Shimon Malka * This article is based on an MA Thesis, submitted to Gotborg University, Sweden As part of the requirements in the joint Israeli-Palestinian MA program on: Peace and Development. I thank my instructor Dr. Sarah Ozacky-Lazar for her support and comments.

INTRODUCTION The Israeli – Palestinian conflict that has been going on for more than a hundred years affects the daily life of the people who live in the region and shapes their views and attitudes. A discussion of the conflict’s history’s effects over the people, the human beings that experience it daily, the civilians and the “innocent bystanders”, forms another possibility: what happens to them as a result of the life experience within the ongoing violence and within a conflict whose resolution remains unforeseeable in the nearby future? The following paper will focus upon the Israeli youth and the manner in which the conflict affects them, their stances, their way of life, their future aspirations and the way they perceive the opposite side. I will mainly focus upon an examination of the effects of the political violence on the stances of Israeli – Jewish youths in regard to peace. My decision to focus upon the Israeli youth is due to my close acquaintance with youths and to an assumption that among the Palestinian youth other, different processes occur and that the effects of the conflict and violence over the latter necessitates a more intimate acquaintance with their social background, as well as with their everyday lives. Israeli teenagers live under the conflict’s negative aspects since their birth and are educated towards the military service, which is mandatory for all men and women that arrive at the age of 18. It is possible to claim that, to a large extent, the conflict and violent reality shape the identities of Israelis in general and those of youths in particular. The youths are educated according to the perceptions and values of a society facing a conflict, perceptions and values that enhance feelings of fear/ hate/ loathing and alienation towards the other side. Each everyday event directly affects the youth, and this especially holds true regarding the last two years 2000 – 2002, which have been characterized by an increasing violence towards civilians, by the severe physical injury of many teenagers in the course of terrorist acts within Israeli towns and settlements, as well as by an increasing amount of uncertainty. Following a brief introduction that would review the focal–points of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict, I shall elaborate upon the unique outstanding characteristics of the Israeli youth and of the society in which they live; Afterwards, I will review research works performed across the globe and in the middle east examining teenagers and violence, youths residing in conflict areas and youth stances towards the “other”. The central part of this paper will consist of the report and analysis of in – depth interviews performed by myself with Jewish teenagers in Israel during the course of the past two years. Those have been open interviews, performed face to face, often in the course of several meetings, with youths of various sectors within the population. Within the summary chapter, I shall discuss the significance of the elements rising from the youth interviews, while making a comparison to previous studies. I shall attempt to understand whether educational methods exist for enabling the teenagers to better cope with a state of conflict, and how may youths be educated towards a culture of peace and an aspiration for peace, while in the midst of a violent reality. In addition, I shall discuss the questions whether it is possible for youths to be directed towards finding creative and compromising solutions for the conflict, and whether it is possible to nurture a future generation of leaders in the middle – east that would know how to overcome the residues of the past and how to march their people towards a better future. ------------------ The two societies have consolidated in the course of the Israeli occupation, around the ongoing conflict, which has affected every area and issue of their communal and private lives. The conflict has determined and still determines the way of life, the economic state of affairs, the political structure, the education, the culture, the development and more. Two – three generations of children and adolescents are already growing and are being educated under the negative aspects of the conflict into a reality of violence, despair and hopelessness. Of course there have been ups and downs in the course of the thirty - five years that passed since June 1967, their apex taking place in September 1993, when the first official agreements were signed between the two sides – the government of Israel, headed by Yitzhak Rabin and the P.L.O., headed by Yasser Arafat. The Oslo Agreement marked the start of a new era, filled with optimism and a sense that the conflict is about to end. But a series of tragic events, including the murder of Yitzhak Rabin, mass terrorist acts by the radical Islamic movements within Israel and repressive acts by the Israeli army as a result, have taken their toll and plunged the region back into a political and military chaos. The two years referred to as the “al – Aqsa Intifada”, which began with the October 2000 events have exacerbated the conflict and the sense of “no way out”, form the background for this research work that deals with the effects of the violent conflict upon the youths of Israel.

POLITICAL AND SOCIAL FRAMEWORK: VALUES, AND ORIENTATIONS OF THE ISRAELI SOCIETY -------------------------- In an historical perspective, the last decade of the 20th century can be described as a transitional period, during which Israel is trying to put an end to a long and bloody conflict. And yet, many obstacles have disturbed and still distress this period, and the final goal sometimes looks farther then ever. The first Intifada-the Palestinian popular uprising, can be marked as the beginning of a process, which led to the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians . A few years afterwards, in 1991, the Madrid conference took place, and there, for the first time, Israel’s leaders sat together with some Arab leaders around the same table, sharing a vision of a new Middle East. Specifically, the fruits of Madrid cannot be estimated separately from the whole period. Yet, this unique forum led to an international intervention and pressure upon the partners. The mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestinian national movement has been achieved for the first time in 1993, by signing the “Oslo accords”. But as we know today, ten years later, that was only the beginning of a long process, which contained many high points, but no fewer catastrophic situations. The expectations of the two peoples from the new relations, the positive atmosphere of “new winds”, did not fulfill themselves. Instead of building a relation based on trust and respect, the two peoples maintained the violence on a high level. The two peoples actually experienced more points of regression than of progress with the process . The murder of Prime Minister Rabin in 1995, by a Jew, was in many ways, a reflection of the wide gaps between different parts of the Israeli society, concerning the manner in which to end the conflict. When Netanyahu came to power in 1996, with a right wing and religious coalition, the Palestinians started to lose faith in the process. The next years did not bring any fruitful achievement to either side, a fact that effected the level of hope. In addition, when there is no hope, it seems like violence is taking over. The level of violence was setting new records. The same happened with the level of mistrust. The second Intifada that started on October 2000, can be seen as the “dead end” of a long and crucial negotiation, which was accompanied by new levels of violence from both sides. EDUCATION Values and Attitudes of the Israeli Education. What are the values according to which generations of Israeli youths were educated? What were the society’s needs that dictated the attitudes and goals of the education throughout the state’s years of existence, from its founding in 1948 to our present day? Are schools really the dominant educative and shaping instrument? What is the role of other educational agents such as the family? The Youth movements? The media? The “street”? I shall attempt to answer these questions and more within this chapter. Education is one of the most powerful political-national channels. With this tool, the state influences and shapes the next generation and the entire society. The definitions of any society’s future and direction are reflected by its educational goals and attitudes. Societies are investing a lot in their future generations, through the educational systems and according to a combination of the current values and needs. Values and needs are being shaped and changed, according to the reality. Sometimes replacements of governments are reshaping the values of education and even its goals. One of the important indexes of Israeli citizenship, which accompanies the Israeli citizen since early childhood until the end of adolescence, is the extent of his contribution to the army. His enlistment into combat units and willingness to sacrifice unconditionally for the common goals and state values, to the extent of sacrificing his own life, alongside a sharing of fate and a unifying and consolidating masculine bonding are among the marks of the “Israelism” shaping processes. The state also grants financial rewards and benefits to soldiers who have served in the I.D.F. Israeli society and all of its systems are structured in a manner that directs and educates the young towards the moment of their joining the army, as well as towards high levels of contribution and willingness to sacrifice. The first among the systems that take part in this direction is the Educational System. How Do These Things Become Manifest? One clearly visible manner is though the text - books. The Ministry of Education, as a national branch, is the body responsible for determining and authorizing the topics studied at the schools, as well as for designing curriculums and publishing books for the various subjects. In this manner the text - books form “An official manifestation of the society’s ideology and ethos, and impart the values, goals and myths the society attempts to introduce to the new generations. These values appear and are integrated into many area of study, starting from history and geography, and ending with grammar and mathematics! Since the Compulsory Education Law applies to every Israeli child until (and including) the 10th grade, the system spans the entire younger generation”. A study that examined the history text - books written during the country’s first twenty years of existence shows that, without exception, the Jews are displayed as permanent sufferers, as a people who have withstood consistent suffering, were unrelentingly persecuted and offended, with the holocaust that took place in Europe during the period of the Second World War forming the culmination of two thousand years of suffering. These books usually portray the Arab as primitive, blood – thirsty and hostile towards the Jew. By contrast the Jew is persistently determined to survive, overcome and evolve. The Jew’s moral superiority was presented as rare and unique by comparison to the other peoples (gentiles) of the world . A similar picture emerges from the analysis of geography text – books. Bar – Gal (1993) claims that a hundred years of geography teaching were intended to mainly assist in achieving the socio – national goals of loving the homeland, protecting it and intensely desiring to preserve it. Most of the text – books writers ignored their role of providing an objective studying material. For example – they drew the state borderlines according to the biblical borderlines including the trans – Jordan . These books, which were deployed by the Hebrew Educational System even prior to the founding of the state of Israel, have negated the right of the Arabs to the land and described them as those who have neglected and abused it. By contrast, the Jews were the ones who have rehabilitated, constructed and saved the earth, tamed the desert and dried the swamps. Alongside the exalted virtues of the hardworking, intelligent, well off and initiative Jews, the Arabs were described as “Inferior, fatalistic, apathetic, counter productive… divided, tribal, people of the lagging east, poor, sick, dirty, noisy, colorful. They procreate rapidly, are ungrateful, not of our own… they burn, they murder. They demolish. Are easily incited and vindictive” . It is very important to remember the context in which these contents were created. Those years before the founding of the state of Israel revolved around a supreme effort to justify the existence and rightful path of the Zionist Enterprise. The Jewish people was described as a people returning to its homeland after years of exile and suffering, and its right to this land was presented as unequivocal. Rewriting history and adjusting it to match the Zionist narrative have served a very important purpose, one of creating a common denominator for immigrants arriving from all across the globe, while constructing layers that together, will enable the conditions for the existence of a people in its homeland. All of the above, as we all know, during a period of conflict and existential struggle. The text – books published during the period following the founding of the state show a decline in the extremity of these descriptions, but the Jews are still portrayed as those who have rescued the Arabs, delivered progress to them and exposed them to the modern age in all the areas of life . These few text – book examples are intended to enhance my claim, that Israeli youth absorbs throughout their years of education within the state’s national system, an ideology and national contents as an integral part of the educational process. In addition, the national education system diminishes, not to mention refrains from expressing critical perspectives, that offer information and explanations that vary from the official narrative. As mentioned, education is a very central motive in the shaping of the Israeli youth. But there are additional factors. The media also forms an undeniable source of influence over the shaping of the stance and outlook of the youth in a society that lives under a constant and bloody conflict. Especially today, when the accessibility to the various media channels is so easy and available, adolescents absorb information sources which are mostly unmonitored by the adults and that at times of crisis and struggle, significantly direct and influence the manner in which the young cope with the life in the state. Most of the sources, newspapers, television and radio, usually tend, during times of crisis, to present a harsh and difficult portrait of reality. These sources, as a result of sales and ratings considerations, usually use every method available to achieve their goals, and thus present the viewer/ reader/ listener with hard and almost uncensored information. During times of crisis, the media sometimes tends to present the picture in a biased and unbalanced manner. The reasons for this vary and are not relevant but the significance is that the young viewer receives a picture that is hard and painful to watch, is threatening by its messages and which generally does not enable him to assemble a truer, more complete picture of reality. When the material shown on television is difficult and describes a certain disaster, the immediate common consequences towards the young viewer may contain intense anger, fear and a general hate towards the population to which the assailant belongs to. The limited or biased information presented by the media strengthens and justifies in the eyes of the viewer his harsh emotions. Interviews with Israeli youths show that the credibility levels received by the Israeli media channels by adolescents are very high and that the true nature of the presented information is hardly ever doubted. Therefore, at times of crisis and security threat, the media bears a strong influence over the shaping of the youth opinions and stances. The youth movements form an additional, less central instrument in the shaping Israeli youth’s national nature. Some of them have been founded prior to the founding of the state and also share the educational effort towards national and patriotic values, contribution to society, giving, sacrificing and consistency in the struggle against the enemies, as well as the value of leadership. Although the topics the youth movements deal with have undergone many changes and adjustments to the development of society, youth and the changing times, they have been preserved to a large extent. One of the most common methods deployed by the youth movements for enhancing the bond with and the love towards the land were and still are – trips across the country, journeys on foot and a study of the history, archaeology and nature of the land. According to Bar Tal (1996) “A society that operates an uncontrollable conflict, must develop beliefs that will assist it in successfully coping with the situation. These social beliefs strengthen the society in its efforts to cope with the conflict, but at the same time they represent a psychological investment in the conflict and perpetuate it” . Civil involvement comes to be manifested in many democratic states by way of legal protest against government decisions and policies or alternately by quiet acceptance and agreement. In Israel, which copes with a tense state of security and frequent crises, civilian involvement is manifested by supporting, unity and the creation of a general consensus, under the banner of “A mutual effort to protect the state from within”. Nevertheless, the state of security also creates and intensifies clefts and splits within the society, mostly with a political and ideological background, but this occurs more frequently among adults and less among the younger generation. At times of crisis the younger generation seldom hesitates or doubts the state’s righteous path and usually adopts aggressive and uncompromising stances. If the title “citizen” is intended in democratic societies to express a socio – cultural or political aspect, in Israel almost every Jewish citizen was or will be a combat soldier, a thing that makes him, consciously or unconsciously, an integral component of the state and government, even in cases where he disagrees with them politically. The system in fact faces a task, whose essence is to prepare the future citizens in a manner that they would adequately cope with the conflict/ struggle/ threat, as an integral and almost normal part of their maturation process. Even though the progressing years have seen changes and more critical and balanced adjustments, under the supervision of the changing ministers of education from various parties and ideologies, in essence, the disposition underwent no significant change. All of the above, alongside a dynamic, bloody and ongoing conflict – have created a state of affairs in which the youth mature while adopting beliefs and perspectives that perpetuate their rightful path and beliefs, enhance their willingness to enlist into the struggle and that negate the enemy. Therefore, we should remember that the data this work will present address the Israeli youth, whom during their maturation process, in the course of the important stages of shaping their personality and outlook, have internalized the above described values mostly through the educational system, but also via other socialization agents.

YOUTH, POLITICAL VIOLENCE, AND READINESS FOR PEACE This chapter will examine how conflicts around the world have influenced young people. We will ask several questions: Worldwide, what is the situation regarding young people’s lives and readiness for peace? What are the perceptions, feelings, inner struggles, stereotypes, and anxieties young people must cope with in regions of conflict, and what are the causes of these? How has life in the shadow of conflict and terror affected their development? What are the consequences and effects of life in the shadow of a violent conflict? Which among these consequences are reversible and remediable, and what becomes second nature that is difficult to change? The chapter presents three levels of inquiry: 1.Youth and political violence: the international case. I will briefly survey studies that examined the effects of political violence on youth. To arrive at a broader picture of the relationship between violence and terrorism and young people’s coping and readiness for peace, I will not focus solely on Israel. Youth and political violence: the Israeli case. I will analyze young people’s struggles, feelings, fears, and faith in periods of conflict. 3. Israeli youth, spring-summer 2001. I present personal interviews with young people from throughout the country, who do not form representative sample but follow my personal acquaintance with Israeli Jewish society, and my view of Israel’s social-religious-cultural mosaic. The young people described their experience of life in Israel, their feelings, fears, aspirations, and frustrations, and, out of all these, their attitude toward peace: What is peace? How will it look when it arrives? How will it affect the young people’s lives? The varied answers to these and other questions create an especially authentic and interesting picture. *** Youth and Political Violence: International Cases In many places in the world, millions of young people have suffered and still do, directly or indirectly, from political terror as well as violent incidents and periods. South Africa, Ireland, Yugoslavia, the Philippines, the United States, Britain, Kuwait, Lebanon, and Israel are only some of the countries where the condition of the youthful population has been studied. Research literature on the linkage between young people’s growing up in the shadow of terrorism and progress toward peace was already published after the First World War. This literature examines the effects of war on youth, how young people perceive the term peace, and the likely course of their lives and development when peace arrives. The studies fall into a number of types and approaches. Some examined the effects on young people’s daily life and coping from a local standpoint, and practically in real time; others, conducted over a number of years, considered the long-term repercussions of life under the shadow of terror, violence, and political threat. Although the different levels of harm that the research subjects suffered stem, of course, from many variables such as type of population and the magnitude of the events in question, it emerges that one of the key parameters is being cared for. It was founded that if the information the child or youth received about the situation was steady and reliable, this positively influenced him and helped him cope with the harm. It was also found that the most reliable source of information was parents. A study done in the United States by Figley [ii] in 1993 found that among children of soldiers who had served in the Gulf War, television was the information source with the most negative influence. Children who received information about what was happening in the Gulf from television alone developed posttraumatic stress symptoms of a twofold order compared to children whose information source was their mothers and other family members. It was found that if parents are the main information source and join the youth in coping with situation, there is less likelihood that difficult traumas will emerge. This is even more the case when it is the mother who provides information, since the trust and sense of security between child and mother is natural and goes all the way back to the date of birth (and even earlier). Two groups were observed in the study: one consisted of youth whose main information source about the Gulf was television, specifically the American networks, which covered the events extensively; the other comprised youth who watched little television but whose parents and family constituted a steady source of information, and conversed with them about their fears and worries. The findings show that in the first group most of the young people developed posttraumatic stress symptoms and other negative effects, whereas in the second group traumatic states and similar negative symptoms were found in only 11% of the cases. The findings were further bolstered by a study that Pynoos and Nadder [iii] conducted in 1993 in Kuwait. They found that youth exposed to harsh television images of mass death and destruction developed posttraumatic stress symptoms six times more than did youth who avoided watching television and were informed about what was happening by their parents, who did so, of course, carefully and used terms appropriate to the children’s age. Another negative phenomenon that was found to have a direct link to life in the shadow of threat and terror is a high level of violence among youth. The assumption is that young people sensed the atmosphere of war and violence and felt that this legitimized behaving as the adults were behaving, and saw them as a model for emulation. At the same time, some have found only an indirect connection between growing up in the shadow of terror and threat and youthful violence, leading to the conclusion that the reason for these young people’s violence is the lack of family (father) or legal (police) authority. [iv] In a study conducted among youth at the end of the Second World War, a direct connection was found between life in the shadow of political terror and hyperactivity and violence among youth. Youth who were exposed to political terror were generally found to be more active, much more energetic, and more violent compared both to other periods in their lives and to youth who had not been exposed to political terror during the war. [v] Studies that, in the years after the Second World War, compared the behavior of young people in periods of terror and war with their behavior in periods of quietude, and also with the behavior of youth who were not in a war zone, came up with the following findings: youth in war zones became much more active and aggressive. Their high energy took on a violent nature, reflecting the violence of the period and of adults’ behavior. As noted, the adults constitute a model for emulation, and their violence apparently legitimizes such behavior. [vi] A further study focused on two different cities in Ireland, one located in a battle zone and the other in a quieter setting. Young people from the two cities were asked about the sense of threat and tension that they felt. Youth from the battle-zone city gave less emphasis to their fears and anxieties than the youth from the city more distant from the battlefield: 56% of the young people in the “violent” city said their city did not border on a particularly violent area, whereas 33% of the youth in the “quiet” city said their city had experienced severe violence. The researcher views the responses as a symptom of the denial and repression adopted by the youth who experienced terror. [vii] In another study, Swarzwald [viii] compared a group of young people from the Tel Aviv/Ramat Gan area, whose neighborhoods and areas were attacked or exposed to missiles during the Gulf War (1991), and children from an area in Israel that was not hit by missiles. It was found that the youth who were not attacked said that people and property had been harmed in their area, even though actually not even a single person was hurt nor a single home destroyed. Here, too, the researcher ascribes the phenomenon to a type of denial or development of private reality that is induced by intense fears. The issue of the linkage of terror and violence with national and social attitudes was examined after the Yom Kippur War (1973) among two groups of Israeli youth. Youth who had been exposed to violence to a very low extent were in fact found to hold more stances that are patriotic and a high level of ideological commitment, whereas among youth who had experienced terror and violence the change was only minor. [ix] Apparently, one of the causes of this phenomenon is the tendency and desire of young people who are not in the “line of fire” to associate themselves with the special, drastic events. [x] Regarding the Second World War [xi] and the Gulf War as well, there have been many findings indicating that part of young people’s coping mechanism is denial and repression. Young people seemingly made light of the violent incidents or joked about the subject with their peers, but refused to disclose their feelings to the adults around them. [xii] Maizer [xiii] studied effects on babies born two years apart in Israel: one group born in 1967 at the time of the Six Day War, the other born two years later. The babies of both groups were observed from birth up to age 6. Their teachers and their parents scrutinized the children, and their development was documented in medical files. Among the “war children,” a number of deviant phenomena were found compared to the children of the other group: lateness in speaking—these children began to speak about ten months (on average) later than regular children; lateness in walking—here too there was a lag of several months compared to others; a lack of social acceptability and difficulty socializing with their peers; and a lack of consideration of the needs of their immediate environment . These children were also found to be less calm and to have a meager appetite. In the author’s opinion, the causes of these symptoms are many and varied: unconscious anxiety, poor grasp of the situation, lack of support and attention from the father leading to lower self-confidence, and great tension among the mothers that projected directly onto their children’s behavior. Another study that examined 1,034 children in the 3-9 age group in Lebanon was conducted by Climenty and Khalifeh, [xiv] (1992) and focused on two groups of children and mothers in three different cities in that country: children who had experienced a traumatic event such as the death of a relative or real danger, and children who lived in quiet areas and had not experienced terror and existential threat. The differences between the groups were dramatic: 83% of the children who had experienced trauma showed symptoms of insecurity, fear of strangers, and anxiety compared to only 21% of the other children. Another study in the Gaza Strip in 1988 [xv] examined 105 children in the 8-14 age bracket, and compared them to 30 Israeli Arab children. Significant disparities were found between these two groups: the Gaza children showed symptoms of anxiety and fear of a sixfold magnitude compared to the Israeli Arab children. A further significant link was found between the mothers’ coping and the condition of their children: if the mothers experienced traumas and their coping was less effective, the children’s condition was worse. Ziv and Israel, [xvi] on the other hand, found in a 1974 study a relatively low level of anxiety among kibbutz and city children who had undergone the Yom Kippur War. Notwithstanding other research results we have noted, only few of them suffered from anxieties. The researchers ascribed this to the strong social environment on the kibbutz, which constitutes a sort of extended family; the children’s great confidence and belief in the capacities of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF); and their long experience of life in the shadow of ongoing conflict and threat. [xvii] A study by Rutman and Brower [xviii] (1951) took an interesting, completely different empirical approach. A group of young people was asked to write a story on any subject. Each youth wrote two different stories at two points in time: one during the Second World War and one five years later. Examination of the contents and endings of the stories showed a trend of greater optimism in the period after the war: whereas during the war 35% gave their story an optimistic ending, after the war over 50% did so. Other positive indications have been found in Israel, South Africa, Uganda, Ireland, and Sudan. When youth in these countries were asked about how they viewed their future, most of them responded that in their opinion peace is the right way and not as it is with the adults in their countries, who had chosen violent means of resolving conflicts. We have considered a number of factors, direct and indirect, that influence the development of youth and particularly their capacity to be ready for peace. It appears that hope is a widespread, innate human feeling. Even if it is damaged, the harm may not be irreversible. In most of the cases youth from all over the world were able to express optimism and assert that peace is their goal, and did not espouse adults’ generally violent methods of resolving conflicts.

THE QUESTION OF ISRAELI JEWISH YOUTH’S TRUST OF ARABS During the past decade(1993-2003) dramatic and important events occurred, including: the Madrid Conference, the Oslo agreement, the Cairo agreement, the peace treaty with Jordan, the terrorist attacks in 1995-1996, the Hebron agreement, the events at the Western Wall tunnel, the Wye agreement, and the Camp David summit. In these years the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians was characterized by considerable fluctuations and the Israeli side’s trust of the Palestinians underwent severe shocks, which sometimes appeared to mark the end of dialogue and a transition to armed conflict. Yet, nevertheless, the sides continued to talk after each crisis. The intifada that erupted in October 2000 crossed, in the view of many, a number of very significant lines for both sides. Since then, the problem of “trust” and “belief” in the other side has intensified all the more. Youth tend to be relatively easily swayed by populist proclamations and slogans, which are common precisely in difficult periods such as the October 2000 intifada (the slogan-“Let the IDF win” for example). Such influences help youth reinforce their political views, which also are shaped and nourished by national psychic intensities that come to the fore in times of crisis. Israeli youth display a wide variety of opinions, from great optimism and belief in “the neighbor” to a lack of hope and mistrust of “the enemy.” To some extent this spectrum of views reflects Israeli society with its various segments. Many surveys and studies exploring the factors that affect the readiness and desire for peace with the Arabs point to a major parameter in worldview and its application: the degree of youth’s trust in the Arab neighbors. Hope, it appears, is a feeling common to all human beings from the time of birth, and lends meaning to their existence. Hope also motivates people to strive to improve their lives on the personal level—health, family, social life, economic condition. Above all, however, hope fosters the ability to believe in and act to realize possibilities that do not exist today; to strive to change life for the better. Thus, the individual bolsters his expectations for a new experience that he has not yet known, and also finds the strength to go on when he encounters a difficult situation or period. Mature (and psychologically healthy) people will generally not develop hope that is unrealistic. In the present case, youth’s readiness and expectation of peace stems from their belief in the ability to achieve it. Here, trust in the partner for peace, in the enemy who is supposed to turn into a neighbor, is central to young people’s ability to espouse hope and believe that peace will come. The young people’s opinions are presented below as they were gauged over several periods proximate to different historical events that directly or indirectly influenced, and continue to influence, these opinions. I present data that were gathered from two surveys, one conducted in 1976 (*Leni and *Guttman), the other in 1988 (*Maizels and Gal) after the outbreak of the first intifada. [xix] Both surveys focused on twelfth-grade Jewish youth from the different educational streams in cities, kibbutzim, moshavim, and development towns. The surveys asked: “What is your attitude toward the Arabs?” 1976 survey 1988 survey Hate all/most Arabs Don’t hate Arabs at all 32% 39% 17% 9% . . . Every day on my way home I ride a bus that passes the market. Every time I get frightened again that something will happen, since there were already cases where I was supposed to pass by there but by luck I didn’t and there was an attack—and that’s scary. Basically I don’t feel safe anywhere . . . Nirit, 16, from Petah Tikva A check of background variables among the subjects yielded the following findings: 1. Great emphasis on materialistic values is more associated with those who express hatred toward Arabs. 2. Respondents describing themselves as religious tended to belong to groups expressing greater hatred toward Arabs. 3. Hatred of Arabs was more common among those from Mizrahi communities (Jews from middle-eastern countries). 4. The higher the number of children in the family, the greater the hatred toward Arabs. 5. The lower the educational level of the father, the greater the hatred toward Arabs. 6. Youth from development towns showed the greatest hatred toward Arabs. 7. Members of kibbutzim showed the lowest hatred of Arabs. The authors of these surveys raised two hypotheses that together, in their view, explain the phenomena: (1) Youth of Mizrahi extraction belonging to the economic lower class feel that they are competing with the Arabs over their status in the society and the economy, both groups falling into the category of cheap manpower. (2) Religious people and members of the Mizrahi communities hate Arabs out of a right-wing political ideology on which they were nurtured and educated, an ideology that is influenced by religious myths such as that of the “chosen people” and the “Sacred Land”. As noted, these data also reflect two different time points in Israeli society: the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War, a war that greatly influenced the perception of the Arabs and the attitude toward peace; and a few months after the outbreak of the intifada. An interesting case that teaches much about changes in the level of trust toward Arabs and in attitudes toward peace among youth is the visit of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem in 1977. Youth who participated in a survey were requested to imagine their feelings and their attitude in a hypothetical situation; they were asked what, in their opinion, would happen a year after the peace treaty with Egypt. Below are the highlights of the statements and feelings that were amassed from the responses of about sixty young people from all over the country, male and female in the 17-18 age group, before and after Sadat’s visit. Before Sadat’s visit After Sadat’s visit Girl—I don’t believe in the illusion of peace, and the real reason for war is not the territories but the Arabs’ abysmal hatred of us. I think peace is the future of life. Now my family will be able to live without fear, and I believe that the Arabs are making peace with good intentions. If we want peace, we have to give territories or something. I believe everyone thinks this way and no one needs to regret it, because what’s important is peace. Boy—We should never trust them, not even giving back Tel Aviv will satisfy them, and certainly not Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Golan, the Sinai, and so on. Maybe now we’ll be able to understand that the Arabs, too, are people like us, and even the Palestinians have a right to a state and don’t want to live under our rule. Maybe all the songs about trips to Damascus and Cairo will become real. Soon the black veil that hung over our eyes will be removed, and we’ll start to live in a good time. Boy—I want peace that means I won’t have to worry about the Arabs, in which they’ll go away from my life. But I’ve arrived at the conclusion that the only good Arab is a dead Arab, and so it’s better that they leave us alone, and I them. There is no reason to give back territories for peace. This land is soaked with Jewish blood, and it’s impossible to give back territory that was conquered with blood and human life. So, if they want peace—be my guest. The territories will remain ours. Girl—In my opinion peace with the Arabs is an official term only. What we’ll actually get is a situation of cold peace, if at all, but the hatred will remain. Therefore, I hope no peace treaty will be signed. We’ll at last be able to live in tranquility alongside the Arabs and not over them. They’ll be equal to us. Young people won’t get killed, the expenses on security will decrease and will be invested elsewhere. Boy—In my opinion there will never be peace. As Sadat and others like him say—“Even if Muhammad commands us, we won’t make peace.” The most we’ll be able to get from them is a ceasefire, but not peace. Even if there’s peace it will be violated soon after, and with nuclear weapons. If peace is achieved, we’ll come to know a different human race that lives in peace and not by the sword. I have no words to describe what happens in my heart, just from thinking about real peace. There’s no way of knowing if everything will really be enacted and upheld in practice. But even hope is worth a lot. Girl—In my opinion real peace won’t be achieved in the near future, and I’m not even able, as I was asked, to imagine a situation of peace. It’s clear to me that peace would prevent much bloodshed and death, but what is real peace? Is it realistic in our region? And what will we give up—territories that were won in blood and fire? Would it be right to erase the memory of those who sacrificed themselves for the homeland? Of course, we should think more about the living and less about the dead, but it’s impossible to ignore their memory. Boy—Peace will be bogus because the hatred is deeply rooted. Only a new generation that grows up without the hatred could change the reality. When I imagine peace, I see mutual visits, tourism, commercial and diplomatic ties. Because we’re not naïve, I believe the peace in question is the lesser evil, and of course it’s preferable to living in constant war. Girl—Peace will lead to more people being killed, because of the trust that they’ll be given, and of course they’ll violate it. I think there’s no need to repeat how many people here and in the Arab countries want and need peace. To make peace with the people we usually shoot at, while they shoot at us, is difficult and complicated, but it can be achieved. If the two peoples choose this path, it’s possible. Girl—Peace will bring quiet, time, and resources to solve the problems of our society. It’s a positive and great thing, and is also achievable. I personally will be happy to bring children into the world when I’m sure they won’t fight and die in battle but instead will live lives of security and peace. I will be proud to be part of a society that doesn’t live by the sword. Girl—Signs of optimism, less fear in the streets. More investment in good living, education. All the energy and the tension that are directed to security today will be directed to development and progress, and will move the country forward, changing life completely. Girl—Sad to say, but the wars up to today have created unity and comradeship among the people. I have no belief in an ideal and perfect peace, and so I’m not in favor. Boy—What we’ll get here is a catastrophe. The Jews will become the slaves of the Arabs. Israel will disappear, and we’ll go back to the Exile. Many Israelis will change their negative attitude toward the Arabs and will relate to them with more respect, as our equals. Girl—We’ll get peace and tranquility, but I’ll still be full of fear because of the low trust in the Arabs. Can human nature change? So I have hope, but great doubts. These examples of the views of youth before and after Sadat’s visit indicate some important things about the perception of the term peace and the belief in it. Before Sadat’s visit the young people express total mistrust of the Arabs; they reveal overt and covert fears and anxieties as well as an attitude of domination of the enemy, speak of land that was redeemed with blood as a sacred value, and show very little optimism and belief in a better future. Before the visit close to 90% of the youth related negatively and with complete mistrust to any peace treaty with the Arabs. An overwhelming majority of them feared that real peace would not be achieved, and that behind the demand for territories lurked dishonest intentions. The “phases plan” and other interesting notions show plainly that the youth had been well educated in the Zionist ideology, the idea of “the survivor,” and the victim without connection to their place of residence or socioeconomic background. After Sadat’s visit, which included a very moving speech to the Knesset with brave words that he addressed to the Israeli people, a substantial change is evident among the young people. In their statements after the visit as well, the issue of trust is salient. Only 20% of the youth continued to maintain that there was no chance of real peace, and peace would only be a further stage in the Arabs’ taking control. . . . I often realize that more than they fight Israel for political reasons, the Arabs’ attitude toward Israel is like toward a pest that has to be exterminated. This attitude starts in their education systems, which shows that apparently they’re not ready for peace with Israel from the social and cultural standpoint . . . Vered, 18, Givat Ze’ev In addition, among most of the youth there is an evident change in attitude in several areas: The value of human life—emphasis on the fact that now people will not die in battle, and the generation to be born will live without war. Equality between Jews and Arabs—many emphasized that now the Jews would be able to relate to the Arabs as equal human beings, not as inferior. Progress, development, and technology—the young people referred time and again to the great resources that are invested in security, and said that now, in the era of peace, they would be directed to development, infrastructure, education, technology, and so on, moving Israel forward in the economic and human dimensions. Personal security—the respondents repeatedly stressed the possibility of life in security and the hope of raising a new generation without hatred and fear. Sadat’s visit was seen as perhaps a very dramatic turning point in Arab-Israeli relations, particularly because it constituted a precedent. In the eyes of the respondents, a visit that was so personal by such a major Arab figure seemed to legitimize all the Arabs and make them people who could be trusted. The young people’s statements also reflect their deep desire for peace, even if the notion is still intangible and accompanied by many fears and stereotypes. Another study conducted in 1995 [xx] examined some attributes of Israeli youth including their attitudes toward peace, their political identity, and their attitudes toward the Arabs. It is important to note that the study was conducted before the wave of terrorist bombings of 1995-1996. The research cohort was randomly selected and included 499 respondents, boys and girls in the 7th-10th grades. The following are some questions and answers that appeared in the study: 1. Do you agree with the formula “territories for peace”? Yes Doubtful Oppose 29% 18% 53% 2. Do you believe in peace? Yes Doubtful No 31% 43% 26% 3. In your view, could peace damage the willingness to serve in the IDF? Yes Doubtful No 20% 29% 52% 4. Will peace weaken Jewish identity? Yes Doubtful No 10% 16% 74% The processing of these data and of the personal details of the respondents reveal several interesting points in comparison with studies done in earlier periods: The younger the respondents (grades 7-8), the more extreme and nationalistic their views. Acceptance of the “territories for peace” formula has grown compared to data from 1976 and, certainly, from 1988. The sense of a threat to Jewish identity is much weaker here in than earlier studies. This can be attributed to the existence and implementation of the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and of the interim (Oslo and Cairo) agreements with the Palestinians. Since the signing of the treaties with Egypt and Jordan the young people’s dire scenarios have not materialized, and the peace, even if defined as “cold,” is stable. This influences the respondents: in 1995 about 26% of the youth do not believe in peace, compared to about 90% who expressed a complete mistrust of peace in earlier years. The June 1992 issue of the British journal The Psychologist published a letter signed by eighty Yugoslav psychologists with a poignant call to help the children of Yugoslavia. The letter concluded with a warning that if nothing was done, the children would grow up to be adults who were emotionally unstable, intellectually underdeveloped, intolerant, and limited in their social development. [xxi] It is commonly believed that ten, fifteen, or even twenty years must pass before one can assess the emotional damage caused to a child who lived and grew up in the shadow of terror and violence. [xxii] Even if in times of terror the young person does not express and reveal his difficult state of mind, it is likely that at some point when he experiences a similar situation of threat or fear, these latent feelings will rise to the surface and flood his consciousness.

IS PEACE AN OPTION? Other studies make a further and important connection between terror and the belief in peace as a viable way of life. Mahjoub, in a 1989 study, done in Lebanon, [xxiii] finds that beyond the effects of terror on the life of children in the present, subsequently they lose faith in the future and become extremely pessimistic. This emerged in a study, in which children were asked about their future. Three times consecutively, in a questionnaire that was sent once a month (1988-1989), the majority of respondents among the young people answered: “I don’t see any future for me here in Lebanon.” An article advertised in the “Ha’aretz” newspaper on October 2002, by Prof. Shimon Kornitzer, presents a worry from the manner in which adolescents mature in Israel and Palestine, under the frightening circumstances of terror and occupation. He claims that in order to bring forth the development of a physically and mentally healthy generation, youths are supposed to grow with a sure and positive sense in regard to their self - identity. They must learn and understand the diverse and efficient methods through which people communicate with each other. But this reality is hard to maintain in the midst of the current conflict, while the army operates against civilians and the acts of terrorism keep occurring, states Kornitzer. The research works presented by the writer show that when the experiences of a child confine the brain to survival efforts, his growth and development potentials become blocked. The result according to the research – a large number of children from both peoples, the Israeli as well as the Palestinian, are already lagging in their emotional development and level of intelligence. These children may mature with an emotional distortion that will effect their social and academic skills, as well as their moral maturation. They grow to become weaker, more dependent and less intelligent. A different article, from the same newspaper, advertised on November 2002, presents a dramatic increase in the number of cases applying to receive mental assistance among Israeli youth. These children mainly suffer from insomnia, fear of the dark, nightmares, sensitivity to noises, withdrawnness, seclusion, loss of concentration, decline in academic achievements and a sense of being pursued. In Israel they also tend to avoid riding the buss. The article presents a phenomenon extraordinary in its proportions, according to which the number of adolescents and children suffering from post - traumatic events in Jerusalem rose on July 2002 to a 40% of the children who reside within the city . In addition, approximately 65% of the city’s adolescents suffer harsh feelings of fear and helplessness . Prof. Arie Shalev, manager of the Psychiatric Ward in the Hadassah Hospital, Jerusalem, has shown the following findings in a recent study: the majority of adolescents who suffered a post – traumatic event as a result of an act of terrorism, will develop an extreme hypersensitivity towards pressure situations of any kind. The youth is in a constant readiness for trauma. He suffers from a general disquiet and does not actually cope with the conditions presented to him by reality. In the course of his research, two groups of adolescents were examined, the first was a group of youths who have undergone a post – traumatic event as a result of an act of terrorism, and the second, was a group of adolescents who have not. The youths were instructed to solve some mathematical exercises. Among the healthy group, a slight increase in heart rate was observed. While making use of the normal nervous mechanism for increasing the pulse rate. Among the other group, of those who have experienced a post – traumatic event, the pulse rate was increased through the use of the body’s warning and alarm mechanisms, in fact they have reacted to a supposedly minor event as though they were experiencing danger. In studies of Israeli youth, the central issues have been and still are: returning territories, establishing a Palestinian State, and trust. However, it appears that the thoroughgoing discussion of these issues during the “process” leading to peace has overcome a certain taboo in the public discourse, as broader segments of the public gradually realize that peace can be achieved only by returning territories and establishing a Palestinian state (even if this is not expressed openly and freely). The question of giving up territories and returning them to the Palestinians is intertwined with the question of belief in peace and its implementation. The more the sense of trust in the opposing side strengthens and a feeling of security is regained, the less the resistance to returning territories, which is apparently composed not only of ideological notions but also of fear of a Palestinian and Arab takeover. Time appears to play a crucial role in recreating the belief in peace as something that is achievable. The more time that passes without terror and victimization, the stronger are trust and also hope, the feeling common to all people from birth that can help youth believe in a different and better life and strive to realize it. A research group: The Israeli Youth 2002-2000 The research I am bringing here is intending to understand deeply, the youth’s feelings and positions. Eight Jewish youths from all over the country discuss their feelings about peace, and describe their daily life in Israel, under conflict, political violence, and threat and believes, and what form they think it will take when it comes. However, in the summer of 2001, with incidents of terror and violence reaching new extremes every day, it is difficult for them to get far from reality in their imagination. The interviewees are aged 16-18, eight boys and eight girls, residents of Jerusalem, Petah Tikva, Kfar Saba, Rehovot, Yeroham, Beit Shemesh, Maale Adumim, and Givat Ze’ev. (The last two are settlements at the west bank). As noted earlier, this is not a representative opinion sample of all Israeli youth, but rather a random collection of the views of individuals from various cities and communities that, as a whole, presents an authentic picture of Israeli young people, what unites them and what divides them, their difficulties in imagining peace and their common dreams about life in an era of peace. Peace, for them, is simply the opposite of war. All the interviews were conducted during the period of the intifada that broke out in October 2000, a time of substantial escalation in terrorism and acts of violence among both sides to the conflict. It is safe to assume that the central motifs that arise in all the interviews—fear and trust—were directly influenced by events undermining personal security. I chose to highlight several main points among the interviews: political opinions and sources of formation, the influence of the education system, the influence of the peace process, the influence of the political violence and feelings of threat and how the question of trust in the other side affects the conception of the term peace. After understanding the wide picture of “what is shaping the youth positions?” There will be a search for alternative tools and agendas for the different systems in what is in a need to be reshape.

YOUTH AND POLITICAL OPINIONS Among the sixteen respondents, five defined themselves as having “left-wing” opinions, seven as having “right-wing” opinions, and four as “centrist with a right-wing leaning” (among the boys, 75% were right-wing and centrist and 25% were left-wing; among the girls, 50% were right-wing and centrist and 50% were left-wing). Here are the senses of the youth’s opinions, in their own words: “Every people in the world depend on its history to justify its existence and build its heritage and culture. If we look at the history of the Jewish people, we see that more than two thousand years ago the Land of Israel was already their exclusive possession. The Temple that was destroyed is not something we invented, but rather a fact, which the Gentiles believe in as well. Although the restoration of the Temple, of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, is not in doubt, there is also no doubt that the Muslims deliberately, not accidentally, built their mosque on the ruins of the Temple. Their goal was always to conceal and deny the existence of a historical Jewish identity at the place, and so they made haste to destroy and to build a large mosque at the site. In the years of the British Mandate, too, we wanted peace and sought a way to reach it, and Ben-Gurion even accepted the proposal for a partition into two states, despite our right to the land. But here, too, the Arabs were aggressive and tried to destroy us and throw us into the sea. All the Arab armies together tried to obliterate the new country, and to our good fortune did not succeed. After that, too, throughout the years we sought a way to achieve peace, which always included concessions, and they sought ways to destroy us”. Asaf, 17.5, from Rishon Letzion “Most of the kids I know believe there’s no choice but to go to war, after which the problems will be solved. The Palestinians will understand in the end that Israel can defeat them, but prefers not to harm them, and that for us force is not the way to solve problems. They’ve already tried to conquer us in all the wars and failed, even though they surprised us in the Yom Kippur War, and even though several countries fought against us together and didn’t succeed, so in the end they’ll understand that we have rights to this land, which go back to before the Arabs came to the area at all”. Ifat, 16, from Maale Adumim “The Mishnah says “Seek peace and pursue it,” and all throughout Jewish history, from the Creation of the world up to today, it’s evident that Judaism is a religion of peace and compromise and the search for agreement. So it’s clear that we, the religious sector, will be the first to work to achieve peace and implement it. The question is, what about the holiness of the Land of Israel, the land of our forefathers—all of history indicating that the Land of Israel indeed belongs to the Jewish people. How can we give away what belongs to us, which we acquired through wars and so much bloodshed?” Miriam, 17, Jerusalem “The Palestinians—they want our country and are not willing to compromise. That’s a condition that I’m not prepared to accept. Not now and not ever. It could be, and I believe, that we have to give them territories because in any case they live there, but they can’t get all of what they demand, since from their standpoint there’s no need for a Jewish state, and if it had been possible they would have kicked us out of here a long time ago.” Nirit, 16, from Petah Tikva “On the other hand, young people who defined themselves as belonging to the Left presented Western and universal concepts to reinforce their political arguments: In my eyes, first of all our obligation is to give back everything we ever conquered. Peace means you have to compensate the side that was harmed and remedy the injustice that was caused it by the war. The occupation is a product of the war, and so first, we have to evacuate all the settlements, including East Jerusalem. Only after that will it be possible to begin negotiations for peace, to discuss the nature of peace, economic cooperation, and so on. “ Oren, 16.5, from Kfar Saba “To get out of this situation, the first thing that needs to be done is to remove Arafat from power, put him in jail, and put him on trial. The Palestinians will understand that we can’t give up all of the territories and certainly not all of East Jerusalem. The events of October 2000 only strengthen the argument that it’s impossible to return everything to them. It simply won’t work. And then, in fair, give-and-take negotiations, in which each side knows it, too, has to make concessions, they’ll decide how to divide this land into two states for the two peoples. With each state standing on its own, each with its own authorities, independent rule, and army, and then it will be possible to enforce the agreements. Everything that will be agreed in the proper ways will be supported and assisted by the world. If we impose only our own conditions, there’s no chance that peace will last”. Shimrit, 18, from Beit Shemesh “I would offer the Palestinians independence, that is, a sovereign state, withdrawal from territories—but not according to the Oslo agreements, rather, according to new agreements. We can get out of this situation only through logical negotiations that involve painful compromises for both sides. It has to be understood that it’s impossible to resolve conflicts of almost a hundred years without changing the ways of thinking of the people involved. That is, the change has to involve everyone. We as the Jewish people have to understand, finally, that there is no people that fought for its independence and didn’t succeed. In fact, we were exactly like them: we fought British rule, resisted them, and tried to expel them. We weren’t broken. It’s the same with the Palestinians. They believe in the justice of their cause, so they won’t give in. And on the day we accept that, we’ll be able to resolve this conflict”. Liat, 16, from Jerusalem Their Political point of view: The sources that influence the young people and from which they derive their political views, according to their testimony, are interesting and varied. Those who hold right-wing views cite Jewish and historical sources as strengthening their positions. Some of them rely on Jewish history, the mitzvoth of the Torah (rules from the holy Jewish historical books), and other religious justifications to support their political outlooks. Mitzvoth such as building and settling the land, safeguarding the graves of the forefathers, and the right of the forefathers, to whom the land was given, serve as proof for them that the land was granted to the Jews and not to the Arabs. They also cite the Arabs’ rejection of partition in 1948 and the IDF’s defeat of the Arab armies in the War of Independence as bolstering their political conception of their right to the land, a conception that directly influences the nature of the peace in which they believe. It is important to note that two of the female respondents, Liat and Shimrit, stressed that their political views were strongly influenced by the events of October 2000, and that their views were now less “left-wing” than in the past. A shift in positions has presumably occurred among many other young people as well, as, among the adult voters, was evident in the 2001 elections, so as in 2003 elections, when the number of voters for the right-wing candidate, Ariel Sharon, rose drastically. We can also different levels of awareness to the "other side” and while Oren can see their needs as a normal thing, Miriam is seeing it as another big lie and as an absurd to accept or to believe.

EDUCATION AS A FORMATIVE FACTOR CONCERNING PEACE As we use to think, young people getting their education at school. But most of the youth here do not agree. What is the role of the educational system in their life? Is it to educate for values of co existence and moral, of being better human beings or maybe only teaching, by transforming data and information? “My school does not relate deeply and seriously to the issue of peace or the conflict with the Arabs. In my opinion, the education system in general is incapable of coping with such a large issue and with such varied opinions among the public. If the teachers were outstanding and brilliant individuals, they would be able to deal with the issue by holding open discussions and offering real information to the students. But the teachers I know don’t try to deal with these questions at all; they just transmit information and are really concerned only about the matriculation exams, tests, and grades, not the real problems that face us, the young people, so that a situation exists where the school just incites you to rebel instead of teaching you something. Because I don’t feel that the teachers contribute something to me or relate to me personally, I do the opposite of what’s expected of me, and resist the system. The whole issue of education doesn’t exist. They’re not interested or don’t try to make you a better person who’s open to the world and society. They deal with transmitting information alone, not with important social values and norms.” Oren, 16.5, from Kfar Saba “. . . I would expect the education system to be more involved with the issue of our relations with the Arabs. Also to remind us that in life “Good behavior comes before the Torah,” and not just make us learn and memorize by rote. The teachers are distant from us, instead of being more close and accessible. In my opinion, there should be real education in high school, too, just as in first and second grade. They don’t make an effort to deal with the issue of peace, because it’s not part of the curriculum. And we students, among ourselves, don’t relate much to the issue either. In my opinion that’s unfortunate, because the young people, consciously or not, are confused and need someone to explain to them and help them understand. If explanations were given, I believe there would be less ignorance and resistance to the subject . . “. Shamrit, 18, from Beit Shemesh . . . Our teachers don’t talk about politics, but sometimes the issue of the terror and shootings comes up, and we try to understand what the teachers think, what will happen with peace, and why the Arabs don’t want peace and fight against us. But they don’t talk about that. And meanwhile all the girls greatly fear for their families, and often they cry from fear that someone was hurt in a terrorist attack . . . Miriam, 17, from Jerusalem In the school I go to there’s a good, supportive atmosphere. The school has also had a big influence on my personality. The subjects I choose, and the teachers, all open possibilities for me of learning and experiencing things that will help me in the future. As for the peace process, or the Jewish-Arab issue in general, the school is not active at all. It could be that the principals try to avoid such a loaded and sensitive subject, when every day there are deaths and suicide bombings . . . . . . I think if we knew a little more about the Arabs, maybe we would understand the situation better. In the school they don’t deal specifically with the word “peace.” Only if there’s an important event does a discussion develop, which very quickly degenerates into shouting and anger against the Arabs and the situation. But there’s no orderly approach, involving the homeroom teacher or the grade, of teaching about peace or the situation today. Kids who take Middle Eastern studies sometimes ask questions about events in the news, but generally there’s no time because there’s too much material to be learned. Ifat, 16, from Maale Adumim Today I don’t see any influence of the school in forming my personality. I would expect that the education system would instill more Zionist values in Israeli youth, values of heritage, and also, to the same extent, values of democracy, tolerance, and so on. Sometimes I find that the teachers do try to educate apart from just transmitting information, but mostly they do the latter. Vered, 18, from Givat Ze’ev The school contributes a lot to my education, but its role in forming my personality is very small. I have friends from other schools who have no concept about the Arabs. It really borders on ignorance, as if it’s a different world, not connected to their fate and way of life. As for the issue of peace, if it’s approached it’s definitely not in a deep and serious way, and not as part of the curriculum. At the same time, unlike other schools in the city, in my school there’s a long tradition of meetings with Palestinians, dialogue despite the situation, and this is important and in my opinion is a key aspect of the school’s identity. But as for really going into the subject, it’s according to the choice and considerations of the students who are interested, not part of the requirements of the system. Liat, 16, from Jerusalem The school, which is supposed to play a part in shaping my personality, doesn’t contribute anything. I’m much more influenced by the society around me, but not by “the system.” On the issue of peace, or education for peace, there’s a tendency to regard this as supremely important—but most people don’t think it’s realistic at the moment—it’s sort of a dream—that we’ll have comprehensive peace with all our neighbors. The school sees no obligation or need to work with us on the issue. Even in difficult times we barely deal with the subject of peace, and this angers me, I don’t remember a single instance in which we really discussed the situation in the country. And that’s something I would expect would be done. The truth is that even when there’s peace, I don’t think the school’s agenda will change. The teachers see their role as transmitting information to us, usually in boring ways, so that we’ll be ready in time for the matriculation exams. But what about being better citizens, or learning more about our neighbors, or anything that would enrich our world and for which there’s no matriculation exam at the end of the year? There’s also a problem in regard to listening to us, encouraging us to speak about how we feel. Instead, we keep a lot in and feel we have no one to really talk with about this outside of the family framework. Nirit, 16, from Petah Tikva The role of school and education: Almost all the young people who were interviewed in this study are dissatisfied with the education system’s approach to the issue of peace and education for peace. As they see it, the system does not help them deal with this weighty, complex subject. Most of them also say that to their regret the school does not really provide education for citizenship and values, even though it purports to, but instead concentrates on transmitting knowledge. There is a clear expectation among most of the young people that the school would take a more active role in dealing with peace and other important values, and would raise the issue for open discussion in the school. Most of the adolescents lament the lack of an educational policy that would add concrete information and provide a wider picture of the situation, as well as tools to help them understand it. They feel that their anxieties and emotional difficulties are not adequately address, which leaves them stressed and makes it harder for them to cope. The other lack they are pointing is about dealing with future optional development. School is not about to discuss scenarios, which can be developing from the current situation. In addition, as we have seen in the international cases, this feeling of not being able to deal with the future, is increasing fears and anxieties.

HOME, FAMILY, MEDIA AND OTHER FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE YOUTH As for my outlook on peace with the Arabs, I believe that throughout our lives we absorb influences from people and events in our lives. An example is my grandfather Binyamin, who even at such an advanced age was the one who made the decision, which wasn’t easy, to move with his whole family from the wealth and posh existence they had in the Soviet Union to a country with a difficult security situation and a bad economic situation. In particular, the family arrived a few months before the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War, so that the sacrifice was severe because in addition to all the hardships of absorption, two of the older sons were sent, upon their arrival, straight to the battlefront, when they were just 19 and 18 years old. And today, as always, he feels that peace is more important to him than any other value. Another painful example, which I’ve had to cope with all through recent period, is the death of a good friend of mine, Asil Asli, an Israeli Arab who was killed in the October 2000 riots; that really changed my view of life, of closeness, of friendship. A different perspective, which formerly I didn’t have, about those who are dear to you and about the fact that no one can feel protected or immune from pain or loss. Liat, 16, from Jerusalem My immediate family supports the Left. They all think and feel that peace is the only way to survive. I too believe that, but I don’t think we should only concede and give. We should balance the obligation to compromise with the ability to safeguard the interests that are vital to our existence. My father, who serves as a senior police officer in Judea and Samaria, also believes the Palestinians deserve their rights. Even though every day he’s involved in struggles and dangers with them. But, still, our duty is to safeguard what’s necessary for our existence. Nirit, 16, from Petah Tikva The home I grew up in didn’t influence my political opinions. Or at least not my parents, because my father, and it saddens me to say this, and I’ll put it delicately, doesn’t particularly love Arabs . . . and I’m really the opposite on that issue. So neither he nor my mother, who’s not far from him in her views, influenced me. My brother influenced me, and was with me in the early years of my life. And I think that in all ways he molded me, and I went on from there. He didn’t influence me politically, even though our views are the same. Shamrit, 18, from Beit Shemesh Up to today they educated us in school for Zionism and love of the homeland, told us proudly about the renewal and rebuilding of the land, the absorption of immigrants, and the importance of the army and security. But all the importance of safeguarding the homeland and the Jewish nature of the state—in the peace process all that disappears, and the educational values also lose their significance. All that matters is achieving a peace that is in great doubt. Asaf, 17, from Rishon Letzion I think the country is very dear to me as a Jew and Israeli. We exist because we were chosen by God. Jacob our father received the name “Israel” after he wrestled with the angel and defeated him, and it became the name of the Jewish people, over two thousand years ago. The fate of the Jewish people was not dictated by the desire or activity of Herzl or Ben-Gurion or one of the secular leaders. Our right to the land is a right that God granted us, but it is also a duty that requires us to defend the land. Miriam, 17, from Jerusalem One can also learn much from the media, because it tells objectively about what happens, and shows the suffering of both sides. And there are famous journalists who know a great deal about the Arabs, like Ehud Yaari, who explains everything that happens. The home in which we grow up also teaches us about the Arabs, and always taught me that violence is not the way. But still we have to remember that if there’s no choice, it’s preferable to attack than to be attacked or to concede and retreat. Ifat, 16, from Maale Adumim Other sources of influence: In light of the school’s limited involvement (or even noninvolvement) in the education for peace, other sources influence youth and shape their opinions. These sources included major events reported in the media, as well as relatives and friends. Some of the youth are being influenced by social pressure or current fads in the school, and others regard the media as a reliable, authoritative source of information. It appears that the youth who attend the religious schools (Asaf and Miriam) ascribe greater importance to the material they learn in school, which deals more or less openly with the issue of peace and the related questions. This point suits the results of the research done by Maizels and Gal (1988), which we met its sense at the previous chapter. The rest of the young people ascribe greater significance to other influences outside of the school.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF PEACE FOR YOUTH “Today we see how so many Jews are killed in the country, and so, so many violent incidents occur every day, and the phenomenon has become routine. The young people hear about it in almost every news program—the dead, wounded, and detained. It’s almost become normal for there to be violence, and young people learn from this that the phenomenon is acceptable and that problems can be solved by violence, as the Arabs solve their problems with us by violence. In a situation of peace, however, the violence will decline, and then the negative influence will vanish, and violence will be presented as something negative and forbidden, and the young people will be influenced and strengthened by that. . . . Israeli society does not stand only to benefit from this. The situation of war and threat made our society one big family, and everyone knows that in an emergency situation we’re united and strong, and able to cope with any hardship. If peace becomes a reality, the whole sense of unity, the family feeling and common responsibility for our fate, will disappear, because the existential danger we felt will be gone, and then the tensions and antagonisms in the society will grow and undermine the unity.” Ifat, 16, from Maale Adumim Peace can help the young people to develop and overcome a snobbish, arrogant attitude toward Arabs. The young people around me have always grown up in an atmosphere of war, not peace, and particularly of terror, along with rule over another people. There have always been Arab workers all over the place, and this caused us as a society, including the young people, to behave—whether consciously or not—in an arrogant way, and to see an Arab as inferior, weak, and so on. Real peace will suddenly create a situation where an Arab is like everyone else; a human being, whose extraction isn’t really important—whether he’s Greek or Persian, Canadian or Indonesian. Or Arab. And that won’t affect how we relate to him. The negative effects of the occupation will simply disappear from our outlook, the outlook of the young people. Think what a large role terror and violence play in the life of the young people today. Our being and our culture breathes violence and fear, news and terrorism. In a situation of peace we’ll find ourselves freed of all the negative thoughts, and in particular we won’t be afraid all the time, and we won’t be threatened. In the economic sphere, too, I think we’ll be greatly affected. Much more attention will be directed to the society and therefore also to the young people, and the goals will change and develop, beyond those of the army and security. . . . Within Israeli society I believe peace will greatly influence our relationship with the Israeli Arabs. Today, some see them as enemies just because they’re Arabs. When there’s peace with all the Arabs, the Israeli Arabs will become our immediate partners, and together we’ll be able to change the whole negative relationship that we had with them. We’ll really be able to be partners with equal rights and obligations, instead of them being second-class citizens. As I see it, the violence among young people is also influenced by the security situation. When we see violence and terror and death, it affects the atmosphere in the street, and the youth are less tolerant. When there’s peace the great tension will vanish, and young people will have less fear and so will react less violently and aggressively. Overall we absorb the general atmosphere of the country, and it’s a tense and violent atmosphere, and it doesn’t have to be that way. Oren, 16.5, from Kfar Saba In a situation of peace as the Left portrays it, our economy won’t develop because all the money will go to security and building fences and walls, and not to the unemployed. The countries of the world won’t invest in Israel because it will be considered a dangerous area that’s unwise to invest in, and so we’ll turn into a backward country. The Arabs, however, will develop, and will exploit the territories that were given them, and gradually they’ll take over the Israeli economy until we become their slaves. We’ll find ourselves surrounded by Arabs, who are supposedly in a state of peace with us, but we’ll be dependent on them. Asaf, 17.5, from Rishon Letzion In a situation of peace, many of the holy places will no longer be under our control. The Western Wall, which is the most ancient foundation of the Temple Mount, will be ruled by the Arabs. Rachel’s Tomb, Joseph’s Tomb, the Cave of the Patriarchs, and many other places won’t be in our hands and will be destroyed, and this is an extreme transgression of the laws of the Torah, and I believe all the truly religious people will oppose it with all their might. In Yamit the residents weren’t religious yet there was fierce resistance, so try to imagine how the religious sector will react when it’s expelled from its land. This will ruin our trust in the state, and turn us into foreigners in our own country. A government that will hand over the Jewish holy sites cannot govern the Jewish people, and so the people will be torn and a civil war might even result. One good thing may be happening—greater tolerance toward the religious. If all the tension vanishes and there really is peace, then people will have much less tension and fear, and the attitude toward the religious will change, and they’ll have greater involvement in the society. . . . Peace can help young people to be better mannered. Today I see secular girls my age who dress without modesty, and boys who behave crudely and violently. If the young people feel calm and secure, they may be able to grow up with less tension and with better behavior. In reality, though, it seems more likely to me that the resistance and difficulty that I and other religious people will have in accepting peace in return for evacuating settlements will cause separation and distance between me and other Israelis, between the religious and the secular. Miriam, 17, from Jerusalem Peace can affect every area of our lives. In my opinion, Israeli youth could gain a great deal from a situation of peace. First of all—a new culture. New friends. People with outlooks on life that are not very different from our own. Trade relations with the Arabs have been stopped, and there’s the case of the two restaurant owners who were murdered went they went to buy vases at an Arab shop in Ramallah. In a situation of peace, people will be able to trade freely with the neighboring states or with Arab towns. We’ll be able to direct all the resources that were invested in security to the welfare of the citizens. Things like health awareness, sport, theater, and creativity, environmental quality, information on the new situation we’re living in, education, and so on . . . Shamrit, 18, from Beit Shemesh I think peace will make me more optimistic, though I’m already that way now, but without terror and wars, optimism might “conquer” us, and that would be wonderful. Even my hobbies, which definitely are influenced by the environment and the culture, could change and become more varied. It will be much easier to take trips in the country. Today there are places I’d very much like to visit but don’t dare, but when there’s peace, new places and sites will be in reach. . . . Many people say the threat we’ve lived under all these years has led to a society that’s unified in times of crisis, and that this is actually a social asset for us. I really don’t go along with that. For example, during the last year we’ve really been in a state of emergency, and I didn’t feel that the society became more united but rather the opposite. And even if there’s some truth to that, I’m ready to give it up in return for peace. In any case, the social gaps and the rifts among the people won’t all go away one morning, when there’s peace, because they’re built into the society, and the different groups won’t suddenly disappear . . . Liat, 16, from Jerusalem The changes that will occur in the era of peace might seem to involve small, everyday things, but basically it will be a 180-degree change in the way of life we’ve been used to for so long, and this is very scary because suddenly we’ll find ourselves in a new situation where we don’t know what to do, what to think and how to behave. When there’s peace all the money that goes to security will go to improving the Israeli economy, to tourism, to tackling social and economic problems. There needn’t be social and cultural boundaries between the two peoples. As for the Middle East—its future depends solely on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If it’s solved, I believe the rest of the Middle East will be pacified. Economically speaking, we’ll be able to build infrastructures to employ hundreds of thousands of workers. If there’s less unemployment, then more people can get an education, leading to more prosperity and progress. In the cultural area, peace will be a breakthrough. In fact, a large part of the hostility that existed before peace is rooted in a lack of knowledge about the culture and way of life of the other side. Once the sides are able to get to know each other, to draw closer, and therefore to break negative stereotypes, a major aspect of the antagonism will disappear. There were always excuses involving security, but once there’s peace the gap between ethnic communities will become the focus of the problems in daily life. I think that in a situation of peace Israeli society will be forced to tackle these problems, and there’s a danger that they’ll get worse if resources aren’t channeled into solving them. On the other hand, there are scary aspects of peace. The scariest is that suddenly the whole way of life and outlook on things will change. The constant fear of what could happen may vanish, and the Israeli mentality will change in all sorts of ways. Vered, 18, from Givat Ze’ev There’s nothing that can move us forward like peace. In a situation of peace, education—which I was complaining about a moment ago, the way it is now—will be able to benefit from funds that today are invested in security. We’ll be able to develop into a million new areas as young people. Kids in Britain allow themselves to take an interest in all kinds of stuff, things that we, as Israeli kids, don’t get involved with at all. We always have the feeling of seriousness and struggle. Young people are supposed to see unlimited possibilities, to feel that anything’s possible, and I don’t feel that way. And in all the other areas—unemployment, the social gaps, crime, these are all areas that we’ll be able to invest in and create a healthier society. There are so many attractions and tourist sites in the Middle East, but the tourists aren’t in a hurry to come to the region. Yet when there’s peace, the regional development will be enormous. Tourism is a national asset if you have the right things to offer. There are also so many social institutions and activities, such as the organizations for fighting AIDS or cancer, or women’s organizations, that aren’t surviving because the state doesn’t have the budget for such things. But once there are more funds to channel into Israeli society, we’ll take great strides forward in all areas. Nirit, 16, from Petah Tikva What can we achieve from peace and can we believe in it? The cardinal point that came up in all the interviews, with one exception, is the issue of trust: Today, after the outbreak of the second intifada, I don’t believe real peace is achievable. It’s clear to me that peace will lead us to concede territories that are important to our security, and when we give in to the Arabs they’ll attack us by surprise. That’s actually what will happen. Up to now they’ve been given control of a lot of territory, and in reaction they started an intifada. So we should aim for a situation of “cold peace,” a total separation between us and them; they’ll run their lives without entering Israel, and we won’t harm them. Maybe peace like that can lead, after a few years of quiet, to real peace and an open relationship with them. But we’ll need at least a few years to be secure and protected against their gradual takeover of territories, with the aim only of taking and not giving. If after a trial period there really is real peace, let’s say after ten years, it could have very significant effects. . . . Economically speaking, even if we need to use the army less, it’s still very important that we invest in equipment for an emergency, because it’s impossible to know how long peace will last, and it’s wise to be prepared for any situation where the Arabs break the agreements and try to attack us. Of course we have to hope and believe in peace and work to achieve it, but real peace will be achieved once we believe the Arabs’ intentions are real. Ifat, 16, from Maale Adumim There’s a sort of atmosphere in Israel that says peace with the Arabs can’t be real, and the reason is that it’s impossible to trust the Arabs, they’re not honorable, they’ll violate the agreements with us. As I see it, this is a case of Israeli paranoia. Why shouldn’t I trust the Arabs? Actually, they want peace exactly as we do, and they need it even more than we do. The economic situation in most of the Arab countries is bad, and most of the population is poor. There, too, the reason is that most of the resources go to security. The Palestinians have no state and no infrastructures, and so most of them are poor. That’s why they want peace so much, and I hope they believe that peace will bring them a better life of prosperity and a good economy. Oren, 16, from Kfar Saba . . . But if a peace agreement is reached, and there’s peace in the region, we can assume that peace will leave Israel without the Golan Heights and without Judea and Samaria. Our border will run through the middle of Jerusalem and Kfar Saba and Afula, and our lives will be in much greater danger than in the situation before peace. I know the Arabs want all of Israel and won’t agree to make concessions. Although they say it will satisfy them, once they’ve received the parts of Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem they’ll continue making terrorist attacks, kidnapping soldiers, and shooting at us. When there’s peace it will be a lot easier for them to attack us and then flee back into their state, and we won’t be able to do anything about it. Those who live on the Green Line will leave, so as not to be attacked, in addition to all those who’ve already been evacuated from the territories that were returned to the Arabs. The result will be very serious population crowding. Asaf, 17.5, from Rishon Letzion . . . We’ll find ourselves too close to the Arabs, and the Arabs will unite and become one bloc against us, and they’ll be able to eject us from the whole Land of Israel. In fact they’ve always said they want to throw us into the sea, and now we’re closing our eyes and ready to believe that it’ll be O.K. I believe most of the Israeli population, both secular and religious, don’t believe in their hearts in achieving peace and don’t trust the Arabs, but they’re afraid or embarrassed to say so. It’s also considered very fashionable and humane now to want peace and favor it. Miriam, 17, from Jerusalem It wouldn’t be right to say I trust everyone. I have trust in those I know, but overall my trust in the Arabs’ readiness and desire for peace was greatly damaged in the last round of Barak and Arafat. They were offered 98% of all their demands and still they refused to sign. All this undermines my belief in their desire or ability to reach peace. And in any case, despite all our concessions they didn’t show a readiness to concede at all. Liat, 16, from Jerusalem It’s hard for me to believe that I’ll be able to go back into the cocoon I was in during the first sixteen years of my life. What I’ve seen and what I know can’t be erased or hidden away, but maybe I’ll be able to go back to trusting people fully. What scares me most about a peace with the neighboring states is that it won’t be real peace, but instead a false peace aimed at achieving the hidden goal of attacking us when we don’t expect it. This second intifada has affected me tragically. The truth is that I didn’t believe such a situation could exist, especially after I took part in an Arab-Israeli project, and now I’ve been hit below the belt by the people who were supposedly my friends. A thing like that causes you to doubt the reliability of real peace, or any peace, if the moment things deteriorate they revert to their old attitude, the anti-Israeli-Jewish attitude, even though they’ve learned and seen that there’s another possibility, and that there are people who want peace and are prepared for it. My trust has had a bumpy ride this year. It grew and then faded, there were falls as well as rises. But eventually I learned to trust and rely on a few people whom I know. I can say wholeheartedly that it’s clear to me there are Palestinians I can fully trust; I know they can be real friends and people you can make peace with. Shamrit, 18, from Beit Shemesh My problem of trusting the Arabs is difficult and major, mainly because of the many clashes in the past and the outbreak of the latest disturbances. I hope I’ll be able to rebuild this sense of trust, which has been undermined a lot. I often realize that more than they fight Israel for political reasons, the Arabs’ attitude toward Israel is like toward a pest that has to be exterminated. This attitude starts in their education systems, which shows that apparently they’re not ready for peace with Israel from the social and cultural standpoint. . . . I was injured in a car-bomb attack in Jerusalem in early June 2001. Luckily for me I was relatively lightly injured. Another incident that drastically worsened my feelings and my trust of them was when terrorists fired at the entrance to the settlement in a passing car and moderately wounded my neighbor, 12 years old. . . . So now it’s dangerous to leave the settlement, especially in the evening hours, and we can’t go via the neighboring Arab village anymore even though we once thought they were friends. Vered, 18, from Givat Ze’ev It’s impossible to see only positive aspects in the situation. I look at the way agreements with the Arabs have been implemented so far, and so I’m afraid. Tomorrow morning, after they’ve received all that territory, they’ll violate all the agreements and attack us again. I’m frightened that we’ll give them what they demand—that we’ll concede too much, but ultimately the situation won’t change and will basically revert to conflict. Nirit, 16, from Petah Tikva YOUNG PEOPLE’S BELIEF IN ACHIEVING PEACE Most of the young people tend to view the effects of peace positively. They believe peace will bring economic development, a higher standard of living, scientific development, and a change for the better in society’s hierarchy of values. There is also, however, a minority that tends to view the consequences of peace with certain dubiousness. These young people project less optimistic scenarios. The few who portray negative scenarios, dangers, and threats are from religious or traditional families (Miriam, Asaf, Ifat). These respondents tend to warn against sacrificing values of the Land of Israel and the related social dangers, or mention the fear of an Arab economic and political takeover of Israel. Yet they, too, point to possible positive changes, such as greater respect for others and improved education and societal values. The young people cite the events of October 2000 as a rupture of their trust of the Arabs. They say their belief in achieving peace was severely damaged. Some go so far as to claim they were not at all surprised because they had never trusted the Arabs, but some also thought differently.

WHAT DOES PEACE MEANS TO YOU? “TO ME, PEACE SIMPLY MEANS LIVING WITHOUT WAR” When the young people were asked to describe what peace really means to them and how it would actually be, almost all of them settled for descriptions whose import is: “Peace is life without war.” . . . we should aim for a situation of “cold peace,” a total separation between us and them; they’ll run their lives without entering Israel, and we won’t harm them. Maybe peace like that can lead, after a few years of quiet, to real peace and an open relationship with them. But we’ll need at least a few years to be secure and protected against their gradual takeover of territories, with the aim only of taking and not giving. Ifat, 16, from Maale Adumim If I don’t trust the Arabs, how can I expect them to trust me? We’ve already been ruling the Palestinians for thirty-something years, and you wouldn’t expect them to trust us and depend us, and yet they want peace, so there’s no reason I shouldn’t trust them. And I’m not afraid of peace, actually it’s absurd to be afraid, because it’s exactly what we want and anticipate so much, so why be afraid?! Maybe I’m an exception, but the situation since the events of October 2000 hasn’t influenced me especially; I’m still optimistic and believe real peace is achievable so long as we stop being arrogant occupiers. Oren, 16.5, from Kfar Saba In fact, false peace will lead to the destruction of the state within ten years, and we’ll become a small minority that will be swallowed up among millions of Muslims. The young people will become violent and dangerous because of the violence and fear that they feel. All the tension will be directed toward society, and crime might also develop. If the economy is also harmed, then people will steal and take drugs, and then the society will disintegrate as well. At the international level they may suddenly stop condemning us and instead treat us politely in all the capitals of the world, but it won’t help us anymore because we’ll be so weak, and we’ll be in need of support and handouts to help the economy. The United States, which today supports us and backs us, won’t keep doing so in the future. As soon as there’s peace here, it will have to support everyone equally, and we’ll no longer be favored. Asaf, 17.5, Rishon Letzion I believe that when there’s peace the situation won’t change very much. We tried our best with the Arabs. We gave back territories, signed treaties, and welcomed them with open arms. And what did we get in return? Terrorism and a knife in the back. The Arab will treat you hospitably whenever you’re in his home, but a minute later he’ll stick a knife in your back. The Mishnah in fact says that “There is no trusting the Gentiles,” and the Arab always hates us and always will. He’s obligated by his religion to hate and fight a jihad against every Jew. Miriam, 17, from Jerusalem Most of all, peace means freedom—freedom of movement and freedom from fear, freedom from feelings of guilt or hatred. When people are equal in everything they do, they can get along and accept each other more and more. The arrogance and the occupation led to hatred, and when it’s gone, the distance will be gone as well. So in my eyes, peace is mainly between peoples, not leaders. Peace, in other words, is real only if it’s applied among the ordinary people, the young people, and not only on the high levels. Active peace can help us get to know the other side, to really bring people—children, teachers, and all sorts of parallel groups—together. Liat, 16, from Jerusalem It’s not easy to get my mind into a description of peace. Not in these times. But because I want it so much and believe that we need it, I’m able to think of peace in return for peace, but not in the political context that’s familiar to us, rather the personal. What I mean is that everyone will feel that he gives his all, and acts so as to strengthen the relationship and the trust of the other side. Neighbors who are friends without concern for nationality, who drink coffee together in the morning. Freedom of movement, life without a paralyzing sense of fear. Like in the stories. White fences, green fields. A peace of real friendship. Shamrit, 18, from Beit Shemesh Peace will give every citizen a sense of full security. No one has to be in fear. Everyone will have the right to be relaxed and at ease. Meanwhile, though, the security situation has really messed up all the habits of my life. I believe in “real peace” with the countries neighboring Israel, but at the end of a difficult and complex process that will wear down both sides. Vered, 18, from Givat Ze’ev For me personally, it means I can live without fear, which today is a key aspect of my feelings and behavior. I have a big limitation involving fear and problems of trust, but in a new era of peace, which will be turn out to be real and without fear, I’ll “suddenly” be able to relate to an Arab or a Japanese in an equal way, and so all the areas of life that involve relating to others will start to develop. For example, if two settlements, Arab and Jewish, interact with each other, it’s only natural that they should cooperate and both gain from it. Nirit, 16, from Petah Tikva Their statements show a clear difficulty in imagining a reality that appears so distant to them. They tended to express great pessimism, fear, and mistrust in the durability of peace, certainly as of summer 2001. Even the optimists among them depict a situation that is well short of ideal; and yet, considering when the interviews were conducted, their words certainly are not devoid of hope.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The main concern of this paper is the coping of the Jewish – Israeli youth with the political violence in 2000 – 2002 Israel, and their emotional disposition towards the Israeli – Arab conflict, as well as their personal and national future. Even though the heart of this document consists of interviews with Israeli adolescents, the conclusions that follow are derived from the entire study, including its theoretical section and the international case studies analysis, from which the great, partly irreversible damage caused to children and adolescents living in conflict and war circumstances, is evident. Some of the cases vary in many characteristics from the discussed Israeli case, but they share a severe common denominator: the circumstances serve to create yet another generation of citizens, in whose minds the damages of the political violence and its experiences are deeply engrained and whose personal futures as well as the future of the entire society, is therefore negatively influenced by their experiences and by the manner in which they have matured and developed. The damages of the past have left their mark and will influence the future for a long time. The maturation of a third generation of Israeli – Jews into a reality of a violent political conflict, perpetuates the fear and hate towards the other. The experiences described by Israeli youths during the eve of Sadat’s visit: feelings of utter distrust, a demonisation of the Arab, hate and racism are not at all different from some of this paper’s interview findings, 25 years afterwards. And who can ensure us that in another decade or two things will be at all different? What are the central systems and elements that have a crucial bearing upon the shaping of the younger generation? And how may these systems be used in order to change the manners of educating and shaping the consciousness of adolescents – from a consciousness of conflict, hate and despair to a state of hope, a drive for peace and an appreciation of peace’s advantages and fruits? The summary and conclusions chapter will attempt to answer these questions. Their Political point of view: The sources that influence the young people and from which they derive their political views, according to their testimony, are interesting and varied. Those who hold right-wing views cite Jewish and historical sources as strengthening their positions. Some of them rely on Jewish history, the mitzvoth of the Torah (rules from the holy Jewish historical books), and other religious justifications to support their political outlooks. Mitzvoth such as building and settling the land, safeguarding the graves of the forefathers, and the right of the forefathers, to whom the land was given, serve as proof for them that the land was granted to the Jews and not to the Arabs. They also cite the Arabs’ rejection of partition in 1947and the IDF’s victory over the Arab armies in the War of 1948, Israel’s war of Independence as bolstering their political conception of their right to the land, a conception that directly influences the nature of the peace in which they believe. It is important to note that two of the female respondents, Liat and Shimrit, stressed that their political views were strongly influenced by the events of October 2000, and that their views were now less “left-wing” than in the past. A shift in positions has presumably occurred among many other young people as well, as, among the adult voters, was evident in the 2001 elections, so as in 2003 elections, when the number of voters for the right-wing candidate, Ariel Sharon, rose drastically. We can also notice the different levels of awareness to the "other side” and while Oren, for example can see their needs as a normal thing, Miriam is seeing it as another big lie and as an absurd to accept or to believe. The role of school and education: Almost all the young people who were interviewed for this study are dissatisfied with the education system’s approach to the issue of peace and education for peace. As they see it, the system does not help them deal with this weighty, complex subject. Most of them also say that to their regret the school does not really provide education for citizenship and values, even though it purports to, but instead concentrates on transmitting knowledge. There is a clear expectation among most of the young people that the school would take a more active role in dealing with peace and other important values, and would raise the issue for open discussion in class. Most of the adolescents lament the lack of an educational policy that would add concrete information and provide a wider picture of the situation, as well as tools to help them understand it. They feel that their anxieties and emotional difficulties are not adequately address, which leaves them stressed and makes it harder for them to cope. The other lack they are pointing is about dealing with future optional development. School is not about to discuss scenarios, which can be developing from the current situation. In addition, as we have seen in the international cases, this feeling of not being able to deal with the future is increasing fears and anxieties. The Family as a Source of influence. In light of the school’s limited involvement (or even noninvolvement) in the education for peace, and in coping with political violence, other sources influence the youth and shape their opinions, such as the Family. As we have already seen in the chapter concerning international case studies, the role of the family, as an information source, concerning violence, is crucial. Mothers are the best option to direct and lead the children to understand and to cope with the violent reality and threats, in a better manner. This fact is varies in a reverse ratio to the age of the children. The younger they are, the more crucial the positive attention of their parents. At the same time, inadequate and hysterical manners of behavior by the parents might even serve to weaken the children’ s ability to cope with events of violence, and in some cases may even lead to crises in the children’s developing process. The Media In some cases we see that young people consider the television to be one of the main sources for understanding their reality in a state of political violence. The young people do believe that if the information is coming from the media, it is wholly true. Nobody is even considering the option that the Media is not always giving the viewer solely facts. It should be mentioned here again, that there are differences between the effects of watching television alone and watching it with an adult. While watching alone cannot be monitored and explained, watching with parents is reported to be more secure and less harmful. What can we achieve from peace and can we believe in it? Most of the young people tend to view the effects of peace positively. They believe peace will bring economic development, a higher standard of living, scientific development, and a change for the better in society’s hierarchy of values. There is also, however, a minority that tends to view the consequences of peace with certain dubiousness. These young people project less optimistic scenarios. The few who portray negative scenarios, dangers, and threats are from religious or traditional families (Miriam, Asaf, Ifat). These respondents tend to warn against sacrificing values of the Land of Israel and the related social dangers, or mention the fear of an Arab economic and political takeover of Israel. Yet they, too, point to possible positive changes, such as greater respect for others and improved education and societal values. The young people cite the events of October 2000 as a rupture of their trust toward the Arabs. They say their belief in achieving peace was severely damaged. Some go as far as to claim that they were not at all surprised because they had never trusted the Arabs in the first place, but some think differently. Still, there are two previous examples for these phenomena, and we can see that this is not new. We can point out the case studies from the study concerning children and adolescents in Lebanon during the 80’s, or from the one concerning Europe, after the Second World War. The same goes for the Israeli youth, prior to the visit of Sadat. All of these cases show, that children and youths express fears and mistrust towards the enemy, and it is complicated for them to shift from one level of emotions - fears and deep mistrust, to a new level of a new era filled with hope. Another conclusion that can be draw form this, is that this perspective can be changed, according to circumstances and with the positive dynamic of even a slow decline in the levels of violence and bloodshed. A major point of departure, on the way towards a real deep and historical change will be, in “Potential Peace”, the withdrawal of the occupied territories issue — the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem—from the public agenda. We have witnessed this in the past and nowadays, while violence is becoming a part of life, the refusal of the Israeli youth in regard to any withdrawal from the territories was and still is of a high degree. Supports to that claim in several regards, are seen in the section on young people’s view of a potential peace between Israel and Egypt, while most of the respondents cited the issue of returning territories before Sadat’s visit. Most asserted that in their opinion the Egyptians did not really intend to implement a peace agreement, but rather to obtain territories “that we conquered with great bloodshed,” and hence “they should not be trusted.” The attitude toward land and territory is of great significance, and young people have a hard time accepting concessions. Yet, after Sadat’s visit, the large majority changed their position, and the idea of returning the Sinai to Egypt became acceptable in light of the real fruits of a peace with Israel’s then-greatest enemy. In the recent interviews with the young people, almost all, whatever their political leanings, raise the issue of “land for peace”. The main difficulty concerns the ability to trust the other side’s intentions. In this case, too, the young people fear that the other side aims to acquire the territories without giving anything in return. They have trouble accommodating the abstract formulation of peace: we give territories; what does the other side give us in return? The issue of returning territory is central for the adult Israeli Jewish public as well. The adult public similarly expresses uncertainty about the other side’s intentions, and sometimes doubts its sincerity and trustworthiness in settling for the return of the territories as a condition for ending the conflict. Evidently, then, the young people’s views have been considerably influenced by adult opinion, the media, the education system, and the family unit, and reflect a certain consensus in the society that ascribes great significance to the issue of the territories. There emerged, however, one outstanding difference between the youth and the adults, involving the attitude toward “Reality of Peace, namely, the young people’s ability to adjust to the changes dictated by reality. The adult Israeli Jewish public has lived the Jewish-Arab conflict for decades, experienced Israel’s wars in real time, and lost relatives or acquaintances; hence, the complexity of the conflict is deeply etched in its consciousness. For it, Arab is almost a synonym for enemy. The young people, however, born and grew up in the era of peace with Egypt and Jordan, once the greatest of Israel’s enemies, and of negotiations with some of the other Arab states including the Palestinians, are characterized by much less depth of memory and historical experience than the adult public. It appears that a negotiation process that yields real fruits could relatively easily alter their belief in real peace. The events that began in October 2000, and are continuing in full force at the time of writing, drove the young people’s opinions to greater extremes and made their feelings “more Zionist” and “more Jewish”. i.e. more patriotic. That is what emerges from the words of 90% of the interviewees. Most of them said one of their ways of coping with the feelings of threat and terror was to entrench themselves in relatively extreme positions on the Jewish-Arab issue. When peace comes, the removal of this issue from the public agenda will lead, in my assessment, to a very substantial change in how the young people relate to the nature and significance of the new era, and will make them more able to grasp the positive potential of real peace than the adult population is. In addition, this new situation could foster the growth of a new Israeli identity that does not need to grapple with such an existential issue, a more shared civic identity that is pluralistic and multicultural. From the social, legal-judicial standpoint, we saw that many studies Point to a weakening of the rule of law when violent incidents increase, as well as doubtful implementation of democracy in societies, that have experienced terror and political violence. In the interviews, the young people refer to the undermining of public order, the growth of violence as a means of problem solving, and the effect of the Jewish-Arab conflict on violence among the young generation. So it is assumed that an end to the conflict could bring about a real social change, change the hierarchy of national issues and the priorities of the young people.

RECOMMENDATIONS How and through what instruments can the elements involved in the structuring of the Israeli youth’s character be influenced? How will it be possible to lead a change that will positively effect the maturation process of adolescents in Israel, during a period of an ongoing violent struggle, assuming that the peace settlement is still far away? How may their belief be strengthened and what may prepare them for the long awaited change in a practical and realistic manner? When the picture that emerges is so harsh and the future awaiting the current generation of youths seems to spell out a social and national danger, it seems that in order to bring forth a change in the manner in which adolescents mature in Israel, there is a need for a comprehensive review of the entirety of shaping factors. Of course a radical change in the violent reality, like for example a peace process and the signing of peace agreements, would save a lot of the efforts required here. But as it is unlikely that such a change is approaching, it seems that there is a need to search for ways, through which it would be possible to make a difference even in the current harsh reality. The intention of this document is not to recommend methods that can and should be applied to education. Nor does it recommend the addition of tutoring hours for the fields of education for peace, democracy and the like. This is because the required change necessitates a process of reevaluation of the goals, on a constitutional level. An evaluation that would reconsider various aspects of the social – educational – cultural infrastructures, according to which the Israeli youth mature and the entire society is affected. Even if it is evident to all that the methods attempted so far for stopping the above mentioned negative trends did not lead towards a solution and that there is a need for a new method, completely different to the ones attempted so far, the link that will enable a new perspective of reality is still missing. It is not possible to simply get up one morning and make a drastic decision for a change that will be applied the very next day and will become imprinted in the hearts and minds of the masses. Therefore the need for a comprehensive and long - term step arises, a step that will prepare and lead society towards recognition of the necessity of the new way. One of the severe limitations of government parties in Israel and of politicians in general, is the desire to satisfy the voter’s immediate needs, a thing that leads to short – term sight and planning and to a lack of plans that contain a vision for many years to come. Leaders and parties do not easily alter their platforms. There is a difficulty in changing deeply engrained societal beliefs, shared by large portions of society, in light of the historical consequences, for better or worse, that may derive from these changes . The construction of a long lasting peace necessitates a “Super Governmental” process, a process that does not depend upon the wants of the ruling party, whichever one it may be, or upon those of some government or another, but rather expresses a will and an enlistment that cuts across the political – social – communal – religious sectors. This means that it would be difficult for the political leaderships of the conflicting societies to lead a long – term and innovative step that requires perceptual and historical changes. The public, that absolute majority of society, who have experienced the conflict and its destructive consequences in a concrete and daily manner, will usually have difficulties with making the necessary transformation from a life under threat and conflict to a life of peace and serenity without a higher direction or an organized process. Given that for many years, the citizen has been fed hate and fear towards the other side, it is difficult to expect that a process so contradictory to the conflict culture according to which he has been educated, will actually surmount and lead him towards change. Throughout the years and as part of the conflict culture, politicians make an extensive use of the conflicts and the threats it entails, in order to “reach” the public and gain their votes. The more the enemy is portrayed negatively and as an existential problem, the more violent and aggressive do the suggested tools and methods for solution become. Politicians tend to make use of the enemy and the conflict as part of rhetoric and as an instrument for scaring the public, and thus manage to sway the attention from internal existential problems that fall under their responsibility, which they are having difficulties solving. If that is the case, who in the society can lead such profound steps that only in the due course of time will change and reshape the national agenda? In societies facing violent conflicts, it is possible to clearly identify three central players that constitute the society: the senior leadership, politicians and public electives. The masses, the majority of the society, are usually the silent part of it. The numeric proportion of this component is of a reversed ratio with its involvement and influence over the decision making process and the public agenda . Between these two layers is the middle class layer, the middle range, the social elite that contains key characters of the society, from various fields: societal change organizations, private entrepreneurs, liberal professionals, academy, media, culture and art, as well as additional public opinion shapers. The middle range also usually expresses the civilian society and is partly associated in non-governmental organizations that operate to promote social – civil goals in independent frameworks. The centrality of this sector within the population is mainly characterized by its accessibility to the other two layers – the senior leadership and the masses. Thus the votes of the masses may be enlisted, through relation networks with local leaderships on the one hand, and the creation of pressure groups to influence politicians and decision - makers on the other . This is in fact the phenomenon labeled ‘Civilian Society’. Diplomats, sociologists and intellectuals tend to perceive the power of civilian society as the magical solution for the problems of modern society. The dramatic changes that have occurred during the end of the twentieth century constituted the primary cause for the reawakening of the world’s civilian society. The regime replacements in Eastern Europe, South America and Africa, have pushed towards democratization and a strengthening of the human – social element within the state . In addition, the decline of the social aspect in the states’ agenda has brought forth the creation of severe class differences among many world populations, as well as a diminishment in the socio – economic integration within states. In fact, the civilian society is a mediator between the state, the market and the family, a mediation that takes place via a network of social and civilian organizations. The network is woven from voluntary organizations, on various levels of association, who in light of their quantity and freedom of activity, are able to operate and influence In Israel civilian society has undergone three phases: the first one, since the founding of the state until the end of the 60’s, is an era that was characterized by a totally centralistic nature of the state as the society’s motivating element. The second phase, that started after the 67’ war and lasted until the mid 80’s, was characterized by an alteration of society’s elite array, a thing that led to attempts of challenging the authorities. The state, that did not know how to cope with the phenomenon, usually condemned it and outlawed various organizations. The period between the mid 80’s and the present day can be viewed as the third phase, it contains the road to good neighborly relations, between the state and the civilian society institutions. The fact of their acceptance by the state enabled the organizations’ multiplication and improved their ability to achieve societal goals. This process was translated into a profound societal force and into an accessibility and ability to influence the state’s decision makers . Approximately thirty thousand organizations currently operate in Israel without the initiative, funding or involvement of the state. Still, their large quantity did not create the desired leverage for change. This is partly due to the lack of a shared parent organization that will attempt to unify efforts and phrase mutual goals, thus constituting an enormous force. Although the civilian society in Israel does challenge the governmental system by raising many issues unto the public agenda, it is limited and confined by other reasons. The main reason is the security and national one that characterizes Israeli society, which is also derived from the reality of insecurity in which the state of Israel has existed since its founding. Most of the social organizations are characterized by a sectorial activity, one that provides for a specific part of the population, but seldom deals with comprehensive activity in general public spheres such as the quality of the environment, rights equality or the peace process . Lately, especially after the increase of international terrorism, in our region as well as throughout the globe, civilian society has been placed in a certain crisis. In Israel, following the al – Aqsa Intifada outburst and in light of severely violent events, the voice and action of civilian society grew weaker. Its activities were perceived as irrelevant to the state of security. Sometimes, the public blamed organization activists, for betraying the national interest and for weakening the state in the face of its enemies. In addition, the declining financial state of the state Israel brought a substantial decline in the budgets at the disposal of the organizations and as a result, to the state’s weakening in the social arena. As previously mentioned, the role of the middle range in leading a deep societal change is critical. Its forming the mediating and central link between the masses and the state is supposed, under the right conditions, to enable it to lead steps towards a societal change. The required change regarding the Israeli Arab conflict also creates a central place for civilian society to act and influence. The main weaknesses of civilian society are, as previously mentioned, its lack of being associated-unified under a parent organization, that first and foremost will enhance its voice and expression on the civilian level while facing the state. Its sectorial activity, towards specific crowds in the society, also forms a problematic element that prevents the existence of a unified public voice. In order to enable this, it seems that a need exists for several preliminary processes. For our purposes, in order to leverage the influence of the organizations acting for the solution of conflicts, peace and coexistence, the need exists for their unification as well as the phrasing of mutual goals and methods. The role of these organizations does not usually gain much appreciation, but a study performed in 1999 in three conflict regions, has examined the influence of civilian organizations over these populations and has revealed findings which are very flattering to this type of activity. This study does point out the difficulties in isolating the elements that affect the treated population, but within the three examined conflicts, a large amount of influence and contribution has been identified with the organizations’ activity, in diminishing the conflict and in leading towards a perceptual change in regard to the peace and the enemy. In South Africa, Northern Ireland and Israel/ Palestinian Authority, the influence of civilian peace organizations has been found to be great and positive. Their contribution has been in the slow and process natured change of the manner in which the enemy is perceived. They have managed to insert into the term vocabulary of the above - mentioned societies, terms like conflict management and solution, mutual trust and an ability to believe in the public’s possibility to influence the course of the conflict. In the Israeli – Palestinian conflict, the organization activists managed to create legitimacy for conducting talks with the P.L.O. They offered different solutions, alternatives to so well known military methods that have usually failed. They raised the possibility of founding a Palestinian state alongside Israel, to the level of principle awareness . These achievements are critical in order to enable the next stage, the commencement of a diplomatic step that would have to be authorized one way or the other, by the ballot voters. These are in fact the main obstacles existing today in front of the society in general and the youth in particular, before moving on to an approach that is not a combat – survival – existential one. As soon as the youth accept the notion that my counterpart for a future peace is naturally my present enemy, it would be possible to proceed in a process of mutual recognition and acceptance between the sides, even prior to the necessity to agree or to compromise. The deeply engrained demonisation is what prevents the youth from seeing in their mind’s eye, the Arab as a counterpart in a conversation. An additional common perception we have seen among the youths, was the “Zero Sum Game”, which principally means that the more I gain, the more the other side loses, and vise versa. Therefore the main goal emerging from the adolescent’s responses was that in order for me to give something (the territories), I must receive something in return (other territories?). This aggressive, non-compromising approach leads the opposite side, in most cases, to do the same, which immediately results in a dead end. Therefore, a systematic teaching, as part of a wide educational agenda, of approaches and methods for conflict management and solution, will lead in the not so long run to the ability to understand that my victory will only be complete, when my negotiation partner feels satisfied, and vise versa. It is impossible to reach a solution for the conflict by forcing the will of one side upon the other. In this manner the solution will only be a temporary one and will only last until the first change in the power balance or in other conditions of the arena . These processes of legitimizing a dialog with the enemy, of developing mutual trust and a faith in the ability of different methods to settle the conflict may, in my opinion, only take place within the civilian sector, the one not immediately dependent upon short term political pressures and coercions. How can such comprehensive steps be applied among such a large public? The methods and channels through which to act in order to achieve such a deep perceptual change, must be diverse and thorough. We have seen earlier that the central elements in shaping political stances among adolescents are education, the family and the media. Therefore, these channels should become the bodies that deliver the change. The Education. It would have been better of course, if the educational system saw the need for education towards peace as a central part of its duties. And as such, responsible for the shaping of civilian perceptions, adjusted for the changing reality. Peace is not here yet, but in order to bestow perceptual changes, engrained in the society, there is a need for a long process that would prepare the hearts and transmit to the younger generations the faith in peace as a preferred path and as a super-intended goal. Education is undoubtedly the most important instrument for shaping a society. People spend their early tears within educational facilities and acquire knowledge, but also and maybe mostly, values. Therefore, the educational systems can form flagships for change. But how can one affect the educational systems’ agenda, when the latter is the result of the official government policy? Here again the role of the middle range, with its non-formal organizations, becomes acute. The more alternative enrichment activities will take place, for exposing the youths to additional contents and values, the more their ability and willingness to become a part of the change and to lead it towards the future will grow. In order to achieve a true change within a reasonable period of time, informal education is but one channel. An additional layer that requires a reexamination are the subjects studied in the fields of history, biblical studies, literature and geography . These fields, whose contents were determined during the critical stages of the state’s construction, have emphasized and engrained values and myths, whose main purpose has been to create a generation of homeland loving “Sabras”(native born Israelis), willing to enlist for the young state. These contents have abused reality more than once, adjusting history to the needs of the state, by creating myths that did not always concur with reality, while portraying the Arab in a very negative and hostile manner. These elements, whose place and correctness is debatable, are much less relevant these days. The existence of the state of Israel is no longer endangered, certainly not in the manner politicians tend to make use of this argument as part of their everyday rhetoric. In order bequeath a change in these trends, work must be conducted not only in the face of pupils, but also in the face of those who lead and apply the educational policy – school headmasters, counselors, teachers and educators, academy members and researchers. This senior sector has also been educated upon the militant ideology and so in order to lead a change, it must become a part of it. Much criticism rose from the pupils, regarding the influence of the high school over their coping with the conflict and with the chance for changing the situation. An additional claim that rose from pupils of the higher classes, was that most of the activities revolve around study matters and not around value bestowing. Here also a reassessment of the priorities and allocation of resources is required, according to their relevance and suitability for the changing goals. Strengthening the status of the educator will also form an added value to the success of his role, this can be done by making a more substantial investment in his training, by raising the profession’s standards and by rewarding excellence and professionalism among this important profession. This kind of change can greatly influence the manner in which the teacher is perceived and appreciated by the pupil, a thing that will increase the school’s effect in shaping the youth. Beside all of these, if the Ministry of Education will define Education for Peace as a national interest and will make this field into a profession mandatory for every school to convey, the entire system would be able to participate and lead a national, constitutional, genuine and deep process that by efforts combined with civilian initiatives, may in the foreseeable future create a reality better than the current one. Israel is “blessed” by a sense of mass public enlistment for national – security causes. It would be positive if the same faith and enlistment for the cause, would be also harnessed towards a civilian educational cause of the first degree. At the first stage of this mission, it would be important to found a wide civilian forum, that will clarify and select the mission and values to which to aspire. The forum will contain and will reflect the society and all its layers, but will still pertain a non-political nature, uninhibited and unbothered by various ideologies. The aspiration for peace and the desire towards it are not the sole heritage of one political side, any more than it is of the other. When these goals are defined it would be possible to train the “News Bearers”, headmasters, counselors, educators and everybody dealing with the work of education. The effectiveness of this step will be reflected in the abilities to reach all of society’s components, without sectioning off one sector or another. As previously mentioned, among the elements that shape adolescent stances and influence their coping with the damages of the conflict, were, in addition to the educational system, the home and the media. The home is usually supposed to provide the child with the highest sense of security. This is the place to which he belongs, there live his parents and brothers/ sisters – those closest to him. All of these create among the youths the sense and belief that at home they cannot come to harm, when this basic assumption is undermined, the negative consequences are harsh and of a long term. The child’s coping with political violence is tens of percents better in cases where the parent manages to experience the situation with him, succeeds in acting like an adult, assumes responsibility and is able to convey to the child feelings of security and a certain control over the situation. Parenting is a professional that is not studied anywhere and is sometimes acquired through many trials and errors. Guidance and professional escorting of the parents by professional institutions and social organizations, will enable the existence of these conditions among as many households as possible. As we have seen earlier, there are many areas as in which a failure of the parent may leave the child with a long-term trauma. Therefore, in light of the Israeli society’s being a society that lives in the shadow of an ongoing violent conflict, it should maintain an organizational-budgetary infrastructure for strengthening the mental soundness of its citizens and particularly the youths among them, as part of the security and constitutional mechanisms. Still, the role of the home, as part of clarifying the broad reality to the adolescent, is to explain the existing situation but also to present possible scenarios for coping with it. This will enable the child to believe that the reality in which he lives is not a given fact but rather, is even changeable. The existence of a positive and optimistic horizon may enable the child to hope for a better future instead of blindly coming to terms with the violent reality. The Media. In the utterly technological era we live in, the youth become a devout consumer of various media kinds and channels. Alongside this fact, the judgment skills at a young age are not the highest possible, a thing that sometimes causes the youth to consume and accept information in an indiscriminate manner and without doubting its reliability and objectivity. Here, as part of a broader role of civilian society, the media, who at times of conflict finds it difficult to distinguish truth and fact from propaganda and utilitarian speaking, should be challenged. There is a need for a call to the media in general and to the news suppliers in particular, in order for them to reassess the role and commitment of the media in a democratic regime. The media can channel its power and influence towards directions from which benefit would be made in the long run. Such as stringency towards a critical fighting media, who views the good of the citizen and the society as part of its duties and goals. A media is not tested in the short run and is not only tested by its rating levels.

EPILOGUE When the level of violence and terror will decline, the strength and status of democracy will grow, the value that young people assign to human life will rise, and the use of violence will decrease. Youth will also assign greater value to the law and its importance. It appears that the great tension, the hostility and alienation that emerged between young people with different political views will dissipate, to be replaced by a broader common denominator and the forging of common goals and cooperation on social, civic, and cultural issues. The diminution of tension and fear among the public in general and youth in particular will enable greater openness and dialogue that is more tolerant. Different sectors among youth that had been ideologically differentiated from each other, and related to each other with scorn and arrogance, will become more tolerant and draw closer. The young people will be able to get involved with things that young people throughout the world are involved with: culture and recreation, planning a higher education and a career, as well as social and environmental issues. Overall, the opinions and perspectives indicate that in the young people’s eyes, peace is first and foremost the cessation of a sense of fear. Fear has succeeded in paralyzing any possibility of vision and optimistic thought about the future, and almost every sentence that begins positively ends in reservations and lack of confidence.

NOTES Sarah Ozacky-Lazar & A.Ghanem, Between Two Octobers, The Institute for Peace Research, Givat Haviva, Israel 2001.pp 6-7 Ibid, Ibid. Ibid, Ibid. Bar Tal, D. The Rocky Road toward Peace, Hebrew University Press, 1996, pp 33-35. Firer ,R. Agents of the Zionist Education. Ha’ kibutz Ha’meuhad, Tel Aviv,1985. pp 31-36. (Hebrew) Bar Gal, Y. Hundred Years of Zionist Education ,Am Oved Press, Tel Aviv, 1993. Ibid, p 189. Bar Tal, p 37. Ibid, p 14. R. C. Figley, “War-Related Stress and Family Centered Intervention: American Children and the Gulf War,” in L. Leavitt and N. Fox, eds., The Psychological Effects of War and Violence on Children Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1993, 334-360. R. Pynoos and K. Nadder, The Children of Kuwait after the Gulf Crisis, Washington D.C.: American Psychiatric Press, 1994, pp. 12-14. E. Cairns, Children and Political Violence (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), 51-93. R. P. Gillepie [*Gillespie?], Psychological Effect of War on Citizen [*Citizens?] and Soldiers (London: Chapman & Hall, 1994). Gillepie ,Psychological Effect. Cairns, Children and Political Violence. J. Swarzwald, “Stress Reactions of School-Age Children to Bombardment by Missiles,” Psychology Bulletin 102 (1995): 404-410. A. Ziv and R. Israel, “Effects of Bombardment on the Manifest Anxiety Level of Children Living in Kibbutzim,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 40 (1973): 287-291. Ibid. Gillepie Psychological Effect. A. Klingman, A. Sagi, and A. Raviv, “The Effect of War on Israeli Children,” in L. A. Leavitt and N. A. Fox, eds., Psychological Effects of War and Violence on Children (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1993). ] A. Maizer, “Child Psychiatric Sequelae of Maternal War Stress,” Acta-Psychiatria-Scandinavia 72 (1985): 505-511. N. Climenty and A. Khalifeh, “Children’s Reaction to War Related Stress,” International Journal of Mental Health (1992): 4, 21, 72-86. R. Panamoki, Childhood under Conflict (Cambridge: Temper Peace Research Institute, 1998), 51-55. A. Ziv, “Children’s Psychological Reactions to Wartime Stress,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30 (1993): 24-30. Ibid. A. Rutman and E. Brower, “War Themes in Children's Stories,” Journal of Psychology 25 (1951): 191-202. A. [A.?--ayin in original] *Maizels and R. Gal, Hatred of Arabs among Jewish Students (Tel Aviv: Israeli Institute of Military Studies, 1988), 1-10. (Hebrew) R. Pasternak and S. Tzidkiahu, New Era or Losing the Way? (Tel Aviv: Tali, 1995), 213-246. (Hebrew) ] Ziv, “Children's Psychological Reactions. ” Ibid; Rutman and Brower, “War Themes. ” A. Mahjoub, “War Stress and Coping Modes: Representation of Self Identity and Time Perspective among Palestinian Children, ” International Journal of Mental Health 18 (1992): 44-60. S.Kornitzer. Published in “haaretz” daily newspaper, october16,2002.Israel. prof. Kornitzer is a clinical psychologist and the head of the Israeli union for psychotherapy. Atar, b. published in “haaretz” daily newspaper, November 25, 2002,Israel. Rotem, t. published in “haaretz” daily newspaper, September 17, 2002,Israel. Nitzan .o, . Published in “haaretz” daily newspaper, December 2, 2002,Israel. Bar tal,d.the rocky road toward peace, Hebrew university press,1996,pp 17-19. J. Lederach, Building Peace – Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies, (United States Institute of Peace Press, Washington D.C., 1997), pp. 73-86. Ibid, Ibid. Israel’s civil society, H. Catz,”the morning after” the Hebrew University, carmel press,Jerusalem,2002. pp323-326. Ibid, Ibid. American Civil Society, j.Cohen, in” civil society, democracy and civic renewal, new york, rowman &littlefield,1999, pp.55-80. The Israeli society, between a state and a society., the Hebrew University, Jerusalem,1998. ,The nature of Israeli society , B,Gidron, H, Catz,M,Bar, Ben Guryon University,2001, pp40-79. “Peace and conflict resolution organizations in three protracted conflicts”: B. Gidron, structure, resources and ideology, voluntas 10, 1999,pp 275-298. Ibid, Ibid. “learning to live together in the middle east, G, Diallo, ed. Copenhagen, 1998,pp 41-46. “The rocky road for peace”, Ibid.

Last Update: