Emerald | International Journal of Conflict Management | Table of Contents

Conflict Management in Israel

literatinetwork@emeraldinsight.com (Richard Posthuma) — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0100

Abstract

Not available.

Major Events and the Collective Memory of Conflicts

literatinetwork@emeraldinsight.com (Rafi Nets-Zehngut) — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0100

Abstract

Purpose - Collective memory of conflicts is assembled around major events, such as, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the 1948 Palestinian exodus from the central cities of Lydda and Ramla. To date, however, various theoretical aspects of major events of conflicts have not been considered in the literature. This article addresses this lack by exploring for the first time the way in which the causes for that exodus were presented in Israel from 1949 to 2005. Design/methodology/approach - Methodologically, this is based on studies that have analyzed separately the publications by various Israeli state establishments (e.g., national Information Center, Ministry of Education, the National Archive, and the army – IDF), and those by various Israeli-Jewish societal establishments (e.g., the research community, newspapers and 1948 war veterans). Findings - Empirically, the findings here describe the dynamics of the memory of that exodus in an integrated manner, as they are described in many studies. They demonstrate that until 1969, the Lydda-Ramla exodus was presented in Israel as an outcome of a willing flight -- while since the 1970s, as an outcome of a willing flight accompanied by expulsion. Other relevant occurrences are also described. Originality/value - Theoretically, the article contributes various insights, pertaining, for example, to: the five Manifestation Characteristics and the two Influence Characteristics of major events of conflicts; the eight determinant factors that shape the impact of these events; and the dynamic nature of the representation of major events. Taken altogether, this article contributes to the empirical and theoretical research on the major events in conflicts.

Collective narratives as indicators of examining intergroup relations: The case of Muslims and Christians in Israel

Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0100

Abstract

Purpose - This study aims to examine inter-group relations between two religious minorities, Palestinian Christians and Muslims citizens of Israel, by measuring perceptions of in-group and "other" group collective narratives. Design/methodology/approach - Data were collected from a representative sample of 1121 Muslims and 756 Christians in Israel. The questionnaire presents narratives that are common among Muslim and Christian populations in Israel, relating to eight different historical, social, or political events. Subjects were asked to rate levels of legitimacy, feeling of empathy, and anger towards each one of the presented narratives. Findings - In comparison to Muslims, Christians reported a lower tendency to give legitimacy to the narrative of the other, showed more emotions of anger, and lower feeling of empathy towards the Muslim narrative. In addition, a content analysis of the narratives that were used in the questionnaire revealed two different patterns of response to narratives. One related to narratives with national issues, where Christians seemed to be excluded from the Palestinian nation, and the other related to narratives with religious issues, where Muslims reported more anger, less empathy and less legitimacy towards the Christian narratives. Originality/value - The paper presents a new tool based on Sagy, Adwan and Kaplan (2002), developed to examine perceptions of in-group and "other" group collective narratives. This study examined the tool in a different context of conflict. In addition to the quantitative measures of the perceptions of the collective narratives, the paper describes a new method for analyzing the data collected by this tool.

(Re-)Telling Societal Beliefs: Changing narratives in Israel's political discourse regarding transition to peace.

literatinetwork@emeraldinsight.com (Mor Mitrani) — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0100

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to explore if and how changes in social representations of conflict are designed and constructed in the formal political discourse. Design/methodology/approach - Taking a psycho-sociological approach and by relying on discourse analysis it explores the discursive patterns used by the political leadership in order to legitimize either war or peace actions. Through the analysis of speeches that were given by Israeli prime-ministers in the Knesset and in the context of warfare or peace processes, the paper traces changes in the historical narratives that frame Israel’s cluster of societal beliefs in regards to the conflict, and further explores are these are being re-narrated in light of the process of transition to peace. Findings - The paper argues that both warfare and peace processes, representing the extreme options available in conflict, require broad public recruitment and immense rhetorical efforts on behalf of the political leadership to reason and legitimatize actions through the formal political discourse. The findings highlight the ways through which the political leadership in Israel justifies its actions and attempts to enlist public support as a prism to trace how societal beliefs are been narrated for the purpose of justifying warfare, and how the same beliefs are re-narrated to justify conflict resolution.Originality/value - The paper strives to shed light on the role played by the interplay between political discourse and societal beliefs in the context of transition to peace, and thus advances understandings of the linkage between internal processes and external circumstances, as mitigated by political discourse, in the context of conflict and conflict resolution.

The Israeli Negotiation Strategy under Netanyahu - Settlement without Reconciliation

literatinetwork@emeraldinsight.com (Muhanad Mustafa, As'ad Ghnaem) — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0100

Abstract

Purpose - This Article analyses the Israeli negotiation strategy in reference to the theoretical frameworks of reconciliation and settlement. It focuses on the Israeli-Palestinian negotiation experience over the past three years, or since Netanyahu was elected Prime Minister of the Israeli Government in 2009. Design/methodology/approach - Theoretical literature provides two hypothetical frameworks for resolution of conflicts: (1) a political settlement, and (2) reconciliation between parties to the conflict. This Article argues that Israel’s vision of conflict resolution effectively attempts to integrate both hypothetical frameworks by proposing a political settlement for Palestinians in return for obtaining reconciliation from them. To analyse this strategy, this Article explores the Israeli political discourse over the past three years, as well as Israel’s vision of the conflict resolution as is manifest in this discourse.Findings - The article argument is based on the indication that willingness of a party to reach a settlement is met with reconciliation from the other party to the conflict. A party’s insistence to offer a settlement and attain reconciliation is associated with power relations between both parties. To maintain its powerful position, the stronger party usually demands reconciliation from the weaker party, at the same time presents a settlement that implies a political, not moral, recognition of the weaker party with a view to dispossess it from its moral logic in the conflict. Originality/value - An assessment of the Israeli political discourse over the past three years indicates that Israel is implementing a compound negotiation strategy to resolve the conflict. The strategy entails settlement and reconciliation components. Israel wishes to deal with Palestinians through a political settlement. On the other hand, Israel want the Palestinians to deal with it through the reconciliation process.

Eve's Emancipation or Lingering Subordination to Adam? The Effects of Egalitarianism, Asymmetrical Contextual Ambiguity and Priming of Gender Stereotypes on Couples' Negotiation

literatinetwork@emeraldinsight.com (Gil Aloni, Helena Desivilya) — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0100

Abstract

Purpose - The current study examines couples' conjoint negotiation with a third party, testing the effects of asymmetrical contextual ambiguity, gender stereotypes' priming and egalitarianism. It predicted differences in the processes of decision-making between egalitarian and traditional couples, reflected in choices of female or male negotiator.Design/methodology/approach - Egalitarianism levels were measured by the Altrocchi and Crosby (1989) Marriage Questionnaire. The asymmetrical contextual ambiguity was manipulated through two newly constructed negotiation cases – one feminine-stereotyped and the other masculine-stereotyped, based on Miles and LaSalle (2007). Priming of gender stereotypes was manipulated using two passages inducing explicit or implicit priming, based on Kray, Galinsky and Thompson (2002). Primary statistical analysis was ?2 test for equal proportions.Findings - The hypotheses were by and large supported: as expected in all 4 experimental conditions, traditional couples chose men as their negotiator. By contrast, egalitarian couples tended to nominate their negotiator depending on the situation (feminine, masculine, and under implicit priming). In addition, under explicit priming their selection was in the predicted direction but not significant.Practical implications - This study provides insights with respect to effective ways to conduct conjoint negotiations. In addition, it indicates the need to enhance women's negotiation self-efficacy, so that they can become more active in negotiation processes.Originality/value - The current study explored real-life couples' conjoint negotiation with a third party, rather than examining couples' internal negotiation processes or individuals' dyadic negotiation, which prevailed in extant research. Future research should adopt the focus on genuine couples' conjoint negotiation, employed in this study.

Power Tactic Usage by Gender at Work and Home: Past, Present, and Future

Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0100

Abstract

Purpose - Research has indicated that gender stereotypes, especially as they relate to women, are changing due to their growing numbers in the labor force. Our research on power usage for gaining compliance in conflict situations examines whether a similar tendency exists for social power tactics, another aspect of the gender stereotype.Design/methodology/approach - In two studies, one focusing on manager-subordinates interactions (N = 141) and the other on husband-wife relationships (N = 149), participants were presented with scenarios describing conflict situations relevant for each setting occurring in three time periods - past, present, and future - and then estimated the frequency of power category (harsh/intermediate/soft) usage by men and women in each of these periods.Findings - Findings indicated that gender stereotypical attributions eroded over time with a greater ascription of feminine tactics to males in the present and future. It was also found that harsh tactics usage was attributed to a greater extent in the work rather than the home setting. Research limitations/implications - In general, stereotype research assesses perceptions rather than reality. The perceptions measured here regarding past and future, though intrinsically informative, may reflect selective perception or social desirability. Originality/value - Our work indicated that the increasing involvement of women in the work force seems to have affected perceptions of the manner in which individuals exercise power in conflict situations. In particular, gender differences in power usage are viewed as diminishing over time; a tendency more discernible in the work world than at home.