Israeli-Palestinian double victimhood blocks viable socio-emotional reconciliation.

Evidence

Our analysis suggests that, at least for the present, socio-emotional reconciliation is not an appropriate vehicle for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The primary reason for this is that both parties view themselves as the sole legitimate victims of the conflict and deny victimhood to the other. The Palestinians’ national narrative centers on expulsion and occupation by the Israelis, and the Israeli national narrative centers on the Palestinians’ wish to annihilate the Jewish State through unprovoked wars and terror attacks. This situation of “double victimization” causes each side to lay the onus for apologizing on the other and makes the prospects of successful socio-emotional reconciliation slim at best. — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 1546

Categorization

  • XREF: Pays off earlier chapters showing that when a group’s wrongdoing is perceived as justified, collective guilt is blocked. — connects to: Double victimhood narratives make reconciliation via apology near-impossible. — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 1543; Reconciliation demands rehumanizing perpetrators, which ingroup norms punish — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 2011; Both sides of conflict frame themselves as victims in righteous cycles — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 2172 (+3 more)

Broader Connections