Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The goal of this study is to examine the ways in which dialogue and peace are promoted and mobilized through a Facebook page in the protracted, ethnopolitical conflict between Israeli-Jews and Palestinians. A thematic qualitative text analysis based on the grounded theory approach was conducted on posts and comments that were published on the Facebook page of the Israeli grassroots movement Women Wage Peace (WWP), created by the Jewish and Arab women that participate in this movement. Our findings point to three major mechanisms through which attempts to mobilize peace were performed: building solidarity, maintaining engagement, and calling for action, thus contributing to our understanding of social media as a dialogue-provoking platform that enables users from different gender and ethnopolitical groups in divided and conflicted societies to perform peacebuilding actions. However, the findings indicate that at the same time, the page also constitutes a space for blatant expressions of hostility, hatred, and sexism that convey a backlash against the initiative and activity of WWP.

Keywords

social media dialogue women and peace Facebook online political participation mobilization asymmetric conflict Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Introduction

This study investigates the mechanisms and processes through which a Facebook page, founded and operated jointly by women representing both sides in a protracted ethnopolitical conflict, is used to promote intergroup dialogue and mobilize for peace. A qualitative text analysis based on the grounded theory of posts and comments on the Facebook page of the Jewish–Arab grassroots movement Women Wage Peace (WWP) was conducted in order to examine mechanisms through which this social media platform attempts to support the expression of reconciliatory voices, draw Israeli Jews and Palestinians into dialogue, and promote women’s activism, intergroup solidarity, and peace.

Previous research points to the use of Facebook pages to build ingroup solidarity and mobilize intergroup struggle in protracted ethnopolitical conflict (de Vries et al., 2015, 2017). It is equally important to further understand the factors that affect the extent to which dialogues and discussions conducted through this platform, in the context of intergroup hostility and conflict, can also promote cooperation and improve intergroup relations. This study seeks to contribute to our understanding of the ways in which online intergroup dialogue conducted through a Facebook page can support creating intergroup solidarity, sustaining connectedness and mobilizing people to act as agents of social change and peacebuilding in settings of ethnopolitical conflict.

Theoretical Background

Women and Peace

Research literature on gender, intergroup conflicts, and peace processes points to the effect of gender and gender-related expectations and perceptions on support for militant actions or for compromise in conflict (David et al., 2018; Maoz, 2009; Tessler & Warriner, 1997). Previous studies have demonstrated that encountering female outgroup members (Maoz, 2009), as well as perceiving the outgroup as possessing feminine traits, reduces threat perceptions and decreases support for violating human rights in conflict (David et al., 2016) while increasing the readiness for conflict resolution based on compromise (David & Maoz, 2015; Maoz, 2009).

The “women and peace hypothesis” posits that women tend to hold more peaceful and compromising attitudes than men (Tessler et al., 1999). Several studies have found that in line with this theory, women show higher propensity for peace and compromise as compared to men (Togeby, 1994; Wilcox et al., 1996). Another, related body of research indicates that women can have an increased capability of promoting peace (Hunt & Posa, 2001; Maoz, 2009). Furthermore, it has been noted in literature that women participate in “unofficial” political channels more than men because sometimes “official” channels are not as accessible to them. In addition, because of the relative marginality of women in society compared to men, it is easier for them to cross boundaries and initiate interaction with the other side on the national divide. At the same time, because of this marginality, it is easier to dismiss women and their activities (Stasiulis & Yoval-Davis, 1995).

The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 that was passed unanimously on 31 October 2000 (United Nations Security Council, 2000) emphasizes the crucial role of women in the prevention and resolution of conflicts. This resolution urges the increasing involvement of women at all levels of decision making in conflict management, resolution, and peace processes, recognizing that full participation of women in peace processes can significantly contribute to the maintenance and promotion of international peace and security.

Our study examines the participation of women in mobilizing peace through social media dialogue in the protracted conflict between Israeli Jews and Palestinians.

Social Media, Political Participation, and Mobilization

The past two decades have been characterized by a dramatic transition in which individuals, communities, and interest groups have been moving away from traditional forms of political participation and activism through formal institutions. The advent of Web 2.0 and social media (Papacharissi, 2009) has been described as shifting the task of mobilization from formal organizations with stable structures to individuals and groups (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012; Castells, 2013). In this context, new media has been somewhat optimistically seen as giving rise to new centers of power (Castells, 2013; Curran, 2002) that enable a reconstructed social reality and provide symbolic resources through which conflicts are represented and perceived (Castells, 2013). Within this framework, increased attention has been paid to the capability of social media as a platform for social and political activism. Social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have been described as enabling activists to “meet” others who share similar goals and emotions, thus strengthening their collective identity through new media technology (Castells, 2013). Relevant research has focused on the role of digital communication technologies in offering activists—as well as dispersed ethno-national communities—tools for communicating and coordinating off-line action (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012; Cammaerts et al., 2013).

However, other, more recent studies (as well as real-life events) convey a more pessimistic perspective on the role of social media as a platform for constructive communication that promotes civil discourse and action. Research increasingly demonstrates how Internet and social media platforms can also serve as mechanisms for expressing hatred, dehumanization, and delegitimization toward individuals and groups (Cassese, 2019; Harel et al., 2020; Pacilli et al., 2016), thus mobilizing alienation, polarization, and violence (Matuszewski & Szabo, 2019). Several studies show how online comment forums enable and even encourage expression and escalation of anger, hatred, incivility, and prejudice (Baider, 2018; Ermida, 2017; Wollebæk et al., 2019). Other studies have discussed the use of digital communication technologies and platforms—such as online message boards—for oppressive and totalitarian forms of state monitoring and control (Dickson, 2011; Mackinon, 2011, 2013).

Still, another strand of research analyzes Facebook pages as sites in which intergroup delegitimization, dehumanization, and escalation are expressed, mobilized (de Vries et al., 2015, 2017), and seemingly normalized (see Harel et al., 2020).

The present study examines the extent to which (and in what ways)—in spite of this dark side of social media—a Facebook page can still serve as a platform for building and sustaining intergroup solidarity and mobilizing toward peace through dialogue.

Promoting Peace through Dialogue

Intergroup contact and dialogue are commonly used as a device for grassroots-level peacebuilding. The Contact Hypothesis (Allport, 1954) posits that intergroup contact is likely to reduce prejudice under specified conditions (e.g., equal status between the participating groups, cooperative intergroup interactions, opportunities for personal acquaintance, and institutional support).

Over the years, various alternative approaches to intergroup contact have developed—mostly focusing on facilitated dialogue (for a more detailed review of such approaches, see Maoz, 2011; Zúñiga, 2003). The term “intergroup dialogue” has become central in this research literature (Ron et al., 2010; Ron & Maoz, 2013; Zúñiga et al., 2014) and is aptly defined by Zúñiga (2003) as “a face-to-face facilitated conversation between members of two or more social identity groups that strives to create new levels of understanding, relating, and action” (p. 9). Studies done thus far on Jewish–Palestinian dialogue, and specifically on women’s encounters, point to the role that preconceptions play in these meetings (Lavy & Mollov, 2006; Suleiman, 2011). Such studies have examined the place of women in each society (Ma’oz, 2019) and the gap in expectations of both parties regarding the purpose and topics of the dialogue (e.g., Palestinian women often choose to discuss issues related to the occupation and its effect on society, whereas Jewish women express a desire to personally connect with their counterparts as women).

While earlier contact and dialogue studies were mainly conducted in face-to-face settings, more recent studies describe interventions that are based on online intergroup communication (Amichai-Hamburger et al., 2015; Hasler & Amichai-Hamburger, 2013). In the research literature, these relatively new forms of intergroup communication are referred to, inter alia, as online intergroup dialogue (Mor et al., 2016; Selvanathan et al., 2019). Online intergroup dialogues are discussed in recent research in the context of intergroup contact theory and have been found to display patterns of communication that have also emerged as characterizing intergroup dialogue in face-to-face settings (Amichai-Hamburger et al., 2015; Mor et al., 2016; Selvanathan et al., 2019). More specifically, patterns that characterize processes of face-to-face dialogue (such as the gap in expectations of both parties regarding the topics of the dialogue as described in the above case of Jewish–Palestinian women’s encounters) were also found to characterize processes of online intergroup dialogue (Mor et al., 2016). Furthermore, previous findings point to the effectiveness of one of the most prominent models of face-to-face dialogue, the coexistence model which focuses on promoting understanding and tolerance and emphasizes intergroup commonalities (Maoz, 2011), as a model for online intergroup dialogue in general, and for Facebook intergroup dialogue in particular (Mor et al., 2016).

Our study explores the mechanisms and processes through which the Facebook page of the Jewish–Arab grassroots movement WWP attempts to support the expression of reconciliatory voices and to promote women’s activism, intergroup solidarity, dialogue, and peace. In doing so, this study seeks to bring together and further empirically investigate three major topics that are discussed in our theoretical review: gender dynamics of intergroup relations, and more specifically, the assumptions in research literature regarding the increased ability and unique role that women can have in promoting peace and conflict resolution; the ability of social media (and specifically Facebook) to serve as a platform for social and political activism that builds bridges between groups in conflict alongside the negative aspects of digital platforms as mechanisms for expressing hatred, dehumanization, and delegitimization toward individuals and groups; and finally, the dynamics of intergroup dialogue that takes place on social media platforms such as Facebook.

One of the fundamental principles of the WWP movement, which is also reflected in its Facebook page, is Jewish–Arab Partnership. Posts and comments posted by Jewish and Palestinian administrators and users on the movement’s page convey mutual appreciation, intergroup solidarity, a shared hope for peace, and a call for social and political action while encouraging participation in face-to-face Jewish–Palestinian encounters. It seems, thus, that Zúñiga’s (2003) definition of intergroup dialogue as a conversation that strives to create new levels of understanding, relating, and action (Zúñiga et al., 2014) aptly applies to the Facebook page of WWP.

Our study thus examines the ways in which a Facebook page can be used to encourage dialogue and promote peace in the protracted, ethnopolitical conflict between Israeli-Jews and Palestinians. Given the significant use of Facebook pages to promote agendas, express opinions, mobilize for action, and build ingroup solidarity in conflict (de Vries et al., 2015; Harel et al., 2020), it is important to further understand the factors that affect the extent to which dialogues and discussions conducted through this platform, in the context of intergroup hostility and conflict, can also promote cooperation and improve intergroup relations.

Research Question: What are the mechanisms through which dialogue and peace are promoted and mobilized through the Facebook page WWP, in the protracted, ethnopolitical conflict between Israeli-Jews and Palestinians?

Method

Research Corpus

The analysis focuses on the Facebook page of WWP. WWP is the largest grassroots movement in Israel whose purpose is to promote a political agreement to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. As of September 2019, the movement included tens of thousands of members, Jews and Arabs, united in a demand for a mutually binding non-violent accord, agreeable to both sides. The Facebook page WWP was created on 12 August 2014, by Jewish and Arab women members of WWP. The page is designed to provide information on the activities of WWP, to respond to events related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and to allow users to engage in dialogue, through their comments, on relevant topics. The page is open to the public and followed by approximately 43,000 users.¹ While most users are Israeli Jews, one of the fundamental principles of WWP is a Jewish–Arab Partnership. The movement’s Facebook page is managed by administrators from both groups and serves as a shared space for Jewish and Arab users. More than 50% of posts published by the page administrators are in both Hebrew and Arabic, while other posts and most of the discussions following them, in which both Israeli Jews and Palestinians take part, are in Hebrew. In this context, it should be noted that most Palestinian Arabs in Israel speak Hebrew as a second language and that the majority of interactions between Israeli Jews and Arabs are in Hebrew.

We examined posts and comments that have been posted between 1 December 2018 and 11 September 2019—a routine period in Jewish–Arab relations characterized by a relatively low number of violent incidents between Israeli Jews and Palestinians.

The analysis is based on 206 posts and 3,737 comments that gained a total of 47,430 “likes” and 14,495 “shares.”

Method of Analysis

Our analysis is inspired by the grounded theory approach which emphasizes the construction of theories and concepts based on data that were gathered in the research process (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In line with this paradigm (Berg, 2004), we conducted a preliminary horizontal reading of the Facebook page posts and comments in order to identify relevant main themes. The units of analysis were the posts and the comments that followed them. Several more readings led us to narrow down the number of themes identified by merging similar categories and focusing on those that have been found common, interesting, and relevant to our work.

In order to further validate the resulting categorization into themes, in the second stage of the analysis, a subset of posts and comments was discussed until an agreement was reached on the main criteria for categorizing each post or comment into one of the themes. Posts or comments that fit more than one category were further discussed until an agreement was reached on their classification based on the most prominent claim of the post or the comment. The first author also used a further process of thematic analysis to determine whether there were sub-categories within the identified themes as well as disconfirming cases, which were then also discussed. This last step is recommended to reduce researcher bias and increase validity of the findings. These discussions also led to further refinement of the criteria of categorization into themes until a saturation point was reached (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 143) at which no further categorization criteria were identified. This process resulted in an agreed upon set of categorization guidelines that were used to categorize the remainder of the data into themes.

An inter-coder reliability test performed by two native Hebrew-speaking trained independent coders on 395 posts and comments analyzed (10% of the entire corpus) achieved satisfying scores (Krippendorff’s α > .7).

Results

We present here the three major themes that have emerged from our analysis: dialogue of partnership and peace; women mobilizing women to action promoting social change and peace; and finally, the backlash. Note that when dates of posts are included with transcripts in this section, they are presented in the date, month, year convention used in Israel.

Dialogue of Partnership and Peace

WWP is a grassroots movement that calls for a political agreement that will bring an end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, while involving women in the process. A key component of the movement’s activity and identity is intergroup dialogue, partnership, and peace between Jews and Arabs. Consistent with the theoretical and operational definition of dialogue (Zúñiga, 2003; Zúñiga et al., 2014), the analysis of posts and comments revealed a major thematic category relating to the dialogue taking place on the movement’s page. The quotes in this category are characterized by mutual expressions of appreciation and partnership between Jews and Palestinians, expressions of hope and longing for peace, solidarity, and sharing each other’s joy and sorrow.

Thus, posts published on the movement’s Facebook page, as well as comments on those posts, express appreciation for the women involved in peace and reconciliation efforts. In a comment on a post dated 27 August 2019—referring to a major event, “The Journey to Hope,” in which women from the movement came to the city of Ashdod to convey a message of peace—one female Jewish user wrote,

I am excitedly listening to these brave women and men . . . their voices and message overpower those of hate and animosity and the sounds of anger that are trying to silence us. No one can stop our way, which is the language of love, compassion and mutual respect.

A female Arab user wrote,

Much love and appreciation for you, my friends. I embrace and strengthen each one of you . . . we will indeed only fulfill our dream together.

Solidarity and partnership are also conveyed through the sharing of celebration and of grief. A post published on 4 June 2019 regarding the passing away of the wife of the President of Israel, Nechama Rivlin, was accompanied by comments from both Jews and Arabs expressing sorrow. A Jewish user wrote,

So sad . . . the first lady! Such a special woman . . . noble, modest, gentle, a woman of giving. A rare breed in our current political reality . . . May her memory be blessed.

Such comments were echoed by Arab users who wrote,

May her memory be a blessing. My condolences to dear President Rivlin.

Rest in Peace, First Lady!

Alongside expressions of grief, the dialogue that takes place on the Facebook page also includes instances of sharing the joy, celebration, and mutual greetings for Jewish and Muslim holidays. For example, in comments on a post from 1 September 2019 which was published on the occasion of the Islamic new year, Jewish users wrote,

A year of peace, of prosperity, equality, and economic security.

May the convergence of dates become a convergence of hearts from all sides and may hope return to our lives!!!

In comments on a post from the same date, 1 September 2019, published on the occasion of the start of the new school year, one of the Arab users wrote,

May it be a fruitful, quiet, safe and successful year. Today is the first day of the month for Jews, Christians and Muslims (who are celebrating the new year) . . . what an amazing message from above.

Additional comments written in response to the same post express hope for dialogue and peace:

May this be a year in which we will perhaps open a new page and turn from fighting to dialogue, from violence to agreement and from despair to hope.

The hope for peace, partnership, and dialogue, along with mutual expressions of appreciation, solidarity, and sharing in the joy and pain of the other, are prominent motifs in the discourse that takes place on the Facebook page of WWP. Alongside the outward-directed activity of the movement aimed at influencing public opinion and political systems, the Facebook page is used by members of the movement and those who support it for dialogue regarding the common agenda of striving for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, or in other words—borrowed from Zúñiga’s (2003) definition of intergroup dialogue—for a conversation that strives to create new levels of understanding, relating, and action.

Women Mobilizing Women to Action Promoting Social Change and Peace

Consistent with previous discussions on social media as a platform for political participation and mobilization (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012; Castells, 2013), the analysis revealed another major thematic category relating to the use of the movement’s page as a mechanism for mobilizing women to become involved in social and political actions. Quotes in this category are characterized by a call to participate in activities aimed at advancing a political solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and at promoting women’s rights.

Posts published by the page administrators call for participation in field operations of the movement that strive to influence public opinion in Israel. For example, a post dated 19 March 2019 calls followers to join demonstrations of the movement taking place at major intersections throughout Israel, calling for a political solution of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians:

Determined! Not giving up!

We will be standing every week until the elections at intersections, calling for an agreed-upon political solution. Look for us and join us on Friday, 5.4, between 11:00–12:30 at central intersections throughout the country.

The main field activity of WWP that took place during the surveyed period was “The Journey to Hope,” a major event in which the women of the movement held marches and convoys of cars for 5 days between different cities in Israel. Many messages posted during the event were relevant to the participation in the journey:

During the last week of August, we will embark on The Journey to Hope of Women Wage Peace: We will go from the north of the country to the south, by car and on foot . . .

Save the date, tell your friends, and start getting ready! (31.7.19)

Another example of the call for action relates to the “Mothers’ Tent” that was erected in Tel Aviv’s central square on International Women’s Day on 8 March 2019. During the following month, the Mothers’ Tent hosted activities of the movement calling for a political solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The call to participate in the tent’s activity was done through posts posted by page administrators:

8.3 is Women’s Day!

We will all march together, Arabs and Jews, religious and secular.

We will open the Mothers’ Tent, in which politics of respect, inclusion, equality and connection are fulfilled, and we will call for the placement of an agreed-upon political solution at the top of the election agenda . . .

Join us!

In response to the post, one of the users wrote,

We will march together and remember that we have power!!!! There’s nothing like women’s empowerment for bringing about change, and it’s important that we see that in the elections as well.

The erection of a tent on International Women’s Day, and the above reference to women’s empowerment, represents one of the more significant aspects of the call for action within the dialogue on the page: the feminist dimension. Alongside the prominent feminist tone in the movement’s activity and discourse, as well as on its Facebook page, a significant portion of the calls for action in the posts examined is related to the struggle for women’s rights. An example of this is a post from 2 December 2018 that calls users to join a protest strike following several incidents of violence against women:

This is a state of emergency!

24 women were murdered in 2018, two of them in the past week.

It is time to put an end to this! It doesn’t have to be this way.

Women Wage Peace joins the many bodies and organizations in supporting the women’s strike this coming Tuesday, calling for the urgent advancement and budgeting of a plan to combat violence against women.

Among the comments in response to the post was the following:

A state of emergency—I will join the strike tomorrow and will be at Rabin Square at 19:30. Women, join us! It is time to put an end to violence against women!!!

Another comment calls to join a demonstration in one of the Arab cities in Israel:

Join us for a demonstration in Rahat at 16:30, in the central square.

One of the main feminist struggles that the Facebook page addresses is the struggle for the representation of women in political systems and processes. In the period surveyed, two general election campaigns took place in Israel in less than 6 months. Posts published during this period sought to mobilize protest activities concerning the percentage of women represented in the parties contesting the elections. For example,

We are not giving up on women in the Knesset (Israel’s parliament).

We are advancing equality, peace and security.

Join us in standing in front of the houses of party leaders. (26.7.19)

The percentage of women in the population is 51%,

We need to aspire for that to be the percentage of women in the Knesset as well.

The elections were also present in the background of several posts that sought to motivate users to exercise their right to vote. For example,

Women’s suffrage seems like a given to us, but this has not always been the case . . . . go vote tomorrow and while you are doing so, remember that until not a long time ago this was a right we had to fight for. (8.4.19)

A somewhat different aspect of the call for action is reflected in face-to-face meetings between Jewish and Arab women. One of the more prominent initiatives in the surveyed period was during the month of Ramadan—the iftar meals (the dinner which breaks the daily fast during the month of Ramadan) in which Muslim women hosted Jewish women:

Among the delicate texture of the separate holidays and shared days, food is almost always a connecting factor. Throughout Ramadan, we will host joint iftar meals in various parts of the country.

Join us, come to meet and talk, because personal connections are the key to bringing us closer and closer to a political agreement. (12.5.19)

In an additional post, from 16 May 2019, an experience from one of the meals is described, while the author encourages women to join the next meals:

There was so much excitement the other day in Um el Facham; laughter, tears and women’s sisterhood. The month of Ramadan came amid days of segregation and polarization between Jewish and Arab society. During this month, a group of Arab women from Women Wage Peace initiated a series of iftar meals . . . around a table laden with fine food prepared by Manal, women from Um el Facham sat together with members of the Women Wage Peace movement—Arabs and Jews—for a heartwarming meeting of women and heart-to-heart conversations . . .

Join us for the next meals.

Such initiatives of face-to-face meetings between Jewish and Arab women, along with the call for women’s action promoting social change are a central pillar of the conversation that takes place on the Facebook page WWP. However, alongside its constructive role, this page also reflects other voices that are not initiated or wanted by the women of the movement.

The Backlash

Alongside dialogue and partnership, the comments on the WWP Facebook page also convey a backlash against the calls for social change, partnership, and peace. Consistent with previous studies on social media as a mechanism for expressing hatred, dehumanization, and delegitimization toward individuals and groups (Cassese, 2019; Harel et al., 2020), our analysis revealed a third major thematic category relating to the use of the Facebook page WWP as a platform for blatant expressions of aggression and hatred.

Thus, Arabs as a whole, and the Palestinian people in particular, are repeatedly referred to in hostile and inciting comments as murderers with whom peace cannot be reached:

It is impossible to make peace with a nation of murderers who are incited from infancy against Jews. (23.8.19)

Peace with who?

Murderers stay murderers. (23.8.19)

Other comments express gender-based dehumanization and degradation (Harel et al., 2020):

The Arab women are sold like animals and they don’t have an opinion. Their opinion doesn’t count! So what peace are you talking about? (25.8.19)

In some cases, hostile comments of Jewish users relate specifically to Arab men:

Honestly, we don’t have a problem with the women. It’s just the men who murder and slaughter us. Those are your husbands and sons. (7.8.19)

Alongside the hostility toward Arabs, aggressive comments were also and predominantly directed toward the women activists. These comments convey a backlash not only against the ideas and agenda of the movement and its peace activism, but also, prominently, against its character as a grassroots movement led by women.

Thus, women in general and the women of the movement in particular are accused of encouraging Palestinian terror attacks and war:

Change the name.

Women wage war.

Women committing terrorist attacks and murder.

Understand.

The spirit of the cursed terrorists comes from your activity.

Because of what you encourage, this is what happens. (25.8.19)

Women wage peace? Women are the hope for peace?

It is the least fitting that women would make peace. Many women who receive power exploit it for wars . . . (7.8.19)

Women won’t make peace, because they don’t believe each other. (7.8.19)

Peace? Women were always the reason for wars! (13.8.19)

Women can’t make peace because they are constantly aggressive, and when someone attacks you, you don’t make peace with them, you disengage. (16.8.19)

Another recurring sexist motif is the call for women to return to their place in the kitchen:

Women, instead of spouting nonsense, go wash the floors and then the dishes. (16.8.19)

First make peace in your own lives, and if you can’t, go back to the kitchen, that’s your place, you only bring trouble. (16.8.19)

It is important to note here that many of the flagrant comments were deleted by the administrators of the page, and in other cases, these comments were left unanswered by the activist women and the movement’s supporters, perhaps in an attempt to preserve the boundaries of the online dialogue (Gillespie, 2018). However, expressions of hostility and the backlash against women’s action for promoting a peaceful solution to the conflict are still part of the story told by the Facebook page of WWP.

To summarize, the analysis of the posts and comments that were published on the page during the period between December 2018 and September 2019 exposes the richness and complexity of the dialogue that takes place on the platform of the movement’s Facebook page. This dialogue seeks to facilitate lucid women’s voices expressing partnership, mutual acceptance, and a shared longing for peace and coexistence. The page is also used to mobilize women to become involved in social and political action for the advancement of a political solution between Israel and the Palestinians, and to facilitate face-to-face intergroup encounters of Jewish and Palestinian women. However, this space offered for dialogue within the digital sphere, is also used as a platform for other voices expressing hostility, delegitimization, and animosity toward this female-led initiative aimed at promoting dialogue and peace.

Discussion

Our analysis of major themes, comments, and responses that appeared on the Facebook page WWP revealed that the page serves as a platform for expressions of mutual acceptance, moral inclusion, and striving for peace alongside manifestations of a backlash against women’s action for social change. Below, we discuss these findings in light of relevant previous research.

Online and Social Media Dialogue in Conflict

Previous research points to the potential of intergroup contact and dialogue to promote positive attitudes and emotions toward outgroup members (Maoz, 2011) and provide the participants with a deeper and more complex awareness of the conflict and of alter narratives in it (Ron et al., 2010; Ron & Maoz, 2013).

However, relatively little research attention has been devoted to systematically studying the ways in which online and social media platforms can be used to promote dialogue and reconciliation between conflicting national or ethnic groups (for such studies, see Ellis & Maoz, 2007; Hasler & Amichai-Hamburger, 2013; Mor et al., 2016). The current study focuses on a Facebook page aimed at mobilizing peace in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. As an intractable conflict, this conflict plays a major role in shaping the ethos, viewpoints, collective traumas, and socio-cultural representations in the societies involved in it (Bar-Tal, 2013; Morag, 2008, 2012, 2018).

While studies addressing processes and interactions as they occur in face-to-face intergroup dialogue encounters discuss the ability of intergroup dialogue to mitigate moral exclusion and elicit moral concern in settings of intergroup conflict (Ron & Maoz, 2013), the potential of online dialogue to elicit intergroup understanding and sympathy between people embedded in a reality of protracted conflict has elicited limited research attention (Mor et al., 2016).

Our study examined the ways in which a dialogue conducted on a Facebook page, jointly initiated and operated by Israeli Jewish and Palestinian women, enables, sustains, and mobilizes intergroup solidarity and peacebuilding in the context of the protracted, ethnopolitical conflict between Israeli-Jews and Palestinians. The findings of this study make a unique contribution by pointing to the ways in which such online intergroup dialogues provide room for sharing in each other’s joy and sorrow; expressing mutual acceptance, support, and appreciation; and nurturing intergroup solidarity, thus fulfilling the goal of intergroup dialogue as a conversation that “strives to create new levels of understanding, relating, and action” (Zúñiga, 2003, p. 9).

Connection and Separation through Social Media

Earlier studies suggested that social media platforms can enable users to encounter more diverse views and opinions through their social networks, thus leading to moderation in political opinions (Bimber, 2004; Papacharissi, 2002) and laying connecting bridges between different social, ideological, and political factions (Cammaerts, 2007). New communication technologies, and particularly social media, have been described as providing an important resource for the mobilization, organization, and implementation of collective activities (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012; Castells, 2013) through creating less-confined political spaces and establishing connections (Aouragh, 2012; Castells, 2013).

In line with these earlier, more optimistic views regarding the affordances of social media platforms, our findings indicate that online dialogues conducted through a Facebook page can mobilize and support intergroup solidarity, sustain connectedness, and mobilize people to act as agents of social change and peacebuilding in settings of ethnopolitical conflict. More specifically, our findings demonstrate how attempts for mobilization were performed through three major mechanisms: calling for solidarity, maintaining engagement, and directly calling for and organizing action. Through offering opportunities for engaging in activities and intergroup interactions outside the digital space, as well as providing room for political expression, symbolic identification, and information exchange, the Facebook page of WWP presents an important alternative resource for mobilization of collective action (Della Porta & Mosca, 2005; Eltanway & Wiest, 2011).

However, our findings are simultaneously consistent with the second wave of more recent studies that have pointed to the use of social media as a mechanism for expressing and mobilizing intergroup disengagement and animosity both generally (Light & Cassidy, 2014), as well as in the specific context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (de Vries et al., 2015; Harel et al., 2020; John & Dvir-Gvirsman, 2015).

More specifically, our findings demonstrate how social media platforms that aim to promote dialogue can nevertheless also constitute a mechanism for expressing hostility, hatred, and sexism in intractable conflicts (Harel et al., 2020) as they can provide a platform for backlash against women’s action for social change (Bromley & Ahmad, 2006). While there does not seem to be anything particularly radical or subversive in women being for peace or in the contents that appear in the movement’s Facebook page, these efforts seem to consistently elicit hostility, degradation, and verbal violence that are directed both at the notion of peace and at the women propagating this notion, because they are women. In this context, it is interesting to note that the aggressive and blatant comments posted on the page are often left unanswered and are in many cases deleted by the page administrators. This act of deleting hostile and aggressive comments seem to convey—through practices of content moderation (Gillespie, 2018; Roberts, 2019)—administrators’ perceptions regarding the nature and boundaries of the online dialogue.

From a broader perspective, these dynamics of backlash and content moderation demonstrate how networked spaces of communication aimed at promoting dialogue give voice not only to marginalized groups, quests for social justice, inclusiveness, democratic deliberative discussion, empowerment, and solidarity, but also to hatred, animosity, exclusion, verbal violence, oppression, and existing embedded societal power and interest structures that inevitably find their expression also in these communicative spaces (Gillespie, 2018; Roberts, 2019). The Facebook page of WWP thus also exemplifies how subtle acts of moderation are a necessary part of the continuous effort to preserve a precarious and essentially imperfect balance between the different agendas and voices, so as to maintain an online dialogue aimed at promoting peace.

Women and Peace Activism

Recent studies describe situations of conflict, warfare, and terrorism as consistent with normative gender dichotomies in which power, aggression, and warfare are associated with masculinity while submissiveness, passiveness, the need to be protected, and feeling for others are associated with femininity (David et al., 2016; Olekalns, 2014; Sjoberg & Gentry, 2007).

The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 (United Nations Security Council, 2000) emphasizes the crucial role of women in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and urges an increase in the involvement of women in conflict management and peace processes. In line with this resolution, our study attempts to empirically examine the mechanisms through which Israeli-Jewish and Palestinian women use political-digital participation to create solidarity and promote peace in the protracted conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

Our findings suggest that Facebook can indeed serve as a platform that enables intergroup dialogue in the context of the intractable conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Facebook is—at least to a certain extent—an open arena for discussions in which participants from different ethnopolitical groups in a conflicted society can share ideas, opinions, and reactions and engage in peacebuilding activities. With approximately 43,000 Jewish and Palestinian followers that take part in the discussions voluntarily, WWP as well as similar Facebook pages and groups can support and facilitate reconciliation aimed dialogue and discourse in protracted conflicts.

However, as previous research has shown, in addition to its clearly positive connotations and effects (David et al., 2018; Maoz, 2009), the association of women, femininity, and peace can elicit negative responses and stereotypes. Critical work discusses feminization as part of a derogatory construction of ethnic, national, or religious minority groups, which serves both to legitimize social and moral exclusion and to allow for physical and structural violence against these minorities, violating their human rights (David et al., 2016; Kaufman & Williams, 2013; Suleiman, 2011). Consistently, our findings demonstrate a backlash effect (Bromley & Ahmad, 2006; Danner & Walsh, 1999) in which derogatory, hostile, and aggressive opinions, stereotypes, and emotions toward women, femininity, and peace are also expressed in response to the attempts of Israeli and Palestinian women to mobilize intergroup cooperation.

Blatant sexism is one of the well-known expressions of backlash against women who deviate from their perceived role or gender stereotype (Faludi, 1991; Rudman & Phelan, 2008). This phenomenon is discussed both in the context of interpersonal relations, especially within organizational frameworks (Rudman & Phelan, 2008) as well as in the broader context of the feminist movement and women’s struggle for gender equality (Bromley & Ahmad, 2006; Browne, 2013; Danner & Walsh, 1999). In our case, sexist, anti-feminist comments and responses of some of the Jewish Facebook users were directed primarily at female members of the Jewish ingroup. Prominent motifs in these comments were disdain and mockery toward women’s desire to make peace, claims that women actually cause wars and not peace, and recurring sexist calls for women to return to their place in the kitchen.

These expression patterns are consistent with data and evidence on the backlash against women’s antiwar movements in Israel such as “Women in Black” (see Camelia Suleiman’s interview with Gila Svirsky, one of the co-founders of Women in Black, on 29 June 2005) and may suggest that the national agenda often conflicts with the agenda of the advancement of women. Naomi Chazan, a former member of the Israeli Parliament, describes this as follows: “Israeli Jewish women have been occupied by the occupation in the true sense of the word” (Suleiman, 2011, p. 162). In other words, women activists often link their oppression as women with the conditions of the occupation, and more generally with nationalism.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Our study can contribute to the understanding of Facebook as a dialogue-provoking platform that at the same time and inevitably gives space to the dynamics of backlash and content moderation (Gillespie, 2018; Roberts, 2019) that are also a prominent feature of face-to face, off-line, intergroup dialogues (Maoz, 2011). However, this study is not without limitations. First, it is important to note the dominance of the Hebrew language and of Jewish Facebook users in the posts published on the page from which we collected our data.

Second, and in a broader sense, this study focuses on the analysis of one case and therefore is limited in its generalizability. Future research should explore the use of dialogues conducted through Facebook to mobilize solidarity and peace by communities in other sites of asymmetric conflict in order to reach a broader understanding of this phenomenon and of the mechanisms that drive, sustain, and can make such dialogues effective in peacebuilding.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The Authors thank the Swiss Center for Conflict Research, Management and Resolution for its support. The second author would like to thank the Lady Davis Fellowship at the Hebrew University for its support. The third author also thanks the Smart Communications Institute for its support of this study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Yiftach Ron

Notes

Author Biographies

Yiftach Ron (PhD, Hebrew University of Jerusalem) is a lecturer of conflict research and communication, teaching at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and a senior lecturer of creative arts therapies at the Kibbutzim College, Tel Aviv. His research interests include processes of intergroup communication, narratives and life stories in conflicted societies, media, and psychology-related aspects of intergroup conflict, dialogue, and peace building.

Camelia Suleiman (PhD, Georgetown University) is an associate professor of linguistics and languages at Michigan State University. Her research interests include language, race and gender, the sociolinguistics of Arabic and its contact with Hebrew, language and the media, and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

Ifat Maoz (PhD, Haifa University) is a full professor and director of the Swiss Center for Conflict Research, Management and Resolution, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She studies psychological and gender aspects of conflict, conflict resolution, intergroup relations and group identities, identity constructions, narratives, and dialogue.

References

Allport

G. W.

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

Amichai-Hamburger

Hasler

B. S.

Shani-Sherman

(2015). Structured and unstructured intergroup contact in the digital age. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 515–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.022

Aouragh

(2012). Social media, mediation and the Arab revolutions. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 10(2), 518–536. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v10i2.416

Baider

(2018). “Go to hell fucking faggots, may you die!” Framing the LGBT subject in online comments. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 14(1), 69–92. https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2018-0004

Bar-Tal

(2013). Intractable conflicts: Socio-psychological foundations and dynamics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139025195

Bennett

W. L.

Segerberg

(2012). The logic of connective action. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661

Berg

B. L.

(2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Pearson.

Bimber

(2004, October 24–26). The Internet and political fragmentation [Conference session]. Democracy in the 21st century conference, Urbana-Champagne, IL, United States.

Bromley

Ahmad

(2006). Wa(i)ving solidarity: Feminist activists confronting backlash. Canadian Women’s Studies/Les Cahiers de la Femme, 25(3–4), 61–71.

10.

Browne

(2013). Backlash, repetition, untimeliness: The temporal dynamics of feminist politics. Hypatia, 28(4), 905–920. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12006

11.

Cammaerts

(2007). Media and communication strategies of glocalized activists: Beyond media-centric thinking. In Cammaerts

Carpentier

(Eds.), Reclaiming the media: Communication rights and democratic media roles (pp. 265–288). Intellect Books.

12.

Cammaerts

Mattoni

McCurdy

(Eds.). (2013). Mediation and protest movements. Intellect.

13.

Cassese

(2019). Partisan dehumanization and American politics. Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09585-2

14.

Castells

(2013). Communication power. Oxford University Press.

15.

Curran

(2002). Media and power. Psychology Press.

16.

Danner

Walsh

(1999). “Radical”; feminists and “bickering”; women: Backlash in U.S. media coverage of the United Nations fourth world conference on women. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 16(1), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295039909367072

17.

David

Maoz

(2015). Gender perceptions and support for compromise in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 21(2), 295–298.

18.

David

Rosler

Ellis

Maoz

(2016). Gendering human rights: Threat and gender perceptions as predictors of attitudes towards violating human rights in asymmetric conflict. Peace and Conflict Studies, 23(2), 1–29.

19.

David

Rosler

Maoz

(2018). Gender-empathic constructions, empathy, and support for compromise in intractable conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(8), 1727–1752. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002717701818

20.

Della Porta

Mosca

. (2005). Global-net for global movements? A network of networks for a movement of movements. Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 165–190. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X05000255

21.

de Vries

Kligler-Vilenchik

Alyan

Ma’oz

Maoz

. (2017). Digital contestation in protracted conflict: The online struggle over Al-Aqsa Mosque. The Communication Review, 20(3), 189–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2017.1362814

22.

de Vries

Simry

Maoz

. (2015). Like a bridge over troubled water: Using Facebook to mobilize solidarity among East Jerusalem Palestinians during the 2014 war in Gaza. International Journal of Communication, 9(28), 2622–2649.

23.

Dickson

(2011). Sustaining party rule in China: Coercing, co-optation and their consequences. In Brown

(Ed.), The dynamics of democratization: Dictatorship, development, and diffusion (pp. 93–117). Johns Hopkins University Press.

24.

Ellis

D. G.

Maoz

(2007). Online argument between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Human Communication Research, 33(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00300.x

25.

Eltanway

Wiest

J. B.

(2011). Social media in the Egyptian revolution: Reconsidering resource mobilization theory. International Journal of Communication, 5, 1207–1224.

26.

Ermida

(2017). “Get the snip—And a job!”: Disagreement, impoliteness and conflicting identities on the Internet. Token: A Journal of English Linguistics, 6, 205–247.

27.

Faludi

(1991). Backlash: The undeclared war against American women. Three Rivers Press.

28.

Gillespie

(2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.

29.

Harel

Jameson-Katz

Maoz

(2020). The normalization of hatred: Social media as a platform for affective polarization in intractable conflict. Social Media + Society, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120913983

30.

Hasler

B. S.

Amichai-Hamburger

(2013). Online intergroup contact. In Amichai-Hamburger

(Ed.), The social net: Understanding our online behavior (pp. 220–252). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199639540.003.0012

31.

Hunt

Posa

(2001, May/June). Women waging peace. Foreign Policy. https://www.inclusivesecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/170_fparticle_women_wagin_peace_inclusive_security.pdf

32.

John

N. A.

Dvir-Gvirsman

(2015). “I don’t like you any more”: Facebook unfriending by Israelis during the Israel-Gaza conflict of 2014. Journal of Communication, 65(6). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12188

33.

Kaufman

J. P.

Williams

K. P.

(2013). Women at war, women building peace: Challenging gender norms. Kumarian Press.

34.

Lavy

Mollov

(2006). Arab and Jewish women’s inter-religious dialogue evaluated. In Iram

(Ed.), Educating towards a culture of peace (pp. 247–258). Information Age.

35.

Light

Cassidy

(2014). Strategies for the suspension and prevention of connection: Rendering disconnection as socioeconomic lubricant with Facebook. New Media & Society, 16(7), 1169–1184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814544002

36.

Mackinon

(2011). Liberation technology: China’s “networked authoritarianism.” Journal of Democracy, 22(2), 32–46.

37.

Mackinon

(2013). Consent of the networked: The worldwide struggle for internet freedom. Basic Books.

38.

Maoz

(2009). The women and peace hypothesis? The effect of opponent-negotiators gender on evaluation of compromise solutions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. International Negotiation, 14, 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1163/138234009X12481782336267

39.

Maoz

(2011). Does contact work in protracted asymmetrical conflict? Appraising 20 years of reconciliation-aimed encounters between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Journal of Peace Research, 48(1), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343310389506

40.

Ma’oz

(2019). Muslims, Jews and Jerusalem: Ambivalence dialogue or Armageddon. Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House. (In Hebrew)

41.

Matuszewski

Szabo

(2019). Are echo chambers based on partisanship? Twitter and political polarity in Poland and Hungary. Social Media + Society, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119837671

42.

Mor

Ron

Maoz

(2016). “Likes” for peace: Can Facebook promote dialogue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Media and Communication, 4(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v3i4.298

43.

Morag

(2008). Chronic trauma, the sound of terror, and current Israeli cinema. Framework, 49, 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1353/frm.0.0003

44.

Morag

(2012). Perpetrator trauma and current Israeli documentary cinema. Camera Obscura, 27(80), 93–133. https://doi.org/10.1215/02705346-1597222

45.

Morag

(2018). Blood relations and non-consensual ethics: Israeli intifada documentaries. Post Script, 36(2–3), 75–85.

46.

Olekalns

(2014). Natural-born peacemakers? Gender and the resolution of conflict. In Coleman

P. T.

Deutsch

Marcus

E. C.

(Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (3rd ed., pp. 355–383). Jossey-Bass.

47.

Pacilli

M. G.

Roccato

Pagliaro

Russo

(2016). From political opponents to enemies? The role of perceived moral distance in the animalistic dehumanization of the political outgroup. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 19(3), 360–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215590490

48.

Papacharissi

(2002). The virtual sphere: The Internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614440222226244

49.

Papacharissi

(2009). The virtual sphere 2.0: The Internet, the public sphere and beyond. In Chadwick

Howard

(Eds.), Handbook of Internet politics (pp. 230–245). Routledge.

50.

Roberts

S. T.

(2019). Behind the screen: Content moderation in the shadows of social media. Yale University Press.

51.

Ron

Maoz

(2013). Dangerous stories: Encountering narratives of the other in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 19(3), 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033686

52.

Ron

Maoz

Bekerman

(2010). Dialogue and ideology: The effect of continuous involvement in Jewish-Arab dialogue encounters on the ideological perspectives of Israeli-Jews. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(6), 571–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.07.001

53.

Rudman

Phelan

J. E.

(2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.003

54.

Selvanathan

H. P.

Leidner

Petrović

Prelić

Ivanek

Krugel

Bjekić

(2019). Wedialog.Net: A quantitative field test of the effects of online intergroup dialogue in promoting justice- versus harmony-oriented outcomes in Bosnia and Serbia. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 25(4), 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000395

55.

Sjoberg

Gentry

C. E.

(2007.). Mothers, monsters, whores: Women’s violence in global politics. Zed Books. https://doi.org/10.1080/00497870902837596

56.

Stasiulis

Yoval-Davis

(1995). Introduction: Beyond dichotomies-gender, race, ethnicity and class in settler societies. In Stasiulis

Yuval-Davis

(Eds.), Unsettling settler societies (pp. 1–38). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446222225.n1

57.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE.

58.

Suleiman

(2011). Language and identity in the Israel-Palestine conflict: The politics of self-perception in the Middle East. I. B. Tauris Press.

59.

Tessler

Nachtway

Grant

(1999). Further tests of the women and peace hypothesis: Evidence from cross-national survey research in the Middle East. International Studies Quarterly, 43, 519–531.

60.

Tessler

Warriner

(1997). Gender, feminism, and attitudes towards international conflict: Exploring relationships with survey data from the Middle East. World Politics, 49(2), 250–281.

61.

Togeby

(1994). The gender gap in foreign policy attitudes. Journal of Peace Research, 31, 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343394031004002

62.

United Nations Security Council. (2000). United Nations Security Council resolution 1325. https://www.unwomen.org/en/docs/2000/10/un-security-council-resolution-1325

63.

Wilcox

Hewitt

Allsop

(1996). The gender gap in attitudes towards the Gulf War: A cross national perspective. Journal of Peace Research, 33(1), 67–82.

64.

Wollebæk

Karlsen

Steen-Johnsen

Enjolras

(2019). Anger, fear, and echo chambers: The emotional basis for online behavior. Social Media + Society, 5(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119829859

65.

Zúñiga

(2003). Bridging differences through dialogue. About Campus, 7(6), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/108648220300700603

66.

Zúñiga

Lopez

G. E.

Ford

K. A.

(Eds.). (2014). Intergroup dialogue: Engaging difference, social identities and social justice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2012.646903

Women for Peace: Promoting Dialogue and Peace through Facebook?

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Women and Peace

Social Media, Political Participation, and Mobilization

Promoting Peace through Dialogue

Method

Research Corpus

Method of Analysis

Results

Dialogue of Partnership and Peace

Women Mobilizing Women to Action Promoting Social Change and Peace

The Backlash

Discussion

Online and Social Media Dialogue in Conflict

Connection and Separation through Social Media

Women and Peace Activism

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

Author Biographies

References