breaking commonly held conceptions and when they are here they understand that the situation as it is must be changed.



The Russian immigrants in the workshop are silenced by the other Jewish students. It is difficult for many of them to speak in Hebrew. But they choose to take part in the workshop and they are automatically part of “the Jewish group” although many of them come with crosses around their necks and have no familiarity with our national holidays or with the history of the conflict. In one group the facilitator translated the discussion into Russian, but in most groups they are relatively silent.

In the summary sessions the Jewish youth speak about how significant the encounter was for them and they usually make special mention of the simulation game. The Arab groups also tend to refer to the simulation game as an empowering experience. In one recent discussion an Arab participant said, “What does it mean that they are going to give us our rights? These are our rights, they are not doing us a favor.” The activity gives the Arabs strength. The Jews also experience something new in the encounter. We raise the Jews’ awareness of the power that they have as the majority group, and they begin to reexamine their needs. They discover that they can compromise, the can give and not only take. Breaking the position of power is difficult, but it is also liberating. The encounter offers the Jews a mirror to see how their power looks, and it can be monstrous. One Jewish participant said, “I don’t want that power to myself another minute. I want to share it.” This process connects to their reactions to the Arabic language. They raise suspicions about the translation, “Did they translate correctly or are they lying?” The need for control is an expression of the power that they are accustomed to having.

I believe that we are exposing them to something that they are never exposed to in their natural surrounding. I also grew up in Israeli society. It was only in the university that I underwent change. My attitudes were nationalist, Zionist, and militarist. It is very difficult to break out of the mold that you are put into. The youths’ minds are not yet closed. They have not yet been in the army, and when they go I hope they will be aware of the power that they have in their hands. Even if only a few of them reach this understanding we will have done a lot.



15-05-2004 Encounters Between Israeli and Palestinian Students

Last year we conducted workshops between Palestinian students from the Nablus region and Israeli students from various universities in Israel. The meetings were initiated by the Nablus Youth Federation (NYF). The Palestinian students were driven by a need to let the Israeli side know what was happening in Nablus and to try to influence policy. The Israeli students who signed up for the workshops came to hear the stories that they were not getting from the Israeli media.


This year we received funding from the Japanese Embassy enabling us to resume the workshops. We conducted a three- day meeting in Neve Shalom / Wahat al-Salam in April and another three day- meeting in May, 2004. Thirty Palestinian and Israeli students took part in each meeting. The way from Nablus to NS/WAS is full of obstacles and risks. The Israelis asked the Palestinians why they were prepared to take such risks and the Palestinians answered that the road to NS/WAS is no more dangerous than walking the streets of Nablus.

The participants in these encounters are serious and dedicated to the task of dialogue. They want to listen, to explain, to clarify and to understand. Despite the difficulties of sitting together in a room for such long periods, they arrive for each session and they come on time. The dialogue is conducted as a negotiation. Arabic and Hebrew are translated back and forth. There is no yelling, no dramas, and no atmosphere of confrontation. We point this out because when the content of the dialogue is so charged, and the victims sit in the room with the perpetrators, the atmosphere is generally heated, or alternatively the participants are paralyzed. We ask ourselves what makes these dialogue sessions different. The Palestinians’ stories have not become less severe. Has it become easier for the Israelis to hear the accusations that are directed at them? There are those who analyze the situation and say that the group is more careful and more restrained, and that we should be encouraging them to pour out their anger. However we think that we should try to understand why the group is choosing to be so careful, restrained, and constructive. Perhaps when Palestinians and Israelis meet in a reality that has reached such a level of severity, they feel more of a need to prove to themselves and to each other that it is possible to create a reality of dialogue. Perhaps the Palestinians do not want to create a situation in which the few Israelis who are still prepared to listen will abandon them, as they saw so much of the Israeli “Left” do after the Intifada. Perhaps the Israelis are tired of escapist solutions and, despite the difficulties of the encounter, they now want to confront the dilemmas of the conflict.

We want to make it clear that the issues discussed in these encounters from the morning until the evening are the most difficult issues that we have to deal with: terror, the wall, destruction of houses, State-sponsored assassinations and military checkpoints. The participants compete over who is more humane and who are the “barbarians”, and they seek ways to build trust between the two peoples. They address the refugee question, the right of return, the settlements and the degree of democracy in Palestine and Israel. No questions are spared and the participants discuss them with responsibility.



In closing we want to mention that the presence of a representative of the Japanese Embassy, who spoke at the opening session and observed the dialogue, added something positive to the workshop. It was a way of saying that the international community has not forgotten us and that what happens here is important to someone; and in this case that person is representing an economic superpower that regards it as a mission to aid societies in distress such as ours.

Coordinators of the April workshop: Sigalit Givon (SFP), Mouhamad Joudea (NYF)
Coordinators of the May workshop: Youval Fiurko (SFP), Mouhamad Joudea (NYF)



27-05-2004 Summarizing a Year of School For Peace Activities

On June 27th the SFP held a gathering of facilitators and SFP administration and board members in order to present and hear reports of the year’s activities. These meetings are always stimulating. Project coordinators and department heads shared their impressions of their recent activities. We heard some innovative insight about the influence of the translation and role of the translator in the Israeli – Palestinian encounters. Nava Sonnenschein read excerpts from an interview with Michael Sfard, a graduate of the SFP facilitator-training course who now works as a civil rights lawyer. He spoke of the influence that the course has on his approach to work in the legal field. Once again we see how the course sharpens the participants’ perspectives and provides them with tools that are relevant to a wide variety of fields. At the end of the session we presented this year’s training-course graduates with their certificates and we wish them success.



The second part of the meeting was a conference organized by the SFP Research Institute. The conference was a gathering of researchers who wrote articles or doctoral theses on SFP projects. Dr. Rabah Halabi chaired the meeting. The speakers were Dr. Shlomo Agmon, Dr. Sara Helman, Dr. Zvi Bekerman and Dr. Shoshana Steinberg. Prof. Ramzi Suliman, head of the Haifa University’s Department of Psychology responded to the speakers. Dr. Agmon and Dr. Steinberg wrote their doctoral theses on different SFP courses conducted in cooperation with the Ben Gurion University. Dr. Helman wrote an article on a similar course in 1995/96. Dr. Bekerman wrote an article on a course conducted in cooperation with the Hebrew University.


Dr. Halabi opened the conference in Arabic reading two texts, one by Edward Sa’id and one by Franz Fanon, both of them addressing the connection between language and identity. Sa’id and Fanon discuss the central role of language in the construction of one’s cultural and national identities, and the influence of language on the course of one’s life. Halabi then continued to conduct the conference in Hebrew, commenting that the need to speak Hebrew reflects the asymmetry between Jews and Arabs in Israel. After these opening comments the panelists began their presentations.



Dr. Agmon examined the defense mechanisms that obstruct dialogue between Jews and Arabs in the group. He focused on mechanisms of denial, projection and identification. He claimed that Jews turned more to mechanisms of denial and projection while Arabs were more prone to identification mechanisms. He found that over the long – term encounter process both groups turned less to defense mechanisms, moving from a state of paranoia and schizophrenia to a state of depression. Depression, Agmon explained, is a healthier state for the group, enabling them to examine reality and regard the other in the group. According to Dr. Agmon the Jewish group entered the state of depression more quickly and made better use of it.

Dr. Shoshana Steinberg tried to gain insight into the obstacles of dialogue within the group. She did this by examining the quality of the discourse and the changes that it underwent during the course of the Jewish – Arab encounter. She divided the discourse into seven principle categories:



1. An absence of encounter. The discourse is ethnocentric and participants do not pay attention to the other. They are entrenched in one position or another.

2. Attack. Participants relate to the other aggressively, through mutual accusations.

3. A window opens. Someone from one group expresses feelings and tries to share experiences, but the other group is not yet interested or capable of understanding that person’s different reality.

4. Basic premises are shaken. A change occurs giving rise to a discourse based on recognition between two separate and unique entities. There is acknowledgement of the need to listen to the other.

5. Intellectual discussion. The participants listen to each other’s positions and try to reach agreement.

6. Containing the other. Participants speak openly about their thoughts and raise questions in order to try to understand the other.

7. Moments of dialogue. There is a moment of emotional and cognitive understanding or empathy. There is true encounter as defined by Buber and Rogers.

Dr. Steinberg noted that the ethnocentric discourse was the dominant category, but during the course of the year there was an increasing presence of the category of dialogue moments.



Dr. Sara Helman noted that in the group that she observed, both Jewish and Arab participants had adopted an essentialist approach towards their identities. This enabled them to reproduce the unequal power relations within the group. These dynamics were particularly pronounced in the Jewish group in which cultural identity was constructed such that Arabs were excluded from any kind of Israeli identity, and equal access to resources could then be rationally denied. According to Helman the Jewish group does not refer to culture with any kind of intellectual interest. Culture in this case is a mechanism that establishes a Jewish national identity and serves to exclude the Palestinians. Dr. Helman added that the political reality, and not the SFP model, gives rise to these dynamics. The SFP model only exposes these dynamics.



Dr. Bekerman took a more critical stand. He claimed that the encounters serve to maintain the status quo, stating that the contribution of the social sciences is primarily in advancing cognitive rather than structural changes. In these encounters there is no alternative but to speak about identity and culture, and every attempt to do so is punished either by the facilitators or by the participants. Dr. Bekerman calls for an end to discussion on ideology and suggests focusing on an attempt to deconstruct and expose the praxis behind ideologies. He pointed out that identity and culture are not an imminent part of the human being, but rather they are practices created in the world by people. The nation-state strives to conceal the nature of culture and identity and it is up to us to try to expose it. He also stated that education has little power to bring about change. Education serves the interests of elites and we should be thinking of ways to change reality outside of the educational framework.

Professor Ramzi Suliman expressed his disappointment in the discussion. In his opinion the analyses of the courses should have focused primarily on asymmetrical power relations between majority and minority groups, and these relations remained outside of the discussion.



Prof. Suliman objected particularly to Dr. Agmon’s research methodology, which focused on individualizing the encounter. He claimed that some of Dr. Agmon’s conclusions were infected with Orientalism. Suliman objected to Agmon’s definition of identification as a defense mechanism. Identification is natural, and not a defense mechanism serving to protect the Arabs or help them deal with their distress. On the contrary, according to most of the literature in social psychology, Arabs who identify with their people are regarded as mentally healthier and socially more mature. Prof. Suliman agreed with Dr. Helman and Dr. Bekerman that most of the encounters conducted in Israel serve to maintain the status quo rather than challenge it. However he claimed that the encounters of the School for Peace are exceptional in that they do raise awareness of power relations and challenge the status quo. Suliman questioned Dr. Steinberg’s evasion of the asymmetrical nature of Jewish – Arab relations in the group. He claimed that Buber’s dialogue cannot take place between two unequal groups; therefore there is no point in searching for such a dialogue in Jewish – Arab groups in Israel.

Dr. Halabi closed the discussion concluding that it was fascinating to see how each researcher analyzes the same situation and the same processes in accordance to each one’s different perspective and agenda. He added that the discussion illustrates how fluid the terms “science” and “scientific” can be, especially in the fields of social sciences and humanities.



01-07-2004 Women’s Courses

On July 1st, 2004 we completed work on two women’s courses in cooperation with the Tel Aviv University School of Social Work. The aim of the first course was to give participants tools to advance initiatives in Jaffa and Tel-Aviv. The participants were graduates of the “Women in Times of Change” program.



Sixteen women took part. A number of them succeeded in developing and conducting their initiatives before the end of the course. All of the participants’ initiatives were at least well into the planning stage by the time the course ended.

The other course was an Arab uni-national program. Ten women from poorer sectors of society took part in the course which focused on issues of their gender and national identity.


It was the first time that we conducted this course in the Arab uni-national forum, and it was a rare opportunity for the participants to take the time away from the hardships of their daily routine in order to identify and address some of the issues with which they have to struggle. Feedback indicated that it was an empowering experience.




01-07-2004 Inservice Training for the Nisan Organization

On July 1st and 2nd we conducted an in-service training seminar for the Nisan organization. Fifty young Arab women from across the country took part. The participants had taken part in a year – long course on issues of their personal and gender identity, and on development of their leadership skills. The SFP seminar focused on the construction of the participants’ national identity, complementing work done on other aspects of their identity.



The seminar was successful in that it enabled the women to confront issues that they were not previously aware of. This was the third project of its kind that we conducted with the Nisan organization and it has proven itself as an effective model of cooperation between organizations. Each organization provided its own unique input and knowledge and the project participants are the ones who benefit most from the cooperation. The competition between organizations tends to prevent projects like these from taking place more often.


Project Coordinator: Wafaa Zreik

Facilitators: Abir Halabi, Ra’id en-Nablusi, Almaza Hatib, Rabab Awad and Maisoun Beduwi.



11-07-2004 Towards a World Without Violence

Nava Sonnenschein and Rabah Halabi represented the School for Peace in the conference, “Towards a World Without Violence” sponsored by the International Peace Bureau Fundacio per la Pau Barcelona and Forum Universal de la Culturas Barcelona 2004.

The conference took place on June 23rd to 27th in Barcelona Spain and was attended by approximately one thousand participants from all around the world, including places of conflict such as Sri Lanka, Columbia, Israel, Palestine, Iraq and Pakistan among others. There were over a hundred panels and workshops conducted by around one hundred lecturers. Interesting discussions were held about the dangers threatening us by the arms race that the United States leads. Discussions were held about the role of education and of organizations conducting peace work. Discussions were held about the creation of a non-violent civil society not participating in the arms race, about economy and war, about the role of women and the creation of a less militaristic society.



Nava and Rabah presented the work approach of the School for Peace on Wednesday, the 26th . They gave a detailed description of the processes that Jews and Palestinians undergo during the encounter process. The presentation was received with a great deal of interest in the School for Peace and in Neve Shalom / Wahat al-Salam. A Palestinian participant approached Nava and Rabah after the panel stating how pleasantly surprised she was by what she heard because she did not expect to hear such a straight forward and radical stand towards the conflict coming from an Israeli organization.




20-08-2004 Vacation from War

High school and university students from Nablus and Ramallah, together with a group of Jews and Palestinians from Israel, tried to succeed where the older generation failed. They spent two weeks together in a seminar in Germany confronting complex and difficult issues surrounding Jewish – Palestinian relations. The German Committee for Democracy and Basic Rights organized the visit under the title “Vacation from War.” The committee’s activities are financed by small donations from a broad base of middle class families. The seminar took place in the town of walberberg.

The seminar was conducted in two groups, one for high school students and one for university students. The group of high school students consisted of ten Jews and seven Palestinians from Israel who were graduates of School for Peace youth encounter projects, and fifteen Palestinians organized by the Nablus Youth Federation. The group of university students consisted of fifteen Palestinians from Nablus and Ramallah, four Palestinians from Israel and nine Jews from Israel. The meetings were conducted in Hebrew and Arabic. They were facilitated by two Palestinian facilitators from the Nablus Youth Federation and by two Palestinian and four Jewish facilitators from the School for Peace. Two translators translated the dialogue in both languages.



The meetings began on August 2, 2004 in Germany. The journey for each of the groups was very different. In anticipation of the hassling, the Palestinians from Nablus and Ramallah left their homes three days in advance. They were detained for an entire day at military checkpoints and they slept in Jericho on the first night of their trip. They spent another day crossing the border into Jordan. On the following day they boarded a flight to Frankfurt via Istanbul. Although the Palestinians and Jews from Israel took the same plane, each group experienced a very different journey. The Palestinians were subjected to hours of security checks that caused the Palestinian facilitators to miss their flight. They were put on an alternative flight via London that caused them to come very late for the program. The Jewish group enjoyed a simple direct flight to their destination.



The program combined dialogue sessions with sight-seeing trips to Cologne, Bonn and other places. Out of the two week trip there were six days of structured dialogue work. Though the formal dialogue was conducted separately in two different age-groups, we can discuss similar dynamics in both groups. Dialogue work started with activities advancing personal acquaintance and discussion of cultural norms and then moved on to political discussion. The Jewish group stressed their need for a Jewish state and the Palestinian group spoke about their struggle for independence. The Palestinian participants from Israel initially had a difficult time finding their place in the dialogue, seeming to be confused over issues of identity and belonging. During the stages of acquaintance activities and cultural exchange, the dialogue took place between three groups: the Jews, the Palestinians from Israel, and the Palestinians from Nablus and Ramallah. As the focus of dialogue turned to political issues the Palestinians coalesced as a single group.



In the beginning of the political dialogue each group tried to impose its agenda on the other. Participants did not seem to be making an effort to listen to each other. The Jewish participants spoke in terms of symmetry between the suffering of each group. When the Palestinians spoke of despair, fear and oppression under Israeli occupation, the Jews immediately spoke of life under the threat of terrorist attacks. For the Jewish participants the picture changed as they realized that every Palestinian participant has her or his own personal story of tragedy to share. At first they tried to ignore or belittle the Palestinians’ stories but as that became impossible the Jews began to deal with what they heard. It shook their picture of reality and eventually enabled them to begin to empathize with the Palestinians. At this point the Palestinians from Palestine and the Jews began to listen more carefully and to respond to each other. The dialogue became more constructive. However the Palestinians from Israel, who played a central role in the initial stages of the dialogue, began at this point to feel marginalized.



We were impressed by the participants’ maturity and the sense of responsibility that they demonstrated during the course of their dialogue. They maintained good personal relations with each other despite the very difficult arguments that accompanied them. Many of them were faced with the task of reevaluating their perceptions and world views in light of their encounter with the Other. They returned home with some heavy baggage. The Palestinians from Nablus and Ramallah were seriously challenged about the morality of the form of the Palestinian struggle. The Jewish group returned with significant questions about the nature of a Jewish state and the contradictions inherent in the concept of an ethnic democracy. The Palestinians from Israel returned with new perspectives on cultural and political components of their identity.


Program Staff

Hilga Dieter, from the German Committee for Democracy and Basic Rights, directed the program. Majed Tbeileh, from the Nablus Youth Federation, was the coordinator of the Palestinian delegation. Wafaa Zureik and Eitan Bronstein, from the School for Peace, were responsible for the group from Israel.



10-10-2004 Israeli Palestinian Conference

The School for Peace (SFP) and the Nablus Youth Federation (NYF) have been cooperating for a number of years to conduct workshops between Palestinian students from the Nablus region and Israeli students from various universities in Israel. Funding from the Japanese Embassy enabled the SFP and NYF to resume their cooperation and conduct three Palestinian – Israeli student workshops this year, reaching a total of ninety participants, with forty five from each group. Additionally we conducted a conference for those participants interested in continuing the encounter work and in putting some thought into what more can be done to improve relations between the two peoples. Participants of the three encounters were invited to take part in this conference that took place at October 7-9,2004.Thirteen Palestinian students, all of them men, and fifteen Israeli students, most of them women, participated in the program. As in all of the encounters, the Palestinian participants and facilitators came on back roads, without permits, risking their safety to conduct dialogue with Israelis.



We set the following objectives:
• To deepen the study of existing and possible relations between Palestinians and Israelis.
• To examine expectations of each group regarding their own work in the field, and expectations that each group has of the other.
• To examine ways of working towards agreed-upon goals.
• To give the participants experience in initiating activities by having them take responsibility for components of their three – day program.

The program included the following components:

Dialogue in order to establish, or reestablish acquaintance, and to discuss issues of Israeli – Palestinian relations.

Lectures and discussions of particular topics. The participants received a lecture by Majid Tbeileh, director of the NYF, who spoke about means of struggle by the Palestinians. The lecture included a documentary film of the Israeli invasion of Nablus in April, 2002, parts of which were filmed secretly by amateurs on home video cameras. The NYF edited the film, adding narration. Most of the film had never been aired publicly. The second lecture was given by Gershon Baskin, co-director of IPCRI (an organization advancing Israeli – Palestinian dialogue). He analyzed the political situation of the region.

The Participants’ Program. The third component of the program was the responsibility of the participants. They decided to create a panel of six students who were interested in discussing steps that they had taken to advance change, as a result of their previous Palestinian – Israeli student encounter. They were asked to relate to the obstacles and successes that they identified. The stories that the participants told were fascinating and admirable.

Panel discussion
One Israeli participant described her efforts at sharing her workshop experience with other people. She has been trying to let people know that there are Palestinian partners to a peace process, and she described what has been involved in bringing the Palestinians’ stories that she heard to Israelis who are not generally prepared to listen .



She described a pattern that we are familiar with in which she returned home, related her experience to friends and family, and was then told that she was naïve, that she was buying Palestinian propaganda, or in more hostile cases she was told that she was a traitor. She then went through a period in which she decided that she was tired of the arguments and that she might as well remain quiet. This was followed by the understanding that keeping quiet was no longer an option. After the Palestinians took such risks to reach her and to let the Israeli public hear their plight, it was now up to her to speak. We hear this story repeatedly from Israeli participants. This particular participant’s story ended with her turning to the School for Peace with a request from her parents and their friends who also want the opportunity to take part in a dialogue workshop with Palestinians. An SFP staff member is looking into possibilities of organizing a Palestinian group for them.

Another Israeli participant, a lawyer serving in the army, said that she had hoped to bring about change from within the military. She said that after participating in the workshop she began to pay attention to the way in which the army clamps down on Palestinians while ignoring violence against Palestinians committed by gangs of Israeli settlers. The army turns a blind eye to the settlers’ behavior claiming that it is outside of the military’s jurisdiction. She has been working to change that through legislation within the army.

A Palestinian participant spoke about the dilemmas he faces in coming to the encounter with Israelis. Israeli soldiers had literally taken up positions inside the living room of his apartment as he told his story. He spoke of his efforts to convince Palestinians in his surrounding that participating in dialogue with well-intentioned Israelis who oppose the occupation was not a matter of collaboration with the enemy.



Another Palestinian spoke of what he goes through as a member of a bereaved family. Israeli soldiers killed his brother, and he has been raising his brother’s children. He spoke of the road he took that led him to participate in dialogue. Along that road he had considered joining in the Palestinian armed struggle.

Simulation Game
The second activity that the participants initiated was a simulation game in which the Palestinian students presented a routine day of military activity in their neighborhoods. A group of Palestinian participants took on the role of Israeli soldiers who were breaking into houses in search of particular Palestinians wanted for one reason or another. The other participants, who were both Israeli and Palestinian, played the role of families whose houses were broken into. The Israeli participants were given a lesson in “procedures” followed by soldiers who break into your home. Afterwards the students discussed what they experienced during the game. One Israeli participant said, “I felt tense and embarrassed. I just wanted it to end as soon as possible.” Another said, “I felt genuine fear. I was afraid it was going to get carried away and we wouldn’t know where to stop.” A couple of the Palestinians said that they were astonished, and even a little embarrassed, by how quickly they got into playing the role of the occupier. Others said that they too were a little embarrassed by the soldiering game, but that they wanted to show the Israelis in the workshop what the Palestinians have to put up with.



In summarizing the meeting the Israeli participants spoke of the difficulty in dealing with the frustration of the first student encounter, as opposed to this follow-up meeting that provided them with tools, ideas and the desire to take action. A number of them said that in this meeting they found it easier to listen to the Palestinian participants without feeling that they were being put on the defensive. Some of the Israelis said that they are disturbed by a feeling that the Israelis are the only ones who are expected to take action and work towards change while the Palestinians seem to be exempt from this responsibility. The Palestinians also said that the dialogue with the Israelis was more constructive this time around, and that they felt that the Israelis who returned to take part in the meeting were sincere in their interest to help. The Palestinians seemed to be careful in their encounter. While they wanted to expose the Israelis to as much information as possible about the Palestinians’ despair, they also wanted to protect the Israeli participants and try to avoid scaring them off and making them stop listening, like so much of the rest of Israeli society. The task of conducting dialogue can involve hard and emotionally draining work, yet both of the groups made great efforts to reach and maintain constructive dialogue. They created an island of solidarity and understanding. The storms that threatened to erase that island came in the form of Israeli army attacks on Palestinians in Gaza and the attack on Israelis in the Sinai. The threats also came from the despair, nationalism, suspicion and racism that worked against their efforts.



12-10-2004 The School for Peace Opens a New Year

On Tuesday October 12th 2004, as the Israeli army was adding to the death toll in Gaza, the School for Peace conducted its official opening. The opening was made up of two parts. The first part was a meeting of the entire SFP staff including freelance facilitators in which we discussed the situation of the SFP and its plans for the year. The second part was a lecture by Gidon Levi, a journalist from the Ha’aretz newspaper, followed by a discussion with the audience. Village residents and other guests joined the SFP for the second part.



A dark cloud hung over the opening of the SFP, not only because of the political situation, but because of economic difficulties the likes of which we have not had to face in a long time. Twenty seven facilitators showed up, out of the thirty two who were invited. Highly motivated by the need to take action against the ignorance and the rising hate and fear in our society, and anxious to start a new year, the facilitators were greeted by the news that the youth encounter department of the School for Peace, for the first time in the SFP’s history, may have to close down this year. SFP director Nava Sonnenschein explained that rejection by a major British foundation that had supported us in the past, and a gradual decline in income from NS/WAS friends associations, have brought the youth projects to a critical point. Thanks to specific help provided by the American Friends of NS/WAS, the SFP will be able to conduct three youth encounter projects. That will be the extent of the youth program this year unless we are surprised by additional help very soon.

The facilitators were extremely surprised and disappointed by the news, and not only because of their concern for their personal income. Discussion of the new year was dominated by questions of educational strategy and funding priorities. After spending years developing a cadre of trained facilitators and developing relations with tens of Jewish and Arab high schools it was not clear how the most fundamental and broad-based outreach program of the SFP could be put into question. The facilitators’ frustration was great. Facilitating youth encounters is more than a job. It is their way to take action and not allow themselves to be defeated by the political situation. Several of the facilitators suggested volunteering some of their time if the opportunity arises.



Gidon Levi’s lecture was fascinating and depressing. For seventeen years Levi has been exposing the Israeli public to atrocities of occupation that are generally ignored by the Israeli media. He stated that the situation is getting worse while the Israeli public is increasingly apathetic to the barbaric behavior of the soldiers who commit their war crimes in the name of the State.

Between the report on the lack of funding for SFP youth projects and the pessimistic political forecast offered by Gidon Levi, this was not one of the more uplifting openings for the School for Peace.Yet the facilitators left the discussions no less determined to find a way to put their training into practice and contribute to making a change.We promised to continue our efforts to find the resources necessary to resume youth activities.




15-11-2004 The el-‘Ain Course for Women from the Negev

In light of the success of the “Women in a Time of Change” course in the Tel-Aviv University, we decided to open a similar course in the Ben Gurion University in Beer Sheva. The course is conducted in cooperation with the department of gender studies in the Ben Gurion University. The program is aimed at women from lower socio-economic sectors who do have not had the opportunity to study in the university as B.A. students.



Sixteen Arab and eleven Jewish women take participate in the course. They come from Rahat, Beer Sheva and Kiryat Gat. From the outset of the course we identified patterns of participation that were very different from those with which we had become familiar in the Tel – Aviv / Jaffa course. In their interaction with the faculty and with each other, the participants demonstrated tremendous self - confidence. In one of the exercises we asked the participants to choose a person who is very significant or inspirational in their lives. One woman chose herself saying, “I am the person I look up to because I opened myself to a way of thinking and behaving that was previously foreign to me.” A few women chose their mothers, as one of them explained, “...because mother instilled in me a radical world view. She was a role model for me and for others.”

We have been impressed by the support that these women give to their daughters and to their daughter – in – laws. They speak of their motivation to educate women to be assertive and to see to it that the younger generation of women receive the kind of support that they themselves did not have.




15-12-2004 Jewish – Arab Youth Encounters

The SFP conducted three Jewish – Arab youth encounter projects in November and December, 2004. A total of 140 eleventh grade students from six high schools took part. The Gymnasia Notsrit in Illabun met with the Givat Brenner regional school, the Municipal High School in Nazareth met with the Re‘ali High School from Haifa, and the Mar Elias School in Ibellin met with the Makif Rabin School from Eilat. Both the school administration and students demonstrated great motivation to participate in the programs.



Each encounter has its own unique story. Here we try to identify a number of points that the three encounters had in common, perhaps adding at least a little to our understanding of the complexity of Jewish – Arab relations.

The three Jewish groups came from different socio-economic backgrounds and they exhibited different levels of knowledge regarding the conflict and its history. However all of the Jewish groups were characterized by a combination of liberal political opinions accompanied by expressions of racism towards Arabs. In a simulation game in which the participants conducted negotiations over their future together, all of the Jewish groups defended similar uncompromising nationalist positions.



The Arab groups came from similar socio – economic backgrounds but they were different from each other in the ways that they approached the Jewish group. In one workshop the Arab group stormed out of the negotiation room claiming that there is no point in talking to the Jewish partner group. They left the workshop on the morning of the third day, skipping the final activity and summary discussion. They did not even part from the Jewish group. This kind of behavior was unprecedented in our long history of encounter workshops, and may be a hint of a difficult future still awaiting us.

In another workshop the Arab group attempted to maintain a pleasant atmosphere and avoid confrontation with the Jews at almost any price. In this case the Arab group succeeded in leaving the workshop satisfied with their experience. But the Jews expressed frustration claiming that they did not feel that they had adequately addressed the issues

.

Each individual and each group in these encounters exposes aspects of today‘s society. It is important to note that all three of the encounters benefited from the support of teachers who cooperated wonderfully with the SFP staff. This kind of support is essential to the students‘ ability to handle some of the things that come up in the workshop.

In recent years we have witnessed a growing trend of conducting Jewish – Arab dialogue based on email correspondence. One of the findings from research on this work is that the anonymous character of the “encounter” tends to encourage the expression of more extreme, insensitive and violent positions. We are convinced that our objectives of advancing understanding cannot be achieved without human contact. This is educational work that requires experience and support. We have yet to hear of anything that can replace it.