Scientists have found that two sides of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict — Israeli Jews and Palestine living in the Gaza strip and the West Bank — according to the different perceptions of the concept of peace. And those and others about equally often interpreted as the end of the war, but the Israelis also often linked him with the establishment of a harmonious and friendly relationship, but the Palestinians — with the achievement of justice. The concept of the world for each party to the conflict due to his advantage in this conflict and what he sees from the position, scientists conclude in an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The concept of the world (we are talking about the importance of peace and lack of hostility) there are three separate interpretations depending on which terms are used for its explanation. In the first, “positive” understanding of the world is the establishment of friendly relations between parties to the conflict; the second understanding is negative: according to him, peace is the cessation of war and bloodshed. Finally, the third, “neutral” (or as it is commonly called, “structural”) interpretation — this is the world as the establishment of justice.
These three interpretations, though different, are not mutually exclusive: for any person the world can be as one or the second and third (of course, if the token “world” and its concept of meaning in language support). Interpretation, however, can vary depending on perception and external factors: in other words, for the same human world, depending on the situation in which it needs to be adjusted, can be as conditionally negative or positive.
A factor that influences the choice of the initial understanding of the world can be a military conflict, especially if the two forces (for example, from the point of view of external support or territorial ownership) are not equal. A good example is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, in which two States — Israel and partially recognized Palestine since the mid-twentieth century trying to divide two territories: the West Bank of the Jordan river and the Gaza strip. In this conflict of benefits (military, legal, and territorial) greater Israel; Palestine, meanwhile, is at a disadvantage.
The parties to the conflict, third-party countries and scientists see two main ways of resolving the conflict: the division of the disputed territory and the recognition of Palestine by all and joint ownership of land and the unification of Israelis and Palestinians (“one state for two peoples”). To date, the majority of residents of both States are inclined to the first option, but the second one has supporters.
Oded Adomi the devil (Oded Adomi Leshem) and Eran Halperin (Eran Halperin) from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, suggested that the citizens of Israel and Palestine had different understandings of the world depending on which side of the conflict are and what position you hold regarding the settlement of the conflict. To do this, they conducted a survey, which was attended by 500 Jews living in Israel, and 500 Palestinians living in the West Bank and the Gaza strip. The survey was conducted in early August, 2017 — then, according to the authors, between States was relatively calm atmosphere.
Each participant was asked on a scale of 1 to 5 to assess how with the concept of peace were nine other concepts: justice, absence of war, harmony, freedom, no bloodshed, partnership, life, equality, and agreement. Each word was associated with one interpretation of the words of the world: depending on how the participants appreciate the proximity of the world and of each of the concepts, the researchers identified the leading definition. In addition, the researchers also collected demographic data of volunteers and questioned them about what they think about conflict resolution.
The majority of Palestinians and Israelis (69 and 73 percent, respectively) favored the world as the end of the war — that is, its negative interpretation. While opinions about the other two interpretations, positive and structural, are divided in a positive manner the world is interpreted 43% of Israelis and 32 percent of Palestinians, and structural — 23 percent of Israelis and 52 percent of Palestinians.
The interpretation of the world is also correlated with the fact what the opinion of the members were on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. So, regardless of nationality, participants, supporting the decision of “one state for two peoples” more often (p = 0.04) interpreted the world in a positive, not a negative way, but the supporters of “two States for two peoples” prefer to see the world in structural but not in a negative way (p = 0.03).
Thus, the interpretation of the world the two sides of the same conflict depended, on the one hand, from their nationality (and therefore from the benefits in the conflict), and on the other by views on how the conflict should be resolved. The results you can clearly make out the example palestnitsev: for them the world is first and foremost the termination of the war (as, indeed, for Israelis), secondly, the establishment of justice and only the third — formation of friendships. It is clear that Palestine violated the rights side of the conflict, immediately after the bloodshed committed to ensuring that justice is done; only in the last instance the world — it is about establishing with Israel and warm relations. In addition, if you pay attention to proponents of the concept of “two States for two peoples”, then their choice of structural the world is clear: the division of the disputed territory and the recognition of Palestine actually seems like the most fair solution.
From the editor
The authors do not write about it, but we can assume that two translations have used words שָׁלוֹם and سَلاَم (Shalom and Salam, respectively) are the frequency translation of the word “peace” in Hebrew and Arabic. An analysis of the concept of peace among Palestinians and Israelis, therefore, interesting from a linguistic point of view. The fact that both words come from the Semitic root Š-L-M which means “safe”, “intact”, “intact” and have the same set of values. From the explanation of why for palestnitsev and Israelis, “peace” can mean different, it is possible to completely eliminate the language factor: having the same semantic range of particular words, they choose the value that is closest to them in social and historical context.