This project analyzes intergroup dialogue (IGD) between Jewish-Israeli and Palestinian participants living in Europe. It consists of a qualitative analysis of dialogue sessions organized by me and the School for Peace (SFP). The project examines how power asymmetries embedded within citizenship and statehood shapes dialogue between the two groups and participant’s sense of responsibility and (dis)engagement in social change in asymmetrical conflict.

Completed and ongoing studies

• Study 1 – Diaspora Dialogue Cohort (2023–2024):
  This study brought together 12 participants (7 Jewish-Israeli and 5 Palestinian) living in Europe for ten online sessions and a three-day in-person seminar in Germany. Sessions started on 8^th of Oct, 2023 and were co-facilitated by a Jewish-Israeli and I, following the School for Peace method, with Arabic and Hebrew used equally through simultaneous interpretation. The analysis of full transcripts and facilitator notes revealed three interrelated themes:
• Asymmetric identity choice: Israeli participants could distance themselves from Israeli identity with relatively low cost due to the protections of citizenship and statehood, whereas for Palestinians, national identity remained an existential anchor of recognition and survival under statelessness.
• Post-national talk as avoidance: Universalist or “borderless” framings brought up by Israeli participants often functioned as a means of avoiding the political realities of occupation and inequality. Palestinian participants repeatedly re-centered questions of accountability, obligation, and collective pain.
• Diaspora freedom and responsibility: Living outside the region afforded both groups emotional distance and political safety, yet also unequal obligations. Palestinians described activism as necessity; Israelis as moral choice. Across sessions, participants moved from initial paralysis and avoidance toward moral reckoning and emerging intentions for collective action.

This project highlights how IGD in the diaspora can mirror the conflict itself in terms of the power differential between the two groups. This is reflected in the disparity of freedom to identify or disidentify with the nation and of responsibility to take action to address the ongoing conflict. Nevertheless, dialogue across these asymmetries can foster moral reflection and the first steps towards shared action.