The use of stories as a tool for intervention and research in the arena of Peace Education in...

Journal of Peace EducationVol. 3, No. 2, September 2006, pp. 251–271

ISSN 1740–0201 (print)/ISSN 1740–021X (online)/06/020251–21© 2006 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/17400200600874941

The use of stories as a tool for intervention and research in the arena of peace education in conflict areas:the Israeli–Palestinian storyTal Litvak Hirsch*Ben Gurion University, IsraelTaylor and Francis LtdCJPE_A_187421.sgm10.1080/17400200600874941Journal of Peace Education1740-0201 (print)/1740-021X (online)Original Article2006Taylor & Francis32000000September 2006Dr [email protected]

The aim of this paper, in the area of peace education, is to demonstrate the feasibility of using storiesas part of educational programmes and research. This paper has two sections. In the first, a briefoverview of peace education theory and practice in the Israeli context will be presented. Theconcept of stories and the possibility of using stories in educational programmes and research inpeace education will also be discussed. In the second section, two psychological educational projectsthat use stories in the area of peace education will be demonstrated and the similarities and differ-ences between the two projects will be noted. In conclusion, guidelines will be presented which canbe applied in peace education programmes, not only in Israel but in other regions of conflictthroughout the world.

Introduction

Over the last 30 years, peace education has been discussed in theory, research andpractice throughout the world and in Israel in particular (Bar & Bar-Gal, 1995; Maoz,2000; Firer, 2002; Salomon, 2002; Bar-On & Kassem, 2004). The aim of this paperis to demonstrate the feasibility of using stories as part of educational programmesand research in peace education. This paper has two sections. In the first, a brief over-view of peace education theory and practice in the Israeli context will be presented.The concept of stories and the possibility of using stories in educational programmesand research will also be discussed. In the second section, two psychological educa-tional projects that use stories in the area of peace education will be demonstrated andthe similarities and differences between the two projects will be noted. The first

*Department of Behavioural Science, Ben Gurion University, PO Box 653, Beer Sheva 84105,Israel. Email: [email protected]

252 T. Litvak Hirsch

project was carried out in the late 1990s. Based on bibliotherapy, it examined theefficiency of an educational programme that attempted to change Jewish Israelichildren’s perceptions of Arab1 children and their willingness to socialize with theArab children. The second project was carried out in the years 2000–2004, andinvolved Jewish and Palestinian students who participated in a year-long seminarbased on telling each other their own life stories. In this research, short stories anddilemmas were used as a tool for examining processes of development and change inidentity construction.

In conclusion, guidelines will be presented which can be applied in peace educationprogrammes, not only in Israel but in other regions of conflict throughout the world.

Peace education programmes in Israel

Over the last two decades, numerous peace education programmes have been devel-oped, applied and researched in Israel. The programmes can be divided into two maincategories: (1) encounter groups, or inter-group encounters between Jews and Arabsconsisting mainly of Israeli citizens; and (2) school curriculum schemes which are usedin tutorial and citizenship lessons. These curriculum-based programmes are usedmainly in the Jewish schools. The research literature presents three main categoriesof encounter groups:

(1) Human relations groups: based primarily on the contact hypothesis (Allport,1954; Pettigrew, 1998), these groups attempt to foster personal relationshipsbetween the participants. The assumption is that getting to know each otherpersonally contributes to a change in stereotypic perceptions, attitudes andrelations. Research has shown that, while it may have advantages in the short run,it usually has little long-term impact, because the external power relations and thehostile environment may obliterate the positive effect created by the small groupprocess (Bar & Bar-Gal, 1995; Suleiman, 1997; Maoz, 2000).

(2) The confrontation model: developed in Israel at Neve Shalom institutes forpeace. This approach focuses on collective identities and the asymmetric powerrelations between the two sides, sometimes at the expense of creating closepersonal relationships of trust and friendship among participants of the group.This strategy attempts to empower the members of the minority group and helpthe dominant group develop new insights into their own identity ambivalenceand their power orientation (Halabi, 2000).

(3) Family stories model: a relatively new type of model, the purpose of which is tointegrate the two preceding models. The participants from both sides share withthe group members their family stories, which they have collected by interviewingmembers from two generations of their families. The mutual sharing of life storiesallows a connection on a personal level, as well as a discussion of the collectivecomponents of the stories (for example, the Holocaust for the Jews and the 1948Al Nakba catastrophe for the Arabs). Through the stories, in-depth personal andgroup work on the topics tied to the conflict is made possible. Studies have shown

Stories as a tool for intervention 253

the potential of this approach to stimulate the ability to develop familiarity andacquaintanceship with each other, as well as the creating of an atmosphere ofmutual listening, awareness and empathy toward the ‘other’ (Litvak-Hirsch, Bar-On & Chaitin, 2003; Bar-On & Kassem, 2004).

Research has shown that the encounters between Jews and Arabs are important andmeaningful (Maoz, 2000; Bargal, 2004). However, there are limitations that place aconstraint on intergroup encounters of this kind, such as the geographical distancebetween the two groups, communication difficulties due to language differences andinsufficient financial resources. Furthermore, the hostility between the groups that ispart of the ongoing conflict in the region reduces the likelihood of these encounters.Amir and Ben Ari (1987) have suggested focusing on curriculum-based programmesin peace education, in an endeavour to reduce stereotypes and enhance acceptance ofthe other.

A variety of programmes aimed at reducing stereotypes, enhancing the perceptionof the other, and fostering the values of democracy and peace, are being introducedinto schools by the Israeli Ministry of Education (Masloboti & Eiram, 1992).

In addition to educational programmes, in recent years the textbooks used forteaching history and citizenship in Jewish Israeli schools were partly revised in light ofthe harsh findings that Arabs were presented as an enemy in most textbooks (Firer,2002). For example, last year a new history guidebook was published which presentedthe Jewish collective story alongside the Palestinian collective story concerning the1948 War. For the Jews it is called the ‘War of Independence’ while for the Palestin-ians it is known as ‘Al Nakba’ (‘The Catastrophe’). The book was written with thecooperation of Jewish and Palestinian teachers, and is aimed at helping students learnabout each other’s collective history, in addition to encouraging pupils to tell theirown family story in class (Bar-On & Adwan, 2004). However, within the educationalsystem voices have been heard, especially among teachers, concerning the difficultiesof attaining values of peace while everyday life is filled with anxiety and fear of terror-ist attacks. Those voices have become even stronger over the past five years, since thestart of the second Intifada (the uprising of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza)in October of 2000, as a result of the continuing violence on both sides (Tzelmair &Perry, 2002).

Research has shown that most of the educational programmes currently in usehave not been rigorously evaluated. Nevertheless, a meta-analytic study of hundredsof peace education programmes in Israel and throughout the world has shown arelatively high effectiveness of these programmes, in general (Nevo & Brem, 2002).Nevo and Brem (2002) have pointed out that most of the educational programmesfocus on the cognitive aspect of the issue and only a few relate to the emotionalaspect. The latter plays a very important role in the perception of the other in aconflict context such as that which exists in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, as fearand anxiety are central emotions on both sides. Researchers have emphasised theneed to develop peace education programmes that combine both cognitive andemotional aspects.


Stories and peace education

Bruner (1990) has suggested that thinking through stories is one of the two basichuman ways of thinking. He emphasized that stories are an integral part of our iden-tity and culture. According to Bruner, people interpret the world around them andexamine their own place in society through stories. As a support for this theory,research has shown that, from a very young age, children tend to love and becomeconnected to stories (Riessman, 1993). With the adoption of this attitude, it is advan-tageous to examine the feasibility of using stories as a basis for developing, applyingand researching peace education programmes.

In the latter half of this paper, I will present two programmes that utilize stories inpeace education. The first programme employs bibliotherapy as a tool for changingthe ways in which Jewish Israeli children perceive Arab children, and for enhancingthe possibility of social interaction between them. The second programme usesdilemmas as a tool for focusing on processes of development and change in identityconstruction in young Jewish and Arab adults.

Project 1: a bibliotherapy-based intervention programme as a means to change Jewish Israeli children’s attitudes toward Arab children

The intention of this programme is to utilize bibliotherapy methodology to reducestereotypical thinking, while simultaneously enhancing the possibility for socialcontact between Jewish Israeli children and Arab children. Bibliotherapy encouragesfree associative thinking and raises a variety of emotions toward oneself and the other(Cohen, 1995; Kobovi, 1992). The programme was developed in response to theneed for alternative methods to intergroup encounters and as a means to preparechildren for actual encounters. Rather than ‘jumping right in’ to a face-to-faceencounter situation, the students in this programme would first experience virtualencounters by listening to stories about encounters between Arab and Jewish chil-dren. In each story, a conflict arises concerning the relationship between the childrenon each side and several solutions to the conflict are offered. The programme consistsof reading the stories and discussing them and their possible solutions.

What is bibliotherapy?

Using bibliotherapy in the arena of peace education with children is a new method,and the question is therefore raised: is bibliotherapy a suitable tool for these kinds ofissues? Before we answer this, it is necessary first to define bibliotherapy. Bibliother-apy is defined as a psychological technique that utilizes literature in order for aninteraction between the reader and the text to take place (Berenstein, 1997). Theobjective of bibliotherapy surrounds the creation of a respite of internal tension whileenhancing understanding, tolerance and openness to others (Kobovie, 1992). Theemployment of bibliotherapy as a psychological tool is based on the assumption thatreading brings to the surface feelings that are usually inaccessible in normal, daily


discourse. Bibliotherapy creates a common space for dealing with problems that arewidely shared. Moreover, bibliotherapy has the potential to expand the sensitivity,empathy and acceptance of the other (Kohen, 1990). Researchers have suggested thatthis technique assists children in projecting their unacceptable attitudes and behav-iour onto others. In so doing, children may deal with their own ‘bad’ characteristicswithout the threat of guilt (Shrodes, 1978; Nahshol, 1993; Wolf, 2000).

Bibliotherapy allows children to free themselves of feelings of anger, fear and frus-tration toward the characters in the story. At the same time, the story can be used asa model for a positive relationship with the other, a relationship free of stereotypicthinking. Researchers recommend the use of bibliotherapy in groups where individu-als can become aware of the fact that people share the same problems and can learnskills from each other for coping with those problems (Kohen, 1990; Kobovie, 1992).

The process of bibliotherapy involves several stages that reflect the thoughts andfeelings of the children as they are reading and discussing the text (Rulin, 1978;Kohen, 1990; Kobovie, 1992). A basic feature of the first step of the bibiotherapeuticprocess is identification. Children usually identify with the character in the story thatmost closely resembles them in age and sex. Identification is highly influential whenthere is a strong emotional response toward the conflict embedded in the story.Through the process of identification with the characters and their conflicts, emotionsthat hold no threat to the reader are aroused. This is because the character that is atarget for these emotions is fictional rather than a real person.

The aim of this intervention programme is primarily to promote Jewish children’sidentification with the Jewish child character in the story, and through this, to bringto their consciousness their varied emotions and attitudes toward their relationshipwith the Arab child character. It is assumed that identification with the Jewish childcharacter will encourage the reader to first adopt that character’s attitudes andbehaviour. This, in turn, is thought to lead to an awareness of stereotypical thinkingtoward Arab children. Once that is achieved, the door is opened to discussing waysto cope with these behaviours and attitudes.

The central feature of the second stage of the bibliotherapeutic process is projection.Projection is a way of expressing the emotions and attitudes of the individual bysuperimposing them onto the character of the story. The rationale behind the inter-vention programme is that children who are exposed to the text and take part in asupervised discussion within a safe environment will be able to express feelings ofanger, fear and guilt toward themselves and others by means of projection.

The next stage in the bibliotherapy process is to evoke catharsis, which is achievedthrough dynamic work on the emotions that are expressed. Various tools arepresented to help children cope with these emotions. The importance of catharsis isthat it enables a drop in tension and negative emotions which accumulate throughoutthe bibliotherapeutic process.

In this intervention programme it is recognized that, together with catharsis ofemotions, bibliotherapy ultimately seeks to reach the stage of insight. This is the peakobjective of the bibiotherapeutic process, a stage in which the individual developsself-awareness of emotions, motives and needs. Only after one possesses a measure


of self-awareness can the process advance to the achievement of awareness andunderstanding of the emotions and needs of the other. This stage is essential withinthe intervention programme, as it carries the overarching goal of reducingstereotypic thinking, changing attitudes toward Arab children, and supporting thewillingness for social contact with them.

The construction of the intervention programme

This programme, created in 1996, consists of eight bibliotherapeutic sessions ofapproximately one hour each. In each session, the educator/therapist reads aloud ashort story or a chapter from a book, which is then discussed with the group using thebibliotherapy tools detailed above. In the last session, the programme is summed upin terms of its contributions to the participants.

The five stories chosen for use in the programme were written by Jewish Israeliauthors in the last two decades. They present both the difficulties and opportunitiesfor interactions between Jewish and Arab children. They are briefly described below.

The first story, ‘Sami and Ori’ (Kohen, 1981), describes a meeting between aJewish Israeli child whose father was killed in the 1967 War and a Palestinian childwhose family lost their house during the 1948 War. The two boys meet by chance inan isolated cave on a cold winter’s night. The story highlights the obstacles faced bythe two boys in creating a mutual relationship, and their reluctance to do so, anddescribes the gradual process of creation of a friendship. At the end of the story thereis uncertainty as to the future of their relationship.

The second story, ‘The Adventures of Danny-Din and Dina-Din, Keepers ofPeace’ (Sarig, 1995), describes a meeting between Ali, an Arab child, and Danny-Dinand Dina-Din, the invisible children. During the meeting, the issues of trust andstereotypes and prejudice regarding Jewish children are raised. The story focuses onthe question of whether it is an option to invite Arab children, like Ali and his friends,to the neighbourhood Jewish bonfire. The answer, though complicated and ambigu-ous, gives hope for a successful meeting.

In the third story, ‘Tracking the Blue Truck’ (Rave, 1992), Osnat, a Jewish girlwho has declared her hatred of ‘all Arabs’, meets Abed, an Arab boy her age. Abed issuspected of throwing stones at Jewish drivers. The interaction between Osnat andAbed is such that it leads to a break in their circle of hatred. As a result, at the end ofthe story when her Jewish friend wants to physically assault Abed in retaliation,Osnat protects him. This story presents the difficulty in creating a positive relation-ship between Jews and Arabs because of hostile feelings within both societies towardthe other. Despite this, the story emphasizes the possibility of creating a positiverelationship.

The forth story, ‘Nadia’ (Ron-Feder, 1985), describes the interactions betweenJewish and Arab children in a boarding school. Initially, Nadia, an Arab girl who isstudying in a Jewish boarding school, encounters prejudice from her Jewish room-mates. At the end of the story, due to good will and cooperation, true friendshipbetween Nadia and her Jewish companions is achieved.


The fifth story, ‘A Test of Friendship’ (Orgad, 1987), describes a meeting betweena Jewish child, Gabriel, who is lost, and an Arab child, Hamid, who helps Gabriel findhis way home. As a result, Gabriel invites Hamid to his home. Initially, Gabriel’sfather objects to the relationship but after personal acquaintance with Hamid, thefather accepts and encourages the relationship. In this story, fear and apprehension,together with the longing for friendship on both sides, is made manifest.

The participants in the intervention programme

The programme was carried out for eight successive weeks in a primary school in asmall town in the centre of Israel. A hundred and twenty pupils, aged 10–11,comprised the sample. The rationale for choosing this age group was based on theirdevelopmental stage. It was assumed that these youngsters would be able to show theabilities to engage in logical reasoning, to generalize, and to perceive similarities andchanges, all of which are essential for understanding and reducing stereotypes(Mussen, 1983). According to Freud (1933), this age represents the ‘latent stage’,which can be identified when the child’s energies are channelled into cognitive andpeer relationship development.

Evaluation research for the intervention programme

The programme was empirically evaluated. While all subjects participated in anintervention programme based on bibliotherapy, the subjects were randomly dividedinto four groups: two experimental and two control groups. The difference betweenthe experimental and the control groups lay in the content of the stories. In theexperimental programme, the topic of the stories was social contact between Araband Jewish children, while in the control programme, the topic of the stories wasanimals and plants. In each session, one story was read aloud to the students by theresearcher. This was followed by a group discussion of the story based on bibliother-apy techniques. Prior to and after the programme, the subjects were asked to fill outthe Stereotype Thinking and Social Contact Questionnaire (Dinnar & Bar-Tal,1993).

The results of the evaluation research

The first hypothesis suggested that in the experimental group, as compared to thecontrol group, intervention programmes would decrease stereotypic thinking aboutArab children. Results supported this hypothesis, as experimental group subjectsrevealed less stereotypic thinking, in general, as well as specifically toward Arabchildren.

The second hypothesis presumed that the intervention programme in the experi-mental group would increase the willingness for peace among the Jewish subjects andchange their perceptions of the Arab children’s attitudes toward peace. Findings indi-cated that the Jewish Israeli children did not show a heightened willingness for peace


themselves, but that they did perceive the Arab children’s attitudes as more enthusi-astic for peace after completing the programme.

The third hypothesis was that the intervention programmes would promote agreater willingness for social contact with Arab children as well as the perception ofArab children as wanting social contact with the subject. The findings supported thishypothesis.

The impressions of the researcher on the intervention sessions in class2

Session 1: The story of ‘Sami and Ori’. The researcher read the story aloud and thechildren listened attentively. A group discussion was then held, focusing on the diffi-culties of Sami and Ori in having a friendship because of both families’ and nationalhostility. Some of the children said that, in their opinion, the doings of the past wereneither Sami’s nor Ori’s fault and therefore, should the children desire, they couldand should become friends (‘Sami and Ori are not to blame for their families’history’).

Some of the students shared stories about their own encounters with Arab childrenunder different circumstances. They emphasized embarrassment and the difficultiesat the start of the encounters (‘It’s a little bit scary, they are different, their languageis different, and they have different habits’). However, they mentioned that, as timewent on, they found common ground for a connection and were able to play together.One of the children stated that when a common interest is found (such as playing theharmonica, like Ori and Sami in the story), it is easier to create a relationship, despitea difference in nationality or religion. Some children, supporting this, claimed thateven the war and one’s personal pain could be a subject for conversation and that thistype of talk could make creating a mutual connection easier (‘Maybe they can talkabout the war and what is painful for them’). At the end of the session, most of thechildren expressed the opinion that it is possible, albeit not easy, to make socialcontact with Arab children.

Encouraging the children to discuss personal stories and experiences within thegroup proved to be an essential part of the session. The children seemed to find itquite easy to identify with the children in the stories.

The closing session. The closing session had a strong emotional impact on the chil-dren. The researcher explained that in this session, she would not read a story butinstead, the group would talk together about the programme overall. The childrenwere asked to delineate the morals of the programme and how they felt about them,and the answers were varied. One moral that stood out from the children’s statementswas that it is ‘possible to be friendly with Arab children who are not so different fromus’. Some of the children brought up the need for peace, while others focused on thefear that ‘Arabs can hurt us’. Other students spoke of the conflict of deciding who isa friend and who is an enemy. Some children suggested that adults’ attitudes aredifferent from those of children, claiming that it is much harder for adults to free


themselves of harsh feelings toward Arabs because of the wars and the bloody historybetween the two nations.

The students were asked if their attitudes and/or feelings had changed during theprogramme, and many said that the programme did indeed change their attitudestoward Arab children. One child stated, ‘Now it is easier for me to think aboutcreating contact with Arab children because I can also understand their point ofview’. One girl noted that, for the first time, she could understand that ‘we are verysimilar to each other’, while one boy told the class that he now found it easier toget closer to a group of Arab children in his choir. Another child said that sherecently met and befriended an Arab girl who reminded her of Nadia from thestory. A few students said that the programme had not changed their attitudes andpointed out to the rest that ‘we have to remember that there are many Arabs whohate us’.

All of these observations should be treated with critical eyes and careful optimismsince there is a strong tendency toward the ‘halo effect’ in relation to these kinds ofdescriptions; i.e., allowing an overall impression of a group to come from the notableremarks of a few members of the group.

Conclusion

The empirical findings, the researcher’s impressions, and the children’s commentspoint to the fact that the intervention programme had a significant influence on theJewish subjects’ perceptional and emotional perspectives of Arab children andenhanced their willingness for social contact with the other. The children discussedtheir conflicts and fears openly, although practical solutions were not always at hand.

It is important to note that this research took place after the signing of the OsloAccords with the Palestinians,3 a time that was considered a relatively quiet period inthe region. During this period, many people in Israel believed that there was a possi-bility for peace and co-existence with the Arabs, a belief that is reflected in the resultsof this research.

Project 2: processes of development and change in identity construction—responses to dilemmas among young adults in Israel

The second project to be presented here is based on research that was carried out inthe years 2000–2004 at Ben Gurion University in the southern part of Israel. Thefocus of the study was to trace processes of development and change in identityconstruction among young adults in Israel, by examining the responses of the inter-viewees to dilemmas presented as short stories containing conflicts. In each of thedilemmas, an ‘other’ was presented (either Palestinian or Jewish).

The subjects of the study were 20 university students from the Department ofBehavioural Science, ten Jewish and ten Palestinian citizens of Israel.4 All partici-pated in a year-long encounter group course based on the technique of telling lifestories (Bar-On & Kassem, 2004), having chosen to attend the seminar and receiving


academic credit for doing so. The students were interviewed three times, at thebeginning and end of the course (during the years 2000–2001) and once again as afollow-up study three years later (2004). The dilemmas were presented at each ofthese three points in time over the four-year period, enabling the researchers to trackprocesses of development and change in the perception of the ‘other’ as part ofidentity construction.

The methodological contribution of this research is the development of an inter-viewing tool based on the presentation of and responses to dilemmas. Inspiration forthe dilemmas came from the work of Kohlberg (1963), who examined responses tomoral dilemmas, as well as from Billig (1987), who suggested that dilemmas can actas a basis for internal and external dialogue. The dilemmas were based on significantcurrent events in Israeli political and social life. All interviews were analysed using acombination of thematic and linguistic analysis methods.4

The method of the dilemmas will be demonstrated by presenting a prototypicalexample, which stirred up strong emotions on both sides and generated the longestand most complex answers. After detailing the dilemma, some of the responses to itwill be presented.

The house dilemma

A television programme presents two families: a Palestinian family—the Husseins—and a Jewish family—the Wiesmans. The Hussein family, who live in a refugee campin Ramallah, lived in a house in the city of Ramle up until 1948. The Wiesman familyimmigrated to Israel from Hungary in 1948, after having been through the Holocaust.Today they live in Ramle in a house that was allocated to them by the governmentafter their arrival in Israel. From conversations between the two families, it becameclear that the house in which the Wiesman family has been living for 50 years is thehouse that was built by Muhammed Hussein in 1930 and in which the Hussein familylived until the war broke out in 1948. The Hussein family even brought pictures ofthe house to the programme as proof that the house belonged to them, according toOttoman law (not Israeli law). During the television programme, both families toldtheir stories.

After reading the dilemma, three questions were presented to the interviewees:

● What are the thoughts and emotions that the situation raises for you?● How would you feel and respond if someone knocked at your door and proved to

you that the house in which you live belongs to him/her and his/her family?● Does this situation make you think about a memory, event or experience in your

life or your family history?

The historical background of the dilemma

The dilemma describes the story of a house and is connected to historical eventsthat took place in 1948, when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who had lived


in pre-state Israel escaped or were expelled from their homes. Most of these peopleare still living in refugee camps in the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Lebanon andSyria. After the 1948 war, the Israeli government declared the houses to be ‘aban-doned property’, and some of them were given to the new Jewish immigrants whocame to Israel after having survived the Holocaust and/or emigrating from Arabcountries. Many of the Jews who received these ‘abandoned’ houses had had theirown homes and property confiscated in the countries of their origin. The issue ofthe Palestinian ‘Right of Return’, sometimes discussed in connection with these losthomes, continues to be one of the most sensitive and controversial issues in thecurrent Israeli and Palestinian discourse.

From a psychological point of view, the house dilemma reflects one of the mostdifficult issues in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. From a collective perspective, thehouse is a symbol of safety as well as of painful memories of uprooting in both Jewishand Palestinian constructions of identity. Meron Benvenisti, a Jewish historian andscholar, writes (1996, p. 131):

It would be hard to overstate the symbolic value of a house to an individual for whom theculture of wandering and of becoming rooted to the land is so deeply engrained in tradi-tion, for an individual whose national mythos is based on the tragedy of being uprootedfrom a stolen homeland.

According to Kemerling (2004), the trauma and cruelty of the expulsion in 1948 isnot just a very difficult and painful memory for the Palestinians in Israel, but alsorepresents a lesson to be learned. The Palestinian Arabs currently living in Israel mustwalk very carefully. On the one hand, they feel compelled to demand their rights,protect what was left for them from their own land, and protest what happened tothem. On the other hand, they must be careful that the Jews won’t find any reason touproot them from their land (Kemerling, 2004).

To conclude, the house dilemma brings to the surface both psychological and polit-ical conflicts that touch a very strong emotional root of existence for both Jews andPalestinians. Therefore, it arouses in them a need to react to the dilemma stronglyand in depth, both emotionally and cognitively.

Responses to the dilemma: collective processes

Analysis of the interviews before and after the encounter groups showed that most ofthe students, both Jewish and Palestinian, displayed a heightened awareness of thecomplexities of the relationship with the ‘other’ in the context of a conflict. For theJewish students, the encounter provided the opportunity to get to know the IsraeliPalestinian ‘other’. In the interviews, many Jewish students noted that reading thehouse dilemma and understanding its resemblance to the life stories they had heardfrom the Palestinian participants raised many questions concerning their collectiveidentity and their responsibility for the others’ suffering (‘My whole identity wasshaken. I went through a change’). Most of them expressed empathy toward thePalestinian family in the dilemma, and the process that many of the Jewish students


went through was characterized by a shift toward openness and a more complexperception of the Palestinian ‘other’. Nevertheless, as a result of the harsh securitysituation in the region, many students still expressed fear and anxiety as well as angertoward the Palestinians.

Amongst the Palestinian students, many identified with the Palestinian family inthe house dilemma, claiming that their family stories are very similar. They stressedthe importance of telling these stories to both young Palestinians and Jewish people(‘It is very important to tell the story and not be afraid of telling them’). On acollective level, the Palestinian students expressed anger and frustration at being anunprivileged minority in Jewish Israeli institutions, such as the university. However,on a personal level, during the year, friendships between Jewish and Palestinianstudents did evolve.

In the follow-up conducted three years later (toward the end of 2004), both sidesexpressed more acceptance of each other and more understanding of the attendantcomplexities. Many of the seminar participants, now psychologists or educators, hadbecome involved in working on issues related to peace education, some in research inthe field of peace education or peace psychology and some in their fieldwork aspsychologists and educators (for example, as group facilitators or in work in mixedschools of Jews and Arabs).

Responses to the dilemma: examples for personal processes

An analysis of the responses of interviewees to the house dilemma in the first andsecond interviews allows a tracing of personal processes of development and changein perception of the ‘other’ as part of identity construction.5 An example of thefollowing of such processes in relation to two interviewees, Sarit and Nur, is presentedbelow.

Personal information about Sarit and Nur. Sarit is a Jewish woman in her mid-twenties who was born in a big city in the centre of Israel. Her family moved to a newkibbutz in the Golan Heights, formerly a Syrian region, conquered by Israel in 1967.Her family has two origins. Her father’s family came from Bulgaria and settled in thecity of Ramle in 1949, and her mother’s family came from Libya, where they livedthrough riots and had their house and property taken from them. When Sarit was inthe military, she served as an officer in a combat unit. She noted that she had decidedto participate in the seminar ‘to get to know the others and to enter into a dialoguewith them’.

Nur is a Christian Palestinian woman in her mid-twenties who was born in the cityof Ramle. Her relatives from both sides lived in Ramle until 1947, when they wereexpelled. Most of her family lives today in Ramallah and in Jordan. A few of her rela-tives, including her mother and father, who were children in 1948, remained inRamle, where they still live. Nur says, ‘They stayed in Ramle by luck because mymother’s sister was very ill. They stayed in the church’. Nur attended an Arab school


in the city, and she was a counsellor for youth groups comprising Arabs and Jews. Shedecided to participate in the seminar in order ‘to hear and be heard’.

Analyses and comparison of the two interviews

Sarit. From an analysis of the first interview, it appears that Sarit came to the semi-nar with an imagined construction of the Palestinian Israeli as a partner for dialogueand co-existence. She believed in the ability of both peoples to reach peace throughmutual compromise, including the personal relinquishment of her home in the GolanHeights (‘I see peace as the highest goal’). However, as a result of a lynching6 thatoccurred shortly before the interview, and the first sessions in the seminar in whichthe difficult life stories of the Palestinian participants surfaced, Sarit’s perceptionswere shaken and she expressed ambivalence and anger (‘Today my feelings arecompletely mixed. I am in favour of peace, but I want to know that there are peopleI can talk to’).

The dilemma of the house brought to the surface an inner conflict that Sarit mayhave felt before: her feelings of guilt toward the Palestinians, due to the historicalcollective pain inflicted on them in 1948, and her need, as a Jewish Israeli, to protecther positive esteem of her own collective. In the second interview, after Sarit wasexposed to more life stories from both the Palestinian and Jewish participants, andafter she had also interviewed her father and heard his life story, Sarit seemed to havegone through a process of re-examination of the ‘truths’ she had previously held. Inaddition, when she related to the dilemma, it seemed that Sarit had developed a newability to selectively criticize her father and the Jewish Israeli collective.

Identity can be constructed from conflicting elements (Sarup, 1996). In Sarit’s case,she was able to find a way to strengthen her way of relating to her collective, whilealso becoming empathic to the Palestinian others, in general, and to some Palestinianparticipants in the seminar, in particular. Throughout the course, Sarit developed moreopen relationships with Palestinian participants, and this was especially true of her rela-tionship with Nur, who reflected for Sarit some parallel parts of her own life story.However, Sarit also experienced feelings regarding the political and security situationin Israel (‘Something got a bit shaken up, I went through some kind of process’). Itappeared that it was not easy for Sarit to contain the stories of the other (the out-group)while retaining the meaning of her own group’s narrative (the in-group). By comparingthe first and second interviews, it is possible to trace the deepening of this complexitywithin her identity construction.

Nur. Nur began her first interview by saying that the house dilemma reflects, in hereyes, a typical event (‘This is a typical story from the stories that I hear every day’)and by showing an attempt to keep her emotions in check. However, it appeared thatbehind this facade of apathy, Nur was hiding great pain and anger that exploded intoview as the interview developed. In the second interview, she was more open anddescribed the process she underwent when she learned about her family’s personal


stories (‘More or less, what happened to my family, they were expelled in 1948’). ForNur, the seminar served as a kind of catalyst for her to search for her family roots.Over time, both the Jewish and Arab participants in the seminar became significantfor her as individuals to whom she could transmit the collective Palestinian messages(‘It’s important to know your history, especially your life story because it’s whatactually constructs your real identity’). Nur reached a level of self-actualization bytaking on the role of a ‘memorial candle’7 (Wardi, 1990) for her family and collectivestories. In the seminar, she searched for a place that would allow her to engage theparticipants in her stories and, in doing so, to lessen the burden she is carrying (‘It’sreally hard for me to carry this burden by myself … I want people to know, especiallyin the seminar’).

Sarit and Nur both mentioned each other in their own interviews, and it appearsthat the encounter between them during the year was significant for them. For Sarit,Nur was the catalyst for shattering the utopian views that Sarit had previously heldabout Jews and Palestinians living in Ramle, and she appeared to be ambivalenttoward Nur because of this. On the one hand, she seemed to be angry at Nur forcausing this break in her harmonious world views (‘I think that today it is muchharder for me to deal with Nur, since her house may be next to my father’s house. Wehad a serious discussion about this’). But on the other hand, she feels thankful for hernewfound understanding (‘She brought up this difficult point of moving into a housethat once belonged to a Palestinian, as it were’).

When Nur talked about her interaction with Sarit in the seminar, she began bymentioning Sarit’s disbelief about her story (‘She almost didn’t believe that some-thing like that happened’). Later, Nur expressed her feeling that the two underwentsimilar processes as they searched for the historical truth and for the influence thatthis truth has had on their respective identity constructions.

Conclusion

This project presented a tool based on dilemmas, one that enables the researcher totrack processes of development and change in the perception of ‘others’ as part ofidentity construction. The special attribution of presenting a strong, meaningful,conflictual dilemma like the house dilemma lies in its power to instigate both Jews andPalestinians to react to it by expressing their thoughts and emotions. Through reac-tions to this dilemma, it is possible not only to trace processes of development andchange in the perception of self and other, but to bring into dialogue intervieweesfrom both sides and to see their mutual influences on each other, as we saw in theexample of Nur and Sarit.

It is important to note that this research study began in September 2000, after thecommencement of the second Intifada and during a time of great tumult in theregion. The year was punctuated by hundreds of violent outbreaks on both sides. Itis not surprising, therefore, that the optimistic outlook that had characterized the firstprogramme gave way to a substantial change in attitudes and emotions in the seminarcourse, primarily reflected in new expressions of anxiety and a lack of trust in the


prospect of a peaceful future. However, it is interesting to note that the follow-upresearch conducted three years later, still in the throes of a very harsh securitysituation, showed a slightly more optimistic view in relation to the perception of the‘other’, as the general attitude of the interviewees was more open and accepting thanin the first two interviews.

Discussion

Two distinct projects have been presented in this paper, both having utilized storiesas a tool for developing intervention programmes and research in the area of peaceeducation. Findings from both projects indicate that the use of stories can enhanceempathy and identification with and change attitudes toward the ‘other’, as well asstrengthen the possibility for social contact between Jews and Arabs in Israel.

At first glance, it might seem that there are more differences than similaritiesbetween the two projects. Firstly, as mentioned above, they were carried out indifferent security and social contexts, a disparity that influenced the results of theresearch. Secondly, the populations that participated in the two projects weredifferent and at different stages in their personal and social development. Further-more, the participants of the first project were randomly selected, with no consid-eration of their previous attitudes toward Arabs. In comparison, the participants ofthe second project were university students who chose to participate in theencounter group seminar between Jews and Arabs and to be interviewed on theseissues. Therefore, the second population already showed some level of inclinationor readiness to deal with issues of the perception of ‘others’ as part of identityconstruction.

Despite these differences, the results indicated that substantial change took placein the subjects of both projects. In the first, the Jewish Israeli children altered theirattitudes toward Arab children, and became less stereotypic in their thinking andmore willing to engage in social contact with Arabs. It must be pointed out, however,that this perceptual change must be viewed as primarily theoretical, as there was noreal contact with Arab children. In comparison, because the second project involvedactual physical contact between the Jewish and Palestinian participants, the resultswere much more varied and complex.

From a methodological point of view, it is important to point out further differ-ences between the two projects. The first disparity regards the length of the projects;the first was completed in three months while the second took about a year. Thesecond difference is the aim of the projects. The objective of the first was the devel-opment of the intervention programme and its application in the classroom, while itsevaluation was merely a secondary goal. It was based on quantitative methodology,which used statistics in order to support the hypothesis of the evaluation research.The problem with this method lies in its inability to trace the participant’s process ofchange in perception of the Arab ‘other’. The only recourse available in this domainwas the collection of quotes from the discussions held in class and reliance on theresearcher’s impressions and observations.


In the second project, the primary aim was the tracing of processes of developmentand change in the perception of others as part of identity construction among youngJewish and Palestinian students who participated in a year-long encounter group.Here, the method was qualitative, based on in-depth interviews with the participantsbefore and after the encounter. In this study, there were no statistical findings and theresults came out of a lengthy process of analysis and interpretation. Another disparitybetween the two projects is the fact that a follow-up was conducted in the second butnot the first.

While both projects utilized stories as a tool for stimulating emotional and cognitiveresponses to situations of conflict, the implementation methods differed betweenthem. In the first project, the stories served as a basis for bibliotherapy with a groupof children in a classroom, while in the second, the dilemmas were presented to eachinterviewee individually. Whereas the researcher provided guidance suitable to thedevelopmental stage of the children in the first programme, in the second projectthere was less guidance and presentation of the dilemmas was followed by three open-ended questions.

Results from both projects strongly indicate the positive value of using stories in thearea of peace education, as in both contexts the stories or dilemmas evoked a needand willingness in the participants to share their own personal and family experiences.The stories provided a potential space in which the reader or listener could find acontact point with the ‘other’, and then, through this contact, learn how to deal withthe conflict and expand the understanding of self and ‘other’. Stories must be suffi-ciently personal so as to evoke strong thoughts and feelings, but distant enough toallow for expression of these feelings without feeling threatened (Nahshol, 1993;Wolf, 2000). The fact that these stories were able to make an impact on both childrenand young adults supports the assumption that stories are an integral part of cultureand socialization (Bruner, 1990).

Viewing stories as a way to evoke thoughts and feelings, as well as to enhance thepotential of the readers to create their own personal stories and share them withothers, strengthens the potential of this approach to become a meaningful componentof peace education programmes. Educators should encourage students to constructtheir own stories and share them with the group, maintaining a safe environment forexpressing a variety of thoughts and feelings. This is mostly important when the groupis heterogeneous and consists of children from different ethnic, national or religiousbackgrounds.

When dealing with a conflict between two groups, it is also critical to attempt topresent a symmetrical, unbiased perspective. For example, some of the Jewishinterviewees in the second project claimed that the house dilemma was biased towardthe Palestinian side. Needless to say, there is no straightforward response to thisclaim; it can only be stressed here that it is important to be sensitive to this issue whenchoosing stories that deal with a conflict situation. Jackson (2002) suggested that astory presented by one side of a conflict can silence the story of the other side, espe-cially when the latter is in a weaker position. When educators cannot find stories thatpresent a symmetrical, unbiased perspective, they should, at the very least, be aware


of and discuss the asymmetry with the students. Talking about asymmetry in groupsin conflict is not an easy task for educators, but it is an important mechanism forenhancing awareness and understanding of each other (Maoz, 2000).

This paper suggests that stories can be effective in the area of peace education,serving both in intervention programmes and in research. However, it is important tonote that, when applying educational programmes based on stories, educators shouldconsider a number of issues delineated below.

First, one must ensure that the chosen stories are suitable for the age group ofthe readers or listeners. The stories should be clear and not too complex, andshould contain elements with which the children can identify. It is advisable thatstories be as open-ended as possible, in order to allow for a variety of connectingpoints. Educators should examine the objectives of their particular programme andchoose the stories accordingly. For example, in the intervention programmepresented here, the aim was to reduce stereotypical thinking and heighten the will-ingness of Jewish children to have social contact with Arab children. Therefore, thestories that were chosen presented the possibility for social contact between Jewishand Arab children.

Parallel to an eye on the programme goals, it is very important to choose stories thatreflect the harsh external reality (in the case of Israel and Palestine) but neverthelessreflect hope for a better future. Children in conflict areas are aware of the political andsecurity situation, and are influenced by the media and their parents’ attitudes(Achilov, 1988). Therefore, it is advisable to discuss the external situation with themin class, giving them the opportunity to see as many points of view of the conflict andthe people who are involved in it as possible. The utilization of stories can create amuch more personal attitude toward the ‘others’ who are sometimes perceived as acollective enemy. The educators’ objective should be to determine and call attentionto the one-sided, monolithic perceptions of the children in relation to the ‘other’ (i.e.,‘we are good and they are bad’), and to problematize these perceptions, showing thestudents the potential of understanding the other side or even becoming friendly withthem. This should be done without avoiding the fact that there are indeed obstaclesin the way and that the conflict reality is a complex one.

In this paper two possible applications were presented for the use of stories in peaceeducation. However, there are other ways to make use of stories in this area. Forexample, parallel to the intervention programme based on bibliotherapy that waspresented here in relation to Israeli Jewish children, it is suggested that a similarprogramme be developed for Arab children, using stories in Arabic. It is also recom-mended that follow-up research of such intervention programmes be conducted inthe Jewish as well as Arab schools.

Bibliotherapy programmes can also serve as a first phase of a more extensive projectaimed at bringing Arab and Jewish children together and creating a dialogue betweenthem. Stories can be utilized as an introduction phase before the first meeting, orduring the meeting as a basis for mutual dialogue. In the case of a joint (Jewish–Arabchildren) bibliotherapy session, addressing the questions and problems that arise inthe stories regarding the fictional characters can help both sides to communicate


indirectly, until they feel safe enough to express their own thoughts and feelings in amore personal manner.

It might also be possible to use bibliotherapy in groups of older ages, such asadolescents and young adults. A positive example of this idea was found in a study byGlick and Pollack (2002), who used historical texts and stories as a way to work onissues of multicultural conflict in groups of university students.

When developing intervention programmes in the area of peace education, it is possi-ble to use short stories such as the house dilemma as part of the programme. Thesedilemmas may encourage pupils to research historical events, such as the 1948 War,in terms of how it is perceived by both sides. In situations where there is no directphysical contact with the ‘other’ due to conflict and hostility, it is important to presentand discuss collective narratives from both sides. The narratives can be presentedthrough history books (Bar-On & Adwan, 2004), as well as by encouraging the studentsto share their personal and family stories that are linked to these historical events.Discussions of collective as well as personal narratives support an internalization ofthe subject and encourage a higher and deeper level of learning.

The preliminary findings from an on-going study with adolescents in Arab andJewish schools in Israel indicate that presenting and discussing the house dilemma inclass is effective in creating rich and in-depth discussions concerning conflict issuessuch as the relationships between Jews and Arabs in Israel nowadays, human rights,and coping with both nations’ difficult and interrelated histories.

From a research perspective, it is suggested that the utilization of dilemmas canserve as a basis for a broader evaluation of the processes that participants of encountergroups undergo. For example, an assessment can be made of the aptness of applyingdilemmas to the ongoing changes in Israeli society, or dilemmas can be developedthat deal with other conflicts within Israeli society and in other conflict societies in theworld.

The usage of stories in peace education has proven to be an effective tool in manyways. In this paper, its effectiveness was demonstrated in two case studies related tothe Israeli–Palestinian context. However, stories can be used effectively in a variety ofcontexts, assisting educators to deal with conflicts all over the world. It is stronglyrecommended to use stories in varied peace education programmes in differentcontexts, but one must be sensitive to the specific context and its nature when choosingthe particular stories and working with them in educational settings.

Notes

1. In this paper, ‘Arab’ relates to Palestinian citizens of Israel.2. The complete impressions from each of the sessions can be found in Litvak (1997).3. Research was carried out from March to May of 1996, before the assassination of then Prime

Minister Yitzhak Rabin.4. A broader description of this study can be found in Litvak-Hirsch, Bar-On and Chaitin, 2004.5. In-depth analysis of the follow-up interviews is still in process.6. Two Israeli Jews were lynched in Ramallah by an angry mob of Palestinians at the end of

October 2000, a few days before Sarit was interviewed for the first time.


7. The concept of the memorial candle was first introduced by Dina Wardi (1990) in her book,Memorial Candles, and is connected to the tendency of a child of Holocaust survivors to repre-sent symbolically the family’s pain and mourning caused by the Holocaust.

Notes on contributor

Tal Litvak Hirsch received her Ph.D. in social psychology from Ben Gurion Univer-sity of the Negev in Beer Sheva, Israel. She is a researcher and lecturer at theDepartment of Behavioral Science at Ben Gurion University. She was a researchfellow at the Truman Institute for Peace Research at Hebrew University, in2004, and a Fulbright scholar at Earlham College in 2005. Her research focisurround processes of collective identity construction, the Israeli–Palestinianconflict, and peace education. She is also a clinical psychologist, working mainlywith adolescents.

References

Achilov, O. (1988) Chinuch l’ezrachut b’demokratia: mediniut v’tchanim (Tel Aviv, Dvir PublishingHouse).

Allport, G. W. (1954) The nature of prejudice (Cambridge, MA, Addison Wesley).Amir, Y. & Ben Ari, R. (1987) Mifgash bein bnei noar yehudim v’aravim b’yisrael, Megamot,

30(3), 305–315.Bar, H. & Bar-Gal, R. (1995) Lihiot im hakonflict (Jerusalem, Institute of Israel Studies).Bargal, D. (2004) Structure and process in reconciliation-transformation workshops, Small Group

Research, 35, 596–616.Bar-On, D. & Adwan, S. (2004) PRIME Sharing History Project: two separate but interdependent

narratives, in: R. I. Rotberg (Ed.) History’s double helix: the intertwined narratives of Israel/Palestine (Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press), 25–42.

Bar-On, D. & Kassem, F. (2004) Storytelling as a way to work through intractable conflicts: theTRT German-Jewish experience and its relevance to the Palestinian-Israeli context, Journal ofSocial Issues, 60(2), 289–306.

Benvenisti, M. (1996) City of stone (Tel Aviv, Dvir Publishing House).Berenstein, J. E. (1977) Books to help children cope with separation and loss (Philadelphia, PA, University

of Pennsylvania Press).Billig, M. (1987) Discursive, rhetorical and ideological messages, in: C. McGarty & A. Haslam

(Eds) The message of social psychology (Oxford, Blackwell), 1–49.Bruner, J. (1990) Acts of meaning (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).Carter, K. (1993) The place of story in the study of teaching and teachers’ education, Educational

Researcher, 22(1), 5–12.Cohen, A. (1995) Panim Mecvarot Bamara: Histakfut Hasicouch Hayehudi veharavi besifrut yeladim.

(Tel Aviv, Reshafim).Deutsch, M. (1993) Educating for a peaceful world, American Psychologist, 48, 510–517.Dinar, G. (1993) Stereotypim klapei yeladim aravim b’kerev yaldei gan. MA thesis, Tel Aviv University.Dinnar & Bar-Tal (1993) Steriotipim klapi Aravim bekerevyaldie gean. Tel Aviv University. Unpub-

lished paper.El-Heiri, B. (1997) Michtavim meaz Hlimon (Jerusalem, Centre for Alternative Information).Erikson, E. (1961) Childhood and society (New York, W. W. Company).Firer, R. (2002) The Gordian knot between peace education and war education, in: G. Salomon &

B. Nevo (Eds) Peace education: the concept, principles and practices around the world (Hillsdale,NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum), 55–63.


Freud, S. (1933) New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis (New York, Norton).Glick, T. & Pollack, Y. (2002) Mehatext el azmi vel hacher hasone mimeni. in: L. Kacen & R. Lev

(Eds) Avoda kvuzatit behevra rav tarbutit (Tel Aviv, Zrikuvner), 23–45.Granot, T. & Polack, I. (2002) M’text el haatzmi v’el hashayni mimeni, in: L. Kacen & R. Lev

(Eds) Avoda kvutzatit b’chevrah rav tarbutit (Tel Aviv, Zrikuvner), 36–49.Hagar, T. & Saba, T. (2004) Mapot mesaprot: mifgashim bein yehudim v’aravim b’mekomot lo

tzfuim (Tel Hai, Tel Hai College) (unpublished paper).Halabi, R. (2000) Dialog bein zehuyot (Tel Aviv, Hozat Hakibbutz Hameuhad).Jackson, M. (2002) Politics of storytelling: violence, transgression and intersubjectivity (Copenhagen,

Museum Tusculanum Press).Kemerling, B. (2004) Mehagrim, mityashvim, yelidim: hamedina v’hachevrah b’yisrael (Tel Aviv, Am

Oved).Kobovi, D. (1992) Shefruterapia (Jerusalem, Magnes).Kohen, A. (1985) Panim mechuarot bamarah (Tel Aviv, Reshafim).Kohen, A. (1990) Sipur hanefesh: Biblioterapia halacha l’maase (Kiryat Bialik, Hozaat Ach).Kohen, D. (1981) Uri v’sami (Ramat Gan, Masada).Kohlberg, L. (1963) Moral development and identification, in: H. Stevenson (Ed.) Child psychol-

ogy: 62nd yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Chicago, IL, University ofChicago Press).

Labov, W. (1972) Language in the inner city: studies in the Black English vernacular (Philadelphia,PA, University of Pennsylvania Press).

Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiah, R. & Zilber, T. (1998) Narrative research: reading, analysis andinterpretation (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).

Litvak, T. (1997) Hashpaat tochnit hitarvut mevuseset al biblioterapia al amadot shel yeladim yehudimklapei yeladim aravim. MA thesis, Tel Aviv University.

Litvak-Hirsch, T., Bar-On, D. & Chaitin, J. (2003) Whose house is this? Dilemmas of identityconstruction in the Israeli-Palestinian context, Journal of Peace Psychology, 9(2), 127–148.

Litvak-Hirsch, T., Bar-On, D. & Chaitin, J. (2004) Using dilemmas to trace identity constructionand the perception of others: the Israeli case, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1(3), 219–239.

Maoz, I. (2000) Power relations in inter-group encounters: a case study of Jewish Arab encountersin Israel, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24(4), 259–277.

Maoz, I. (2002) Conceptual mapping and evaluation of peace education programmes: the case ofeducation for co-existence through inter-group encounters between Jews and Arabs in Israel,in: G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds) Peace education: the concept, principles and practices around theworld (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum), 259–271.

Masloboti, N. & Eiram, Y. (2002) Chinuch l’arachim b’heksherim meguvanim (Ramot, Tel AvivUniversity).

McCauley, C. (2002) Head first versus feet first in peace education, in: G. Salomon & B. Nevo(Eds) Peace education: the concept, principles and practices around the world (Hillsdale, NJ,Lawrence Erlbaum), 247–259.

Mussen, P. H. (1983) Handbook of child psychology (4th edn) (New York, Wiley).Nahshol, R. (1993) Zimzum hitnahagut alimah etzel mitbagrim b’emtzaut biblioterapia. MA thesis,

Haifa University.Nevo, B. & Brem, I. (2002) Peace education programmes and the evaluation of their effectiveness,

in: G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds) Peace education: the concept, principles and practices around theworld (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum), 271–283.

Oppenheimer, L., Bar-Tal, D. & Raviv, A. (1999) Understanding peace, conflict and war, in: A.Raviv, L. Oppenheimer & D. Bar-Tal (Eds) How children understand war and peace (San Francisco,CA, Jossey-Bass), 27–35.

Orgad, D. (1987) Yedidut b’mivchan (Tel Aviv, Hadar).Pettigrew, T. F. (1998b) Intergroup contact theory, Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85.Rave, A. (1992) B’ikvot hamashit hakhula (Tel Aviv, Hozhaat Yosef Servrak).


Riessman, C. K. (1993) Narrative analysis (London, Sage).Ron-Feder, G. (1985) Nadia (Tel Aviv, Hozaat Milo).Rulin, R. (1978) Bibliotherapy: a guide to therapy and practice (London, Oryx).Sagi, S., Steinberg, S. & Faheraladin, M. (2002) Haani haishi v’haani hakolektivi b’mifgash bein

yehudim v’aravim b’yisrael, Megamot, 4, 534–556.Salomon, G. (2002) The nature of peace education: not all programmes created equal, in: G.

Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds) Peace education: the concept, principles and practices around the world(Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum), 3–15.

Sarig, A. (1995) Danidin v’dinadin shomrei hashalom (Jerusalem, Hozaat Mizrahi).Sarup, M. (1996) Identity, culture and the postmodern world (Athens, GA, University of Georgia

Press).Shrodes, C. (1978) Bibliotherapy: its nature and uses, in: R. J. Rulin (Ed.) Bibliotherapy: guide to

therapy and practice (London, Oryx), 1–56.Suleiman, R. (1997) Mifgashim bein yehudim v’aravim k’mikrokosmos, Iunim b’chinuch, 1(2), 71–85.Wardi, D. (1990) Memorial candles (Jerusalem, Keter).Wolf, R. (2000) Alimut v’tokpanut etzel yeladim v’noar, v’darkei hitmodedut b’emtzaut safrut,

Iunim b’sifrut yeladim, 10, 121–138.Tzelmair, M. & Perry, P. (2002) Morot b’yisrael: mabat feministi (Tel Aviv, Hakibbutz Hameuhad).

The use of stories as a tool for intervention and research in the arena of Peace Education in...

Documents

Transcript of The use of stories as a tool for intervention and research in the arena of Peace Education in...