Abstract
AbstractIn their professional and academic roles as well as their personal and political efforts, many psychologists seek to understand, and ultimately help resolve, the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. Too often, however, they overemphasize the centrality of competing narratives, partly in response to depoliticizing academic norms that demand the appearance of objectivity and neutrality. As a result, conflict‐resolution approaches such as dialog and mediation and common suggestions based on split‐the‐difference compromise favor a status quo in which the side with more power, Israel, remains dominant. In contrast, a critical psychology perspective consistent with justice‐based conflict transformation understands that even‐handed empathy‐seeking and negotiations prioritizing procedural minutiae can achieve neither justice nor reconciliation.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
