Chapter 9
Restorative moments
From First Nations people in Canada to
conflicts in an Israeli–Palestinian dialogue
group
Innovative perspectives on psychosocial pathology and healing emphasize the importance of the community in managing its own conflicts and mediating solutions. Professionalized help and adversarial approaches to justice and well-being compartmentalize and underestimate the competence of the community and its efficacy in healing itself, leading to weaker communities and individuals (McKnight 1995). Assessing the needs of a community in manners that do not respect its cultural diversity and its members’ phenomenology, which may differ from Western ethnocentricity, may run the risk of conducting oppressive postcolonial psychological interventions that do not respect the intrinsic resourcefulness and traditional wisdom of groups and individuals (Duran and Duran 1995). On the other hand, unchallenged acceptance of socio-cultural diversity may result in an abusive falsification of cultural differences that maintains and consolidates social gaps (Widdowson and Howard 2008), or reinforces tribal rifts (Shapiro 2005). Accordingly, relational identities are negotiated through their sense of tribal affiliation and autonomy, which may result in exacerbated adversaries and animosity towards other groups (Shapiro 2010). When dispute resolution involves the complexities of different cultures and religions on top of individual or simple group differences the complexities are multiplied.
These differences cannot be reduced to familiar moral order and grammar of expression (Macfarlane 2004). Such conflicts lack the common homogeneous infrastructure and are characterized by postcolonial discourse. The very process of negotiating and its formal procedures may lean towards the dominant culture and its grammar of action. Values and legitimate forms of expression may also differ as can the meaning attributed to the rhetoric of honor, justice, power, control, and compromise. Dominant accepted meaning and ways of expression may uncritically demand accommodation and acculturation by the politically or economically weaker party. When these needs are reciprocally recognized and respected, and when identities are not endangered, individuals and groups may then proceed toward solving disputes in their interpersonal and group relationships.
According to Vallacher et al. (2010) injustice is sometimes a critical element in the formation of the so-called intractable conflicts because of its subjectivity and the common unequal division of power and resources among the debating parties. Superiority and gains may be attributed to self-deservedness, while disadvantage and losses may lead to a victimized view of self and the world, leading to legitimized counter-aggression and sometimes even violence. Interpersonal or group differences may then be framed in terms of (in)justice and serve as justification for combative worldviews and actions (Lerner 1980).
Approaches that promote harmony and balance through restorative practices sometimes fail to pay tribute to their origins or to embed those techniques within their cultural context. Exposure to pathological behaviors and harmful incidents in modern society, such as family and school violence, ethnic and political tensions usually stir a process characterized by dispute, power struggles, labeling and estrangement that interferes with the delicate fabric of the family, the community and society at large. Professional agencies may then fail to provide the necessary empathic holding and containing required when individuals, families and groups are in crisis, resulting in further disengagement and disintegration.
When different personal identities and cultural entities collide, there is a possibility for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that allows for mutual influences and cross-fertilization and some convergence may then occur. Formal rules in one culture – rights-based model, consensus building, evidence-based consultation – and customary modes of action in other cultures – traditional storytelling, ceremonies, conferencing, peacemaking circles – may then converge with mutual respect. Otherwise, the course for collusion between collective traditional and Western procedures would hinder any attempt for a transcendent dialogue of understanding and the negotiation of disputed realities.
Before turning to the question whether indigenous justice making, be it the Palestinian “Sulcha” or the aboriginal restorative justice, is culturally specific or can be used elsewhere, Yazzie (2004) identified three universals in the dynamics of peacemaking: compliance due to fear of punishment, humiliation, shame and guilt; identification with respected figures such as parents, teachers, and leaders; and internalization of deeply held values and attitudes.
Within aboriginal cultures and in their disputes with Western cultures, there are ways in which they first relate to their own marginalized and disadvantaged status and their wish to return to their traditional teachings on health and justice. Ross (1996) advocates for the restoration of aboriginal justice in dealing with their own tribal conflicts and with the Euro-American majority in Canada. According to Ross, and others (Connors and Oates 1998), the vast over-representation of drug dependency, psychopathology and abuse, crime and violence among First Nations is the result of historical injustice, cultural colonialism and abuse, especially due to residential schools, resulting in intergenerational transfer of mass trauma and inner psychic void. Mack (2011) argues that in their legal dealings with representatives of the dominant culture, First Nations people have lost touch with their cultural sources and resources, which further weakens their identity and their power to negotiate on what matters most. He used the metaphor of paddling a canoe in order to evoke indigenous tradition and wisdom to guide them through high water of negotiations. Rundell (2007) suggested a similar metaphor of crossing rivers and frontiers into new and unfamiliar territories when developing co-vision and negotiating with another cultures. Hence, we may suggest that in taking a restorative path, reconciliation with others must be preceded by inner reconciliation within oneself and with own internalized tradition and culture.
In dealing with the severe infliction of child abuse, violence and neglect, and other severe behavioral problems among First Nations people in Canada, the appeal of peacemaking circles and conferencing is the cornerstone of most healing practices. Ross (1996), Hart (2002) and Pranis et al. (2003) all demonstrate how non-adversarial community-based healing programs assume responsibility rather than blame, propose restitution rather than punishment, and facilitate reintegration of offenders and victims into their communities. Different stepwise processes of healing are proposed by different communities and programs. The central notion is one of cooperation within the community, governed by the local leadership of elders, supported by professional counselors and mental health workers, integrating traditional ceremonies with up-to-date therapeutic methods. The essence of these aboriginal traditions was to restore practices of justice whereby the emphasis is placed on admitting responsibility, repairing the harm done to people and relationships – through reintegrative shaming, assuming responsibility for the offense and repairing its consequences, apologizing and serving the communities – rather than just by blaming, punishing and providing compensation. The healing processes are taking place when the relevant parties themselves, through ad-hoc circles, dialogue groups and conferences, rather than the authorities, are engaged in the management of the conflict, while informal leaders and significant others in the communities are taking part in these semi-formal processes. Formal and professional agents are involved merely as facilitators and/or supervisors in the process and its evaluation.
Conceptual and practical founders of restorative justice in the West in the 1970s, such as Braithwaite (1989), Zehr (1990), Umbreit (1994) and McCold and Wachtel (1998), all draw on traditional teachings from Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Canada. In response to what was generally considered an overly harsh criminal justice system that neither effectively deterred nor rehabilitated offenders, there has been a growing appeal for these restorative approaches. In their very core, restorative practices in the West have advocated for direct contact between offenders and victims within their social milieu. These processes were intended to heal relationships at both individual and social level and are all grouped under the ADR movement. What began as domestic family, tribal or community reform in mediation processes, gained international attention with Desmond Tutu's reconciliation committees in South Africa in 1999, and was applied in the aftermath of bloody inter-racial conflicts such as in Rwanda and Uganda, and is sometimes also termed transitional justice (Menkel-Meadow 2007). Hence, to the extent to which restorative practices can be conceptualized on different levels of application, that is, from small group circles and dialogues – family circles, classroom mediation – to global dialogues – inter-faith, inter-group, ethnic and national conflicts – one may attempt to map a “restorative universe” (Seidler and Allena 2004).
Yazzie (2004) warns against the technical application of traditional peacemaking methods in a professional context without respecting its original popular roots. More than just a peacemaking technique or justice making procedure, it is a way of life grounded within tradition and embedded in moral values that govern the relationships between people and their experienced worlds.
The purpose of this chapter is to re-contextualize restorative principles as encountered among First Nations in Canada (Senesh 2003 and 2004) within the arena of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The application of this grassroots horizontal process of peacemaking respects the differences between the parties with no preference in procedures and substance to either party. It is applied within the civil society of people-to-people contact with no administrative control or process mediation. The post-factum application of restorative principles to a dialogue group in retrospect proposes a refreshed examination of several principles that may not be given attention and conceptualization within the dominant Western worldview. The main question here pertains to distinct transformative moments that took place within a dialogue group of Israelis and Palestinians (IPDG) in which I participated in 2007/8 (reported in Rabach 2009), in order to revitalize conflict dialogues and suggest innovative ways for mediating fruitful solutions.
Method of inquiry
In this chapter, I intend to highlight certain procedures and turning points that occurred in negotiations within this particular Israeli–Palestinian Dialogue Group (IPDG) in which I participated, by employing my newly acquired insights from my research studies on restorative justice in Western Canada. The purpose of the group, initiated and financed by the European Union, was to delineate points of impasse and points of agreements in negotiating peace between groups of Palestinians and Israelis. They proposed a leaderless group of people-to-people negotiations in linguistic and geographic neutrality. According to Rabach's report (2009) the major themes had to do with issues of violence and injustice in reference to people and territories. The inter-relatedness of people and land is reminiscent of traditional worldviews among indigenous people in North America just as among the people of the Middle East.
The three IPDG sessions took place over a period of two years, twice in Turkey and once in Jordan with two 30-member groups of men and women of all ages and from all walks of life. The Israeli group consisted of a majority of Jewish participants and representatives of Israeli Palestinians of Muslim, Christian, Drouze and Bedouin minorities. The Palestinian group consisted of 30 residents of the occupied West Bank. Each group elected by vote its own head and its members to head each of the five content committees based on preliminary agreement: Jerusalem, refugees, terror and security, ecological resources, sovereignty and borders. There were meetings of both large groups for procedural and social purposes, but work sessions took place in the various twelve-member committees. Each national party had its own exclusive sessions to debrief the processes at the various committees and plan the next steps ahead. Special attention was given to counterbalance numbers and positions of participants to allow for no bias or preference to either group. Discussions were run in both mother tongues, Arabic and Hebrew, with immediate translation and transcribing services.
This chapter will focus on distinct features of the IPDG and special moments in the process that can be referenced to the following restorative practices in peacebuilding:
• equal standing of parties;
• unmediated contact;
• emphatic listening to testimonial evidence of trauma and its consequences;
• reintegrative shame, responsibility and apology; and
• negotiations between equally respected and consolidated entities.
I hope these re-contextualized insights will facilitate future generalizations from these distinct restorative components of the dialogue to more general principles in the restorative universe to guide other initiatives for bottom-up peacebuilding.
Restorative moments in dialogue groups
Equal standing of participating parties
According to the focal conflict of the dialogue group, members were recruited based on preliminary screening. Finally, the IPDG consisted of mature citizens of Israel and of the Palestinian Authority – occupied West Bank – of different affiliations and professions. All were committed stakeholders, eager to achieve new points of agreement beyond the present political standstill. They were all aware that they do not represent the prevailing views in either culture of origin. The goal of the study was to highlight points of impasse in the process, and these constituted a shared challenge for both parties that participated in the group.
Developing in cultures that were subject to colonial assault and postcolonial domination, peacemaking circles are sensitive to imbalances of power. They are keen on the construction of an arena for people to meet on equal grounds. Hence, it was imperative to construct a group where parties are of equal size status and power. The formation of a circle exemplifies equal standing or sitting for all participants. Both parties were using their native tongue and leadership in the groups and committees was shared. Whenever this was not possible, inequalities were explicitly addressed, especially when deviations from agreed upon protocols and schedules were suggested.
In my interviews with aboriginal informants that sense of inferiority repeatedly emerged when interviews were conducted outside the secure base of the reserves, and meetings took place in a public location or a university campus. One of my informants disclosed a deep-rooted sense of inferiority and insecurity when leaving the reserve, especially when facing high status representatives of the dominant culture – a male researcher and a mental health professional like myself. She confided that she was engulfed by fears and bad childhood memories of discrimination and debasement. A transformative moment took place when I shared a similar sense of estrangement and inferiority as a foreign visiting scholar, lacking in local knowledge and language skills. My aboriginal informants could then be more relaxed and communicate with ease.
Likewise, even in meeting Palestinians in neutral countries such as Jordan and Turkey, Palestinian participants disclosed a similar sense of vulnerability due to the daily harassment and humiliation they experienced in the occupied territories and specifically when crossing the military checkpoints on their way to the meetings. A transformative moment occurred as our Palestinian partners were stopped for a long debriefing by airport security in Israel. A few of us, representative of the Israeli group, decided to wait for them for long hours until they were discharged. That unexpected move stirred much appreciation on the part of the Palestinians and constituted a momentary shared we-feeling of group cohesion that then persisted in subsequent sessions.
Unmediated contact
The necessity of face-to-face contact between the parties without leaders, representatives or go-between agents cannot be overemphasized. However, due to military barriers and checkpoints and walls of suspicion and mistrust, the two populations do not enjoy direct contact. The informal first contact between the parties took place on a bus ride from the airport to the hotel in Turkey. The lights were dim and the voices were muted. There was much tension in the air. The first formal introduction was in a meeting of all participants and a five-minute introduction to each other in a revolving circle.
Similarly, in traditional First Nations ceremonies – such as the sweat-lodge in which I participated in 2003 or the launching of a canoe in 2010 – there was an experience of a shared physical proximity in the tent and on the canoe. Participation is voluntary, non-contingent on status, knowledge or experience. There was a total sense of acceptance with no questions asked and “no strings attached.” This basic sense of brotherhood was present because there was no need for Western-style introductions, social facades and the management of impressions. However, the introduction of the participants in the IPDG immediately exposed the uneven standing of the groups and revealed significant gaps in wealth, status and educational background, all valid according to Western standards. This was an obvious result of inequality due to years of occupation and suppression of Palestinians. It was impossible to ignore these disparities, but their acknowledgement from the very start made them all less potent. Spontaneous connectedness was later informally constructed according to other social markers such as age, gender, marital status and parenthood, and professional affiliations. These informal contacts were only made possible in groups and in the presence of other people. A deeper sense of intimacy between members of the two groups was not yet cultivated, and suggestions for social activities in between, or after negotiations were over, never materialized.
Emphatic listening to testimonial evidence of trauma and its consequences
The art and practice of deep listening to another person in peacemaking circles requires a capacity for momentary suppression of one's own sub-vocal objections and statements of contrary positions. The assurance of being heard and the opportunity to feel understood are based on the capacity of our partners to really listen.
Face-to-face communication between offenders and victims in the presence of supportive and involved stakeholders is necessary in order for participants to amend hurt and injured relationships. No mediators, no go-betweens or facilitators are needed in this core restorative process. Administrative coordination and the corporation of community leadership and professionals are discouraged and all parties enjoy equal standing. The IPDG was most sensitive to external attempts to intervene that could tilt even further the prevailing imbalance of power between Israelis and Palestinians. A few attempts to change the agenda or timetable by the organizers were met with extreme resentment by both parties. Communication was in both native languages, Hebrew and Arabic, with the use of professional translation services. In the same way as in traditional circles, deep listening is quiet and respectful even when not fully understood, such as during traditional prayers and rituals. This experience was most powerful when both parties were disciplined to respect the communication even before it was translated, paying attention to the non-verbal aspects of communication and keeping turn-taking in a most respecting manner. Many participants later commented on the authentic and rewarding nature of this practice. I was reminded of the times I participated in First Nations rituals, such as canoe launching and sweat-lodge ceremonies, when prayers were conducted in native languages that even if incomprehensible contributed to the atmosphere of sharing and respecting a valued tradition.
Bearing witness to narratives of trauma and abuse has undoubtedly been recognized in recent years as an important therapeutic agent. In the aftermath of war and in areas of post conflict, testimonial accounts on the horrors of war, in therapy as well as in public and legal domains, have proved its healing effects on individuals and communities. Delineating and explaining to the offender the far-reaching consequences of injury and harm to the victim is crucial to restorative processes. In negotiating with the dominant culture, First Nations present high rates of psychopathology, drug abuse and family violence, which they attribute to a long history of economic and cultural colonialism inflicted by the settlers and residential schools. They say: “First came the priests, then came the social workers” when describing state-sponsored abuse and professional collaboration. White professionals like me have to bear witness to these accusations and appreciate the long-lasting effects of colonialism that may undermine my attempts at a genuine encounter with my aboriginal informants. If not openly discussed, these concerns would be sub-texted in my interviews as a white mental health researcher working with my aboriginal informants and even aboriginal professional colleagues. Even as I was discussing restorative justice with a faculty member of aboriginal descent, he became very upset with me for dispossessing this traditional model and reformulating it in scientific terms as another act of postcolonial aggression.
Likewise, in the IPDG, both parties had to bear witness to narratives of suffering and abuse of their adversaries and take responsibility and apologize whenever applicable. There are competing narratives, sometimes mutually exclusive and contradictory taking full ownership of suffering. For whoever feels underprivileged and abused, whether an Israeli by war and terror, or a Palestinian by oppressive occupation, there is a tendency to win either by justice or by power, or preferably by both. The dramatic elements of blame and forgiveness cannot be projected or displaced onto non-participant others, represented by settlers and terrorists who, of course, were not present in the group. For example, when dealing with the consequences of terrorist attacks, Palestinian participants had to listen to Israelis’ accounts of horror and take a declarative collective responsibility, even if they personally rejected terrorism as a legitimate mode of resistance. It was important for one middle aged Palestinian woman, a family therapist, to understand that her mere presence provoked fear in the hearts of Israeli participants. It was imperative for any well-intentioned Israeli participant to understand that he is unavoidably associated with Israeli soldiers and settlers in the occupied territories. When that mutual sharing was respectfully witnessed, digested and expressed, the time was ripe for a transformative moment to emerge. An example of such a moment took place when a young Israeli female member had indirectly introduced a rather discomforting story. Her fiancé was serving in the Israeli Army and would not refuse to be positioned in the occupied territories. For once, the mechanism of oppression was introduced and described at the grassroots level, as a part of a serious marital conflict to the point that she had doubts about their future as a couple. An older Palestinian lady – who was a family counselor by profession – looked at her compassionately and said: “My dear young lady, I would strongly implore you to first settle the power struggle between you and your future husband, before you are trying to make peace between our Peoples.” This most unexpected and outstanding comment strongly affected us all. For once it appeared that love and care were stronger than political resentment, and a representative of the oppressed could take a caring position toward the oppressor. The group could momentarily transcend the usual line of political divide and respond with sincere care at a humane level. From that moment on, the discourse of conflict in this group was transformed from political slogans and formal ideological declarations to dealing with real life situations on both sides of the barrier. Long-term consequences of the conflict became apparent as they turned into the everyday realities of people living under the threat of terror or occupation. This transformative remark was made possible due to processes of maturation in the group, realizing that suffering from power imbalance was shared by people on both sides of the conflict. Most remarkably, given the right climate in the group, even the oppressed party can be empowered with empathy and generosity and offer a helping hand to its offender.
Reintegrative shame, responsibility and apology
Acceptance of offenders, understanding the causes of their violations and wrongdoing without justification, but at the same time without demonizing them, is another cornerstone in restorative practices. First Nations peoples attribute wrongdoing of any member of their family or tribe to their long collective history of suffering and abuse. It is only when taking personal responsibility for their own doing and directing their own fate that a full recognition of personhood and collective identities emerges. It is then that they are ready to approach their adversaries and challenge their actions without demonizing them. The emergence of selfhood out of a collective sense of community of victims that can assume personal responsibility, shame and guilt is the first necessary step towards forgiveness and reconciliation.
According to Braithwaites’ (1989) reintegrative shaming theory, offenders are shamed by their actions but not by their characters, and so are victims. When responsibility is not assumed for one's actions, offenders may continue to be “ashamed to be ashamed” where unacknowledged shame may lead to false justification and repeating acts of violence in defiance of accusations. It is only by apology that acknowledged shame, which is then reciprocated by forgiveness, restores respect for both parties – offenders and victims alike.
When dealing with the issue of terror, the Palestinians first justified it as a legitimate measure of protest. They also presented it as a proportional measure of revenge. When Israeli members could demonstrate other measures of protest and revenge, for example, those taken by them against the British forces in Palestine or against German civilians during World War II, very few of the Palestinian participants could then adopt a different view of the situation altogether. I told them about a relative of mine who survived the camp and then, as the ultimate act of revenge, refused to share a chocolate bar with a German child who was sitting just across from her. There was a moment of silence that helped all parties put things in a proper perspective and step outside of their own self-propelled cycles of fear, pain and revenge.
In negotiating over land and resources in the West Bank in the IPDG, discussion became stuck due to the stubborn refusal of Palestinians to contemplate compromise. They were committed to an all-or-nothing thinking. Their Israeli partners were frustrated and failed to appreciate this rather inflexible position until they were presented with a picture of an old woman embracing a trunk of an uprooted olive tree. The interconnectedness of that woman, the land and the tree touched the Israelis like never before. This was a most persuasive visual demonstration of interconnectedness in an all-or-nothing irreversible situation, where an uprooted tree symbolized death and despair. At that point Israeli participants could empathically relate to their partners’ pain, and the group could then move forward onto other issues. Likewise, only when the Palestinians could relate to the deep-rooted fears and mistrust of their Israeli partners, could they understand better the motivation for taking pre-emptive aggressive measures in the name of self-defense. While, in the beginning, the Palestinians voiced the formal position that terror is the legitimate response to occupation, they could later relate to the Israelis’ accounts of how their lives were disrupted by terror attacks, feeding their old fears of persecution and awakening their instincts for survival. In a way, Israeli members demonstrated how they were in fact living under the “occupation of terror.” This was especially true when Israeli members told the stories of their surviving parents from Holocaust and thus demonstrated the generational origin of these fears of extermination. The Palestinians at first underestimated these accounts as poor justifications for hostile measures taken against them by the almighty Israelis, but then could appreciate how pain and suffering made Israelis more stubborn, distrusting and aggressive. The Palestinians could then explore how they contributed to these reactions and how they exacerbated these fears and then could look into what they could have done to invalidate and disperse such fears. That happen when the Palestinians explained that when they regain control over the land they claim as theirs they will not use it as a base for further terror attacks against Israelis because they are so obliged by their own tradition to serve as hosts and take care of whoever is under their control in their territories. In other words, to put it figuratively, when the Israelis can apologize for the uprooted tree, the Palestinians can invite them to sit in its shade and feel safe from threats of extermination.
Negotiations between equally respected and consolidated entities
Prior to negotiating external reconciliation and peace with other cultures, and rebuilding trust and relationships that have been seriously ruptured by actual or perceived wrongdoing, it is imperative that internal recognition of one's own value, tradition and identity is achieved. Forgiveness for hurtful relationships and violent transactions of abuse has first to be settled within one's own group. Internal reconciliation is needed between members of own group – between men and women, young and old, different groups and parties of different traditions and backgrounds. This is especially crucial with First Nations peoples who were subject to many years of postcolonial suppression, humiliation and assimilation within the dominant culture.
Likewise, direct contact between the negotiating parties is possible once each subgroup's own identities had been consolidated in separate groups. When one's own identity is secure, it is then possible to engage in a dialogue with members of another group and deal less defensively with their shared history of wrongdoing and transgressions. In meeting individual members of the other group in and outside formal sessions it was possible to help disperse prejudices and reduce stereotyping during the meetings of the IPDG. Disagreements on political positions and actions were then examined in the light of personal and family stories in everyday life. Participants started to be perceived as full human beings rather than targeted as opponents in debate and conflict. However, these are deep-rooted self-perceptions, mirrored in the eyes of their adversaries, which have to be processed, sometimes within their home groups. I can testify to this effect, whereby the most heated debates occurred within our own Israeli group before and between sessions with our Palestinian counterparts. It was there that our own collective identity as Israelis was debated along issues of gender, age, ethnic and religious affiliation, and so on, vis-à-vis issues confronted during the dialogues with the Palestinians.
When collective identities collide over a conflict of interests or an act of violence, it is not a matter of playing down differences and just appeasing opponents. On the contrary, inter-group contact is an opportunity to clarify core intragroup issues of identity, tradition, values and vision. It is therefore important to first get in touch with our own tradition and history.
First Nations peoples’ negation of their own traditional teachings is the main obstacle in attempting to negotiate interests and restore relationships with the dominant culture. In consolidating and respecting their own identities, each party may offer the restorative process a wealth of experiences, teachings and wisdom. Thus, First Nations reward their counterparts with oral stories with their underlying wisdom and coda. Other traditions may each offer their own strength and resources for mutual learning and inspire parties in their search of creative solutions. Mack (2011) reflects on times of conflict and disorientation of First Nations when negotiating treaties with the Canadian government, leading them far from their natural and traditional sources and resources. He advocated a return to tradition, and for taking these stories seriously. However, such internal reconciliation with their past tradition is no longer possible in the context of colonial and post-colonial imperialism. He defines this condition by insisting on using the native term “Hoquotist” which is “a metaphor that captures our disoriented state more eloquently and precisely than any English word I know” (Mack 2011: 296). When the canoe was tipped over and deliberate efforts were made to ensure that their journey could not be resumed, they finally lost their canoe at sea. Furthermore, these people have already lost the capacity to carve a new canoe from old cedar trees that are no longer there and, even if they could, they have lost the capacity to paddle. When lured into modernism and liberalism and other ideologies of the West, they retain a shattered nostalgia and fractured worldview. Returning to Indian subjectivities is, according to Mack, a prerequisite for dealings with others. Negotiations should be grounded in their own worldview and practices in order to restore vision and a sense of purpose. Unfortunately, even when taken seriously, their own stories were also invaded by elements of the dominant culture and lost their authenticity.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there is a significant resemblance between Israeli and Palestinian traditions that may help both parties appreciate their respective teachings. Needless to say, the Palestinians consider themselves to be the original natives of the land. However, although the Israeli party symbolizes modernity and western norms, it considers itself indigenous as well, as far as its religious and traditional claims over the land are concerned. Realizing that folk stories told by participants of both groups were about the very same land could reinforce a common notion of sharing the love for the land and not just the land itself. Whether traditional stories are biblical or Muslim, historical or religious, they do serve as an underlying compass that structures these surface processes and extends tremendous power over their progression or instalment. The traditional wisdom of both parties participating in the IPDG reveals lessons that should be learned by all and thus put to work in order to promote mutual understanding and enrich the repertoire of potential solutions.
The application of restorative practices among First Nations to the troubling situation in the Middle East may appear at first superficial and artificial. And yet, the post-factum analysis of dialogues between the parties along principles of restorative justice may offer fresh insights and fruitful ideas that may later be implemented purposefully in future attempts. Moreover, the political clash is just the tip of the iceberg. The conflict signifies the dividing lines between cultures, religions and traditions. It is important that negotiations respect the cultural entities of both parties and even encourage them to look deeper into their respective origins. The wisdom of both may offer a wealth of resources, individually and collectively, for a productive exchange of storied accounts and solution-focused ideas.
In the short run, the results of restorative dialogues and peacebuilding attempts in the region are far from being satisfactory. And yet, inter-subjectivities of war as opposed to those of peacemaking may make the real difference in healing and in inspiring hope. Attitudinal and even conceptual changes do not necessarily imply a behavioral change. And yet, by dissonance alone, participants are more committed to lead different behaviors that are more congruent with the circle or group resolutions, even if there are no formal means of enforcement. Self-fulfiling prophecies are potent and may thus breed a sense of optimism. The long-lasting effects of a dialogue and restorative processes are not measured merely by tangible outcomes but by a sense of restoration of a healthier community that eventually will establish procedures and mechanisms to work out differences without resorting to violence and abuse. Restored relationships and a healed sense of collective identity and personal selfhood may result in an environment that is more resilient and even immune to hostility and the outburst of full-blown violence.
Political rifts and conflicts are multifaceted. They consist of conflicting personal, social and ethnic identities and histories that need ongoing reconciliation, restoration and management. Restorative practices tackle crises in relationships between individual and within groups as an opportunity for growth. Differences in values, perspectives, positions and interests are defined and clarified as a starting point for negotiations. Identities are respected even when actions are criticized or deplored. Consequences of war and conflict are appraised and communicated during conferences where deep emphatic listening is practiced. Only then we may attend the full scale of psychological pain, ruptured relations and social trauma and fully appreciate their consequences in order to be able to take responsibility for amending and restoring relationships with all parties involved. Conflicts and crises serve as opportunities for change and growth. Traditional wisdom of faraway places as well as local experience stored in individual experiences and the traditions of groups can all be woven together to provide better understanding and acceptance of each other, leading to open debate and conflict resolution, or at least, maintaining the capacity to respect differences. Disputes may not always be easily resolved, but they can be tolerated, managed and even serve as opportunities for development and growth.