Yoav Kapshuk

Pre-transitional justice activities that expose past injustices during entrenched conflicts can incite strong reactions among actors who feel threatened by or dislike such activities, and who thus attempt to silence controversial truths. This article illuminates how attempts to silence controversial truths, in parallel with shutting down debate, can also have the unintended outcome of enlarging public discourse on previously marginalised issues. Thus, paradoxically, efforts to curb freedom of expression sometimes result instead in an expanded public capacity to debate previously silenced truths about the conflict. We conduct a case study of reactions to pre-transitional justice in Israeli society focusing on the so-called Nakba Law, enacted in 2011. Through interviews with members of the non-governmental organisation Zochrot, politicians, teachers and media persons, we first show the relationship between pre-transitional justice and enacting the Nakba Law. We then demonstrate that while the Nakba Law indeed aimed to hamper freedom of expression, it also enabled increased public knowledge about the meaning of Nakba. Our theoretical proposition regarding this paradox, in this case activated by instigating new memory laws, is highly relevant to other conflicts-in-resolution that experience pre-transitional justice processes.

Within the field of peace and conflict studies, data-production on
peace agreements has rapidly increased. One complicated task for scholars and
practitioners alike is understanding the relationships between peace agreements
and the relationships between agreements and processes. For example,
discerning when an agreement establishes continuity with previous agreements
and, thus, belongs to the same peace process or when an agreement
signals the start of a new peace process is not straightforward. In this study,
I highlight what appears to be a fuzzy boundary for categorizing some disciplinary
core concepts which, in turn, can cause our data to be unreliable. As
a point of comparison, I investigate how two major peace agreement datasets –
UCDP Peace Agreement Dataset and PA-X Peace Agreement Dataset – associate
peace agreements with peace processes and find differences and ambiguities
with respect to how they are coded in both databases. As a result of such
inconsistencies, analyses drawn from these data can have different outputs and
lead to misunderstandings about peace processes. Here, I demonstrate the
disciplinary need for clearer principles to effectively associate peace agreements
with peace processes and then argue for developing a disciplinary
standard for the criteria used to operationalize peace processes. Crucially, a
standard method for aggregating agreements into processes will facilitate
consistent data production across databases.

This paper applies the comprehensive approach of transitional justice in peace negotiations to treat the controversy surrounding the Palestinians' right of return to find a 'win-win situation'. First, we explain the complexity of transitional justice (TJ) as it addresses past injustices for victims and takes the interests of the perpetrator into account. Then, we demonstrate how TJ was utilized in the recent Colombian peace process. Following an analysis of previous formal negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians regarding the refugee issue, the paper applies the ways in which TJ was used in the Colombian peace process and adjusts them for future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

The literature on conflict resolution recognizes, among different forms of conflict resolution, a model of reconciliation, which seeks to address central issues in ethnic and national conflicts, including historical justice; truth pertaining past wrongdoings; historical responsibility and redistribution of resources. Most studies refer to reconciliation as a process in a post-conflict areas. In this sense, reconciliation is a continuous, in-depth process, which reaches beyond the formal peace agreement.

There is only a dearth of studies that scrutinize reconciliation components in peace agreements themselves. This study will attempt to fill this gap by analyzing the Geneva Accord, signed in 2003, by key Israeli and Palestinian figures. The Geneva Accord proposes a model for a permanent agreement for the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, buttressed by the Oslo accords' layout of a two state solution.

The analysis will especially focus on Article 7 in the Geneva Accord, which deals with the issue of the Palestinian refugees, since, of all controversial issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,  the 1948-9 War and its consequences underlies the identities of Israelis and Palestinians alike. The two peoples regard the right of return to the refugees as having a decisive influence on their national existence in the present as in the future.  As for the Palestinians, the centrality of the issue of the refugees is reflected in that 1948 marks the central event in the current history and identity of the Palestinian people. From the point of view of the Jewish Israeli society, the possibility of return of refugees raises an existential fear.

The analysis will demonstrate that the Geneva Accord peace agreement does not contain components of reconciliation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, except several items which constitute a preliminary step toward a reconciliation. I will recommend exploring these points further, not only in a peace agreement according to the two state solution model, but particularly in some form or other of one state encompassing the area of Mandatory Palestine: from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River.

With the escalating worldwide destructive impact of new civil wars, finding a resolution to armed conflicts is an urgent global need. Some scholars of conflict resolution have empirically focused on methods, policies and issues in negotiations leading to the achievement of peace deals, their implementation, as well as the reasons peace deals fail (e.g. Joshi, Quinn, & Regan, 2015). Empirical studies on conflict resolution have also centered the issue of justice, relating to policies of transitional justice implemented in the post-conflict period, such as reparations, amnesties and truth commissions (e.g. Wallensteen, Melander, & Högbladh, 2013). However, to date, with few notable exceptions (e.g. Loyle & Binningsbø, 2016), little empirical work has examined transitional justice during the course of armed conflict; the concern is that negotiations on the issue of historical wrongdoings may exacerbate an ongoing conflict (Bland, Powell and Ross, 2012). However, specific peace negotiations, such the recent Colombian governments' negotiations with the FARC, show that agreements on transitional-justice issues were important for achieving the final deal. Without an empirical analysis of transitional justice during peace negotiations, we may undervalue its impact on finding resolutions for armed conflicts worldwide. My dissertation project, Transitional Justice in Formal Peace Negotiations, deals with the impact of agreements on transitional justice provisions on reaching peace deals. This project is based on a large original dataset of peace processes years that covers over 70 peace processes between 1989 and 2014. By empirical testing of a set of new theoretical conjectures, I found that a combination of truth and reconciliation provisions, as well as amnesty provisions, are associated with an increase in the odds that the peace negotiation ends in a final peace deal. In contrast, provisions dealing with reparations for victims or with rehabilitation of refugees are not significantly associated with reaching final accords. To substantiate the empirical analysis, I also provide a discussion of examples from peace negotiations in Colombia, Liberia, Israel-Palestine and Guatemala. The research concludes that agreements on truth and reconciliation provisions serve as an alternative form of justice and accountability and can be an effective compromise between demands for retributive measures on one side and calls for forgetfulness on the other.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict dates back to the end of the 19th century. In the last decade of the 20th century, many believed – in light of the public discourse surrounding the Oslo process – that peace with the Palestinians was a fait accompli. This vision evaporated subsequent to the failure of the 2000 Camp David Summit and the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Since these incidents seemed to persist, independent from the so-called peace process which nearly vanished, it seems this conflict was and still is a major factor shaping Israeli and Palestinian societies.

This study examines the connection between the ethnic-class structure in the Jewish sector of Israeli society and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Using statistical data, the analysis encompasses two of the main ethnic groups in Israeli Jewish society during the 1990's: The Ashkenazim (Jews originating in Europe and America), who make up the bulk of the middle and upper classes; and the Mizrahim (Jews that came from Muslim countries) who account for most Jewish working and Jewish lower-middle classes. In order to examine the stance of these two groups regarding the possibility of ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this research analyzes the Geneva accords, using theories of reconciliation borrowed from the conflict resolution literature. This analysis shows the distinction between the so-called peace treaty, as sought by the Oslo Accords, and the requisites for a true-peace and reconciliation process between Israel and the Palestinians.

Thus, the analysis of the Geneva accords leads to the main claim of the study: Oslo was not a true-peace and reconciliation process, therefore the Mizrahi resistance to Oslo does not imply opposition to true peace and reconciliation with the Palestinians; just as the Ashkenazi support of Oslo does not indicate the pursuit of true peace and reconciliation with the Palestinians. Moreover, the study demonstrates that the Mizrahim objected the Oslo accords due to a perceived negative impact on their socio-economic status, while the Ashkenazim favored it because Oslo was part of the liberalization processes which benefited their socio-economic status.

The examination is also concerned with the reluctance of Israeli Jews in general and of the Ashkenazi group in particular, to give up the privileges granted to them as a result of their domination over all the Mandatory Palestine territories. Next the analysis points to a privileged situation for the Mizrahim in comparison to the Palestinians, within the social structure, as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It also becomes clear from the analysis of the Geneva accord that the Ashkenazim have sought to preserve and increase their privileges using the political arrangements Israel intended to establish through the Oslo process. Finally, this research concludes that only a change in the basic ethnic class structure of the Israeli society would enable reconciliation and true peace between Jews and Palestinians.

This paper contains four chapters. The first chapter presents the theoretical framework. Its main arguments are that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the foundation of Israeli society; secondly, that Israeli social structure - from the "Second Aliyah" to this day – places Ashkenazi Jews at the top; the Palestinians - both citizens and non-citizens - at the bottom; at the same time, the Mizrahi Jews remain a semi-marginal group, classified between the Ashkenazim and the Palestinians.

The Second chapter discusses the motives for the Ashkenazi support for the Oslo accords, and for the Mizrahi opposition to them. The Oslo process is present as part of the economic liberalization processes, and the socio-economic changes that have occurred since Oslo are described. In the chapter, I show that the location of each group in the Israeli social structure – the Ashkenazim at the top and the Mizrahim as a semi-peripheral group – is the main factor determining how they were influenced by Oslo and therefore how they responded to it. The socio-economic implications of Oslo have caused increase in inequality in Israeli society in general, and between Ashkenazim and Mizrahim in particular. The Ashkenazim supported Oslo, because it has preserved their socio-economic supremacy. The Mizrahim opposed Oslo because it deepened their exclusion and increased their marginality in relation to the Ashkenazim.

In order to establish the differences between the Oslo arrangement and a real peace agreement, the third chapter elaborates on the conditions for true peace and reconciliation by applying theories of reconciliation from the conflict resolution literature. It is argued that in order to reach reconciliation and true peace, both sides of a conflict have to tackle issues of justice, historical truth, historical responsibility and political restructuring. Thus, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, reconciliation would involve coming to terms with the historical events and the various implications of the 1948 war, and dealing more in depth with the issue of the right of return for the Palestinian refugees.

The fourth chapter analyzes the Geneva accords according to reconciliation principles in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which were presented in the previous chapter. The Geneva accords are an example of a permanent arrangement buttressed by the Oslo accords' layout. The chapter's main claim is that the Oslo accord is not a treaty pursuing reconciliation and true peace. This contention is tied to the primary arguments of the thesis: the Mizrahi resistance to Oslo did not mean they have thwarted a true peace treaty and reconciliation with the Palestinians, since Oslo was not true-peace agreement; for the same reason Ashkenazi support for Oslo did not imply they intended to promote true peace and reconciliation with the Palestinians.

While argumentation emerges as one of the major learning skills in the twenty-first century, a somewhat opaque landscape is revealed in terms of identifying its potential in enhancing higher-education students’ domain-specific knowledge. In this study, argumentation-for-learning activity with digital concept mapping (CM) was designed and compared with a traditional teacher-centered activity to determine the former’s effectiveness in promoting students’ domain-specific factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge. This study also examines how the proposed activity may contribute to students’ academic efficacy and thus promote meaningful learning. A quasi-experimental design was employed by using convenience samples. Two identical courses were selected for this research: the first course with a total of 59 students (the research group), and the second course including a total of 63 students (the control group). Both groups’ domain-specific knowledge was assessed before and after the activity. The designed activity was found to be less effective in fostering factual knowledge and more effective in developing the conceptual and procedural knowledge domains. Another finding demonstrated the benefits of argumentation for learning with CM in facilitating students’ academic efficacy. It can be concluded that engaging students in a deep argumentation learning process may in turn deepen predominantly conceptual and procedural domain-specific knowledge. Limitations and implications are discussed.

We designed an educational activity for undergraduate students and assessed how this newly-constructed activity promoted students’ argumentation skills, thereby fostering their epistemic beliefs. This argumentation-based learning activity involved digital concept mapping. A quasi-experimental design involved pretests and posttests that were administered to 52 research participants in a group and 61 participants in a control group. Students’ argumentation skills were qualitatively examined by analyzing the structure of their arguments before and after the activity. Their perceptions of the activity and epistemic belief types (from absolutism to evaluativism) were measured with the Epistemic Beliefs Scale and the Concept Mapping for Problem-Based Learning Scale. The designed activity evoked epistemic change toward evaluativism among the students who were enrolled in the activity, whereas nonsignificant results emerged for the control group. However, for both pretest and posttest, the highest score was for Absolutist, followed by Multiplist, and Evaluativist had the lowest mean. The technology-enabled concept-mapping tool supported the research group’s online argumentation design. This tool helped students mainly at the cognitive level to discern between the arguments and better learn the topic. These findings are interpreted in relation to student characteristics.

This study examines how a course that includes recognizing pain and suffering inflicted during intractable conflicts affects Indigenous Minority Group students' willingness to reconcile. The study employed a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative research tools with a pre-/postquestionnaire examining Israeli-Palestinian indigenous minority group students' willingness to reconcile with the Israeli-Jewish majority group during an outbreak in violence (May 2021 Riots in Israel). Recognition entails creating space for minority students' narratives and listening to their pain and anger related to their history and lived experiences as a minority. Findings show that students who received recognition maintain a steady will to reconcile and students who did not receive such recognition express a decrease in their willingness to reconcile. Such a distinction in results demonstrates the importance of recognizing a minority group's narrative while an intractable conflict occurs.

This study examines how a course that includes recognizing pain and suffering inflicted during intractable conflicts affects Indigenous Minority Group students' willingness to reconcile. The study employed a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative research tools with a pre-/postquestionnaire examining Israeli-Palestinian indigenous minority group students' willingness to reconcile with the Israeli-Jewish majority group during an outbreak in violence (May 2021 Riots in Israel). Recognition entails creating space for minority students' narratives and listening to their pain and anger related to their history and lived experiences as a minority. Findings show that students who received recognition maintain a steady will to reconcile and students who did not receive such recognition express a decrease in their willingness to reconcile. Such a distinction in results demonstrates the importance of recognizing a minority group's narrative while an intractable conflict occurs.

The present study focuses on a minority group of Israeli Arab students who learned about dialogue and partnership between Arab and Jewish communities in a mixed college in Israel. The real-time study of the damaging effects of the intractable conflict suggests a unique model based on three concepts-shallow roots need constant watering, extended contact, and minimizing status differences (SEM)-for intervention in peace education. The first concept reflects the conceptualization of peace education initiatives operating on cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions. The second concept is based on encounters with the outgroup by watching videos showing intergroup meetings and shared lives; the third concept minimizes the asymmetry in powers between the groups. Two questions guided our research: (a) How did the course that coincided with an outbreak of violence in an intractable conflict affect the Israeli Arab students who learn in a mixed college? (b) How did the SEM model affect Israeli Arab students' trust in reconciliation during an intractable conflict? The findings indicate a complex picture: negative emotions, descriptions of racism, and a more negative perception of the other side. However, the course, which emphasized the conflict and its consequences and complexities, also evoked feelings of hope, trust, and a desire for reconciliation. Therefore, this study's unique model for learning about partnership and dialogue in a complex and challenging situation may be helpful to other situations of peace education during an intractable conflict. Public Significance Statement The study suggests a model for intervention in peace education based on three concepts-shallow roots need constant watering, extended contact, and minimizing status differences (SEM). Findings show that the SEM model is suitable for learning about partnership and dialogue in a complex and challenging situation during intractable conflicts.

The rising of religious intrastate armed conflicts in recent years has a significant impact on the world order. Despite a growing literature on the relationship between religion and conflict, we know little about the conditions under which peace processes of religious conflicts may succeed. Studies show that addressing issues of transitional justice during conflicts may promote peace. This study examines the role of transitional justice in peace processes of religious conflicts. Our study uses quantitative analysis utilizing the Transitional Justice in Peace Processes (TJPP) Dataset, which contains innovative information on worldwide peace negotiations between 1989 and 2014. The TJPP dataset identifies six elements of transitional justice: truth commissions, reconciliation processes, reparations programs, restitution and rehabilitation of refugees, amnesties and prisoners' release. Findings demonstrate that peace processes of religious conflicts are more likely to use transitional justice elements, yet these peace efforts are less likely to reach a full peace agreement.