From Co‐existence to Shared Society: A Paradigm Shift in Intercommunity Peacebuilding Among Jews and Arabs in Israel

Abstract

The discourse regarding Jewish–Arab intercommunity peacebuilding processes is undergoing major changes in recent years, gradually shifting from “coexistence” as the desired outcome to “shared society.” This article suggests that this transition portrays a paradigm shift that should be acknowledged and taken into account by peacebuilding activists and conflict specialists. The first section describes various common understandings of this shift in the context of Jewish‐Arab relations in Israel. Section two will describe the underpinnings of the paradigm shift from individualistic to relational understanding of the self and argue that this shift is consistent with the wish for transition to “shared society” and to develop more dialogic frameworks of groups’ shared living. Section three will present a case study, the work of Givat Haviva, emphasizing the relational premises that can be found in its methodology to cultivate a shared society among Jews and Arabs in Israel.

Shared society in Israel: The Givat Haviva model (case study)

“…All citizens have a sense of ownership. From this clear purpose, we derived our vision: Givat Haviva will work for the establishment of an inclusive and cohesive society by bringing divided communities together in collective action for the promotion of a prosperous and sustainable Israeli democracy, based on social solidarity, civic equality, and a shared vision for the future (Kuttner, 2017). This vision challenged us as a coexistence organization in several ways.…”

Peacemaking at the Workplace: A Systematic Review

“…The concept “peacemaking” originated first in the military context and is usually studied in combination with “peacebuilding” (Hogan, Frey, Kim, & Clements, ; Kuttner, ). The sixth secretary‐general of the United Nations (UN) defined peacemaking as “action to bring hostile parties to agreement, essentially through such peaceful means as those foreseen in Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations” (Boutros‐Ghali, , p. 204).…”

Building an Inclusive Climate for Intercultural Dialogue: A Participant‐Generated Framework

“…A multiplicity of disciplines have given attention to dialogue, including anthropology, education, psychology and psychotherapy, sociology, management, political theory, philosophy, linguistics, and religion (see Cissna & Anderson, ). In conflict resolution, researchers have studied dialogue in negotiation and intergroup relations (Cheldelin, Druckman, & Fast, ; Crocker, Hampson, & Aall, ; Deutsch & Coleman, ; Fisher, ; Kriesberg, ; Sandole & van der Merwe, ; Zartman & Rasmussen, ), peacebuilding, reconciliation processes, and coexistence programs (Abu‐Nimer, ; Broome & Collier, ; Byrne, ; Fisher, ; Glenn & Kuttner, ; Hadjipavlou, ; Köse & Beriker, ; Kuttner, ; Richmond, ; Schirch, ), and inter‐religious conflicts (Abu‐Nimer, ; Coward & Smith, ; Gopin, ; Groff, ; Herzog, ; Lederach, ; Omer, Appleby, & Little, ).…”