Bridging Narratives: Predictors of Jewish American and Arab American Support for a Two‐State Solution to the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict

Abstract

AbstractIn a survey study of Arab and Jewish Americans, we examined which beliefs best predicted support for a two‐state solution. We compared the role of a sense of collective victimhood, dehumanization of the outgroup, a zero‐sum view, and a monolithic narrative on the conflict. In both the Arab American and the Jewish American samples, framing the conflict in terms of a monolithic narrative played the strongest role in predicting rejection of a two‐state solution. On the other hand, when Jewish Americans agreed with the Palestinian narrative, that depicts the Palestinians as indigenous to the land but as dispossessed, they were more likely to support a two‐state solution. Similarly, when Arab Americans agreed with the Israeli narrative, in which Israelis want to live in peace but need to defend themselves, they were more likely to support a two‐state solution. In a second study, we examined if group values and concerns such as commitment to tikkun olam (commitment for justice for other minority groups) and concern with anti‐Semitism mediated between identification as Jewish and acceptance of the Palestinian narrative on the conflict. We found that concern with anti‐Semitism mediated between Jewish identity and rejection of the Palestinian narrative. On the other hand, grounding Jewish identity in values of tikkun olam mediated between Jewish identity and agreement with the Palestinian narrative. This research makes applied contributions by illuminating the key belief associated with support for peace among Arab and Jewish Americans. It also contributes to psychological theory on intergroup reconciliation by operationalizing and measuring the role of acknowledgement of the narrative of the other, group threat, and inclusive victimhood consciousness, in promoting peace.