Double victimhood narratives make reconciliation via apology near-impossible.

Evidence

In other conflicts, such as the Israeli-Palestinian one, both parties view themselves as the victim and the other as the perpetrator, and both are likely to view it as the other’s responsibility to apologize for past wrongdoings. This makes ending the conflict more difficult. Ideally, under such circumstances each party would accept its own role in perpetrating pain and suffering on the other side. This would call for a coordinated expression of empathy and acceptance of responsibility bilaterally. Yet, as our findings indicate, the lack of trust between adversaries implies that such a coordinated apology-forgiveness cycle may be difficult to achieve. — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 1543

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Israeli-Palestinian double victimhood blocks viable socio-emotional reconciliation. — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 1546; Reconciliation demands rehumanizing perpetrators, which ingroup norms punish — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 2011

Broader Connections

• Reconciliation demands rehumanizing perpetrators, which ingroup norms punish #expands (0.75) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 2011