Abstract
Collective memory of an intractable conflict is an important determinant of the psychological and the behavioral dynamics of the parties involved. Typically biased, it de-legitimizes the rival and glorifies the in-group, thereby inhibiting peaceful resolution of the conflict and reconciliation of the parties. Therefore, the transformation of this memory into a less biased one is of great importance in advancing peace and reconciliation. This article introduces for the first time a tentative model of that transformation, describing the seven phases of the transformation process and the five categories of factors that influence it. Methodologically, this is done using a case study approach, based on the empirical findings regarding the Israeli official memory from 1949 to 2004 surrounding the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. This memory is represented by all of the publications produced during the 56-year research period of the Israeli army (IDF), the National Information Center, and the Ministry of Education. While until 1999 this inclusive memory was largely Zionist (i.e., all the Palestinian refugees left willingly in 1948), since 2000, it has become partially critical because the Ministry of Education has begun adopting the critical narrative (i.e., some left willingly while others were expelled).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Ethos of conflict is defined as a configuration of central societal beliefs that provide a particular dominant orientation to a society experiencing prolonged intractable conflict. These beliefs revolve around eight themes such as the importance of security, patriotism, unity of the society and peace as the ultimate desire. Collective emotional orientation refers to the characterizing tendency of a society to express particular emotions in conflict situations, for example fear, anger, or hatred. For both phenomena, see Bar-Tal (2007, 2013).
By “Israeli” memory or society it is meant the Israeli–Jewish memory or society.
Following Bruner, we conceive collective narratives as social constructions that coherently interrelate a sequence of historical and current events. They are accounts of a community’s collective experiences, embodied in its belief system, and represent the collective’s symbolically constructed shared identity—see Bruner (1990).
When the in-group initiated the conflict.
This missing framework—involving integration of the factors and the process—refers to all kinds of memories, including popular and official.
This last study deals with textbooks used in the educational system and not necessarily approved by the Ministry of Education. In contrast, the textbooks that are discussed here are only those approved by the Ministry—examined in the “Fixation and Change” study for the first time—and as such represent the Ministry’s official memory (these textbooks are intended for the secular–governmental system, the largest school system in Israel).
In addition, a recent public opinion study, which examines the Israeli–Jewish popular memory of 23 major events of the Israeli–Arab/Palestinian conflict, found that Israeli–Jews who hold a strong memory of the Holocaust are more inclined to hold a Zionist narrative of the 1948 exodus—and not a critical narrative of it (Nets-Zehngut and Bar-Tal, The Israeli Memory of the Israeli-Arab/Palestinian Conflict—Public Opinion Study [in preparation]).
For example, in the late 1950s, the scholar Ronny Gabbay was not able to search classified archival documents or to hear from 1948 war veterans he interviewed about expulsion of Palestinians in 1948. Moreover, in the early 1960s, scholar Akiva Orr was not able to get his critical manuscript accepted by any publisher (Nets-Zehngut 2011c).
Aside mainly from a setback due to the eruption of the first Palestinian uprising (Intifada) in 1987, and until the early 1990s—Sharvit and Bar-Tal (2005).
The book was published in 1988, and not in 1987, as is printed in it by mistake (Morris, “interview”).
Most of Morris’s five academic articles from the mid-1980s were also poorly disseminated. This was partly because they were written in English and were academic articles that were read only by members of the research community (Nets-Zehngut 2011c).
In 1949–1950 a controversy developed over the book “Sipur Hirbet Hiza” (in Hebrew: the Story of Hirbet Hiza), upon which the above mentioned film is based. This controversy, however, hardly dealt with the historical aspect of the exodus (whether expulsion took place). It dealt mostly with aspects such as damage to the Jewish soldiers’ honor by discussing the expulsions, and ignoring immoral conduct of Arabs/Palestinians in the 1948 battles: Shapira (2000).
For an analysis of the Lydda–Ramla expulsion as a major event in the memory sphere, and an analysis of the general characteristics of major events, memory wise, see Nets-Zehngut (2013a).
Authors’ interview with Haim Ofaz, Jerusalem, December 2006, p. 9 and 17. This was also the situation in the IDF—see Nets-Zehngut (2011c).
This article deals with approved textbooks of the national–secular division of the educational system, the main division in Israel.
The explanation below refers to three of the four Authors, those who were interviewed—the fourth passed away.
It should be mentioned, though, that the reason for the disqualification of this textbook was not related to the 1948 exodus. Livnat, and a committee appointed by her which examined the textbook, opposed the way it presented other events of the conflict, as well as the lives of the Jewish Diaspora, Nazism, etc.
Since the occurrences in Israel regarding the memory of the exodus were discussed above, in order to avoid repetition, relation will be made in the model mostly to these other supporting sources.
Though testimonies are often perceived by professional historians as suspicious and in need of further support.
The circumstances in Turkey, extreme until the 2000s, regarding the fate of the Armenians during WWI, exemplify the absence of such a conducive environment. For example, the international status of Turkey was bad (attacked by the assertion that a genocide was conducted against the Armenians) and internal political tolerance was low—see Akçam (2010) and Gocek (2008).
For example, more scholarly activity is currently being conducted in Turkey regarding the Armenians’ claim that Turks carried out a genocide in WWI. This includes, for instance, holding academic conferences and conducting studies. Until recently, such activity was very rare—see descriptions of such activity in Akçam (2010) and Gocek (2008). The circumstances in France, extremely prevalent until the 1990s, regarding the French torture of Algerians during their 1954–1962 War were similar. Academic scholarly and journalistic investigative activities regarding the torture issue were minimal, and in any case, highly influenced by self and external censorship—see Branche and House (2010) and Macmaster (2002).
Examples are critical products such as scholarly studies, newspaper articles, memoirs and films. These appeared during the last period in Turkey, and even more so in France, regarding the alleged wrongdoing in the past by the Turks and French. See descriptions of such products in Akçam (2010) and an example of such a product in Bardakci (2009) and Branche and House (2010). The same is true regarding similar products appearing in Japan, largely since the 1990s, dealing with its wrongdoings against the Chinese in their 1937–1945 war and against the Koreans between 1931 and 1945—see Er (2002), Hayashi (2008) and Takashi (2006).
An example of this phase is the way in which a 2009 critical book about the Armenians was received in Turkey (Bardakci 2009): the societal newspapers hardly discussed it and the national media—not at all. See Tavernise (2009). Similarly, the film “The Battle of Algiers” was banned for many years from screenings in France because it showed the French torturing Algerians—see Branche and House (2010). It should be noted, that the Dissemination phase can take place before, during or after the following Context phase. Some dissemination, though, is always required before the Contest phase can occur—a fact which leads to the current placement of the Dissemination phase in the process, prior to Contest.
Such an example is the French film “The Intimate Enemy” made and broadcasted in 2000 on a French public TV station, providing evidence from French war veterans of massive tortures conducted against the Algerians (Branche and House 2010).
An example of increased absorption took place in France regarding the Algerian torture issue—in 2001 French Prime Minister Lionel Josphin acknowledged the tortures and condemned them—see Hayashi (2008).
See support in the GRIT model for the impact of reciprocity in parties’ interactions, used by the American Senator George Mitchell in his negotiations between the rival parties in Northern Ireland—see Mitchell (2000). The reverse is also true: see, for example, nine projects conducted by Palestinian and Israeli scholars and educators since 2000 negotiating the historical narratives of their conflict (Nets-Zehngut 2013c).
See, for example, the difficulties Japan has had in changing the content of its official history textbooks that deal with its war with China (Nozaki 2008). See also the above comments on collective memory with regard to a factor that influences the memory (change in the party in power).
See above remarks on collective memory with regard to the factor “the extent of political tolerance and freedom of speech”.
For example, the Ubuntu culture of the blacks in South Africa views all people as equal, connected to and influencing each other, as well as belonging to the human race and therefore deserving of human treatment. Such a culture encourages an empathic attitude toward the rival, and thereby promotes memory transformation (see Tutu 1999; Stone et al. 1982).
See support in studies on change of attitudes and beliefs—Brinol and Petty (2005).
Institutions of the Legislative and the Judicial Branches are less meaningful in the transformation process, though they can still influence it. For example, they can block or facilitate the dissemination of information (e.g., the courts may rule classification or declassification of an archival document).
And see also above literature review of collective memory regarding the exposure of new information that promotes memory transformation.
See also above literature review about collective memory of conflicts regarding factor 6 (gap between the official memory and the autobiographical one).
For a review of these and other more minor impacts of the passing of time on the collective memory of conflicts see: Nets-Zehngut (2012). See also above literature review of collective memory regarding the generational turnover factor that influences memory transformation.
See support in the Pluralistic Theory in International Relations (Nicholson 2003).
Germany in post WWII is such a case, for example, regarding its efforts with France and the Czech Republic to acknowledge past evils and consolidate this acknowledgement in historians’ committees, history textbooks, etc. (see above references).
See also the above discussed Czech–German and French–German committees for historical narratives’ coordination. See also above literature review on collective memory regarding the “interest of the international community” factor.
That is, inclined to portray the various events of the conflict more accurately and less biased.
Similarly, Israeli–Jewish hawks are more inclined to object compromises required for peace agreements—see Bar-tal (2001).
References
Abdel Jawad, S. (2006). The Arab and Palestinian narratives of the 1948 War. In R. Rotberg (Ed.), Israeli and Palestinian narratives of conflict—history’s double helix (pp. 72–114). Indiana, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Akçam, T. (2010). Facing history: denial and the Turkish national security concept. In E. Ben-Ze'ev, R. Ginio, & J. Winter (Eds.), Shadows of war—a social history of silence in the twentieth century (pp. 275–287). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arel, N. (2006). “Bli Mora vebli Meso Panim”—Uri Avnery VeHaolam Haze [With no Fear nor Prejudice—Uri Avnery and Haolam Haze]. Jerusalem: Magnes (In Hebrew).
Auerbach, Y. (2009). The reconciliation pyramid—a narrative-based framework for analyzing identity conflicts. Political Psychology, 30(2), 291–318.
Bardakci, M. (2009). Talat Pasa'nin Evrak—I Metrukesi [The remaining documents of Talat Pasha]. Instanbul: Everest (In Turkish).
Barker, C. (2008). Cultural studies: theory and practice. Los Angeles: Sage.
Bar-On, M. (2004). Hama'avak al Zichronot Hamilchama’ [The struggle on the war's memories]. In A. Kadish (Ed.), Milhemet Ha'atsmaut Tashach-Tashat, Diyun Mechadash [The war of independence, 1948–1949, Revisited] (pp. 967–1003). Ramat Efal: Israel Galily Association, Ministry of Defense. In Hebrew.
Bar-Tal, D. (2001). Why does fear override hope in societies engulfed by intractable conflict, as it does in the Israeli society? Political Psychology, 22, 601–627.
Bar-Tal, D. (2007). Sociopsychological foundations of intractable conflicts. The American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1430–1453.
Bar-Tal, D. (2013). Intractable conflicts: socio-psychological foundations and dynamics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bar-Tal, D., & Teichman, Y. (2005). Stereotypes and prejudice in conflict—perspectives of Arabs in Israeli Jewish society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., & Freund, T. (1994). An anatomy of political beliefs: a study of their centrality, confidence, contents, and epistemic authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 849–872.
Bar-Zohar, M. (1977). Ben Gurion. Tel Aviv: Am Oved. (In Hebrew).
Ben-Josef Hirsch, M. (2007). From taboo to the negotiable: the Israeli new historians and the changing representation of the Palestinian refugee problem. Perspectives on Politics, 5, 241–258.
Ben-Ze'ev, E. (2010). Imposed silences and self-censorship: Palmach soldiers remember 1948. In E. BenZe'ev, R. Ginio, & J. Winter (Eds.), Shadows of war—a social history of silence in the twentieth century (pp. 181–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berger, S. (2005). A return to the national paradigm? National history writing in Germany, Italy, France, and Britain from 1945 to the present. The Journal of Modern History, 77, 629–678.
Booth, J. (1999). Communities of memories: on identity, memory, and debt. The American Political Science Review, 93(2), 249–263.
Booth, J. (2001). The unforgotten: memories of justice. The American Political Science Review, 95(4), 777–791.
Booth, J. (2009). Kashmir road: some reflections on memory and violence. Millennium—Journal of International Studies, 38, 361–377.
Boyd, C. (2008). The politics of history and memory in democratic Spain. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 617, 133–148.
Branche, R., & House, J. (2010). Silences on state violence during the Algerian war of independence: France and Algeria, 1962–2007. In E. Ben-Ze'ev, R. Ginio, & J. Winter (Eds.), Shadows of war—a social history of silence in the twentieth century (pp. 115–137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brandenberger, D. (2009). A new short course? A. V. Filippov and the Russian state’s search for a “Usable Past”. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 10, 825–833.
Brinol, P., & Petty, R. (2005). Individual differences in attitude change. In D. Albarracin, B. Johnson, M. Zanna, & M. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 565–616). New York: Psychology Press.
Bronstein, E. (2005). The Nakba in Hebrew: Israeli-Jewish Awareness of the Palestinian Catastrophe and Internal Refugees. In N. Massalha (Ed.), Catastrophe remembered—Palestine, Israel and the internal refugees (pp. 215–241). London: Zed Books.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cabha, M. (2010). Hafalestinim–Ham Bepzurato [The Palestinians—a nation in the diaspora]. Ra’anana: The Open University. In Hebrew.
Caplan, N. (2010). The Israel-Palestine conflict—contested histories. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Carmel, M. (1978). Paneya Hemeuvatim shel Milhemet Hashichrur’ [The Twisted Face of the War of Independence], Davar (In Hebrew)
Caspi, D., & Yehiel, L. (1999). The in/outsiders: the media in Israel. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Cialdini, R., & Goldstein, N. (2004). Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.
Cohen, S. (2010). Reversing the tide of Jewish history. In S. Cohen (Ed.), The New Citizen Armies: Israel’s armed forces in comparative perspective (pp. 56–73). New York: Routledge.
Coleman, P. (2006). Intractable conflicts. In M. Deutsch, P. Coleman, & E. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: theory and practice (pp. 533–560). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Connerton, P. (1989). How societies remember. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Crenzel, E. (2011). Between the voices of the state and the human rights movement: never again and the memories of the disappeared in Argentina. Journal of Social History, 44, 1064–1076.
Creswell, J. (2008). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Devine-Wright, P. (2003). A theoretical overview of memory and conflict. In E. Cairns & M. Roe (Eds.), The role of memory in ethnic conflict (pp. 9–33). New York: Palgrave, MacMillan.
Er, P. (2002). The apology issue: Japan’s differing approaches toward China and South Korea. American Asian Review, 20(3), 31–54.
Flapan, S. (1979). Zionism and the Palestinians. New York: Barnes & Noble Books.
Forsyth, D. (1992). An introduction to group dynamics (2nd ed.). Monterey, CA: Book/Cole.
Ghazi-Bouillon, A. (2009). Understanding the Middle East peace process—Israeli academia and the struggle for identity. London: Routledge.
Gocek, F. (2008). Through a glass darkly: consequences of a politicized past in contemporary Turkey. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 617, 88–106.
Halbwachs, M. (1950/1992). On collective memory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Halperin, E., & Bar-Tal, D. (2011). Socio-psychological barriers to peace making: an empirical examination within the Israeli Jewish Society. Journal of Peace Research, 48, 637–651.
Hayashi, H. (2008). Disputes in Japan over the Japanese Military “Comfort Women” System and its perception in history. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 617, 123–132.
Hayes, A. (2007). Exploring the forms of self-censorship: on the spiral of silence and the use of opinion expression avoidance strategies. The Journal of Communication, 57, 785–802.
Heisler, M. (2008). Challenged histories and collective self-concepts: politics in history, memory and time. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 617, 199–211.
Hilton, D., & Liu, J. (2008). Culture and inter-group relations: the role of social representations of history. In R. Sorrentino & S. Yamaguchi (Eds.), The handbook of motivation and cognition: the cultural context (pp. 343–368). New York: Guilford.
Hirsch, M. (1997). Family frames: photography, narrative and postmemory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kansteiner, W. (2002). Finding meaning in memory: methodological critique of collective memory studies. History and Theory, 41, 179–197.
Kantsler, S. (1984). Hasmolanut Bisrael—Intiligentsya Besvach Hanikur [The leftism in Israel—intelligence in the entanglement of alienation]. Tel Aviv: Harpaz (In Hebrew).
Kelman, H. (2004). Reconciliation as identity change: a social–psychological perspective. In Y. BarSiman-Tov (Ed.), From conflict resolution to reconciliation (pp. 111–124). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kidron, P. (2001). Truth whereby nations live. In E. Said & C. Hitchens (Eds.), Blaming the victims—spurious scholarship and the Palestinian question (pp. 85–96). New York: Verso.
Kopstein, J. (1997). The politics of national reconciliation: memory and institutions in German–Czech relations since 1989. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 3, 57–78.
Kriesberg, L. (1998). Coexistence and the reconciliation of communal conflicts. In E. Weiner (Ed.), The handbook of interethnic coexistence (pp. 182–198). New York: Continuum Publishing Company.
Labrecht, H. (1987). Hafalestinim—Avar Veove [The Palestinians—past and present]. Tel Aviv: University Publisher (In Hebrew).
Langenbacher, E. (2010). Collective memory as a factor in political culture and international relations. In E. Langenbacher & Y. Shain (Eds.), Power and the past—collective memory and international relations (pp. 13–49). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Liu, J., & Hilton, D. (2005). How the past weighs on the present: social representations of history and their role in identity politics. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 537–556.
Lustick, I. (2006). Negotiating truth: the holocaust, Lehavdil, and Al-Nakba. Journal of International Affairs, 60, 52–77.
Macmaster, N. (2002). The torture controversy (1998–2002): towards a ‘new history’ of the Algerian War. Modern and Contemporary France, 10, 449–459.
Meckel, C., Timm, U., Leupold, D., & Hahn, U. (2008). Generational conflict and masculinity. In A. Fuchs (Ed.), Phantoms of war in contemporary German literature, films and discourse—the politics of memory (pp. 20–44). New York: Palgrave.
Midelton, D., & Edwards, D. (1997). Collective remembering. London: Sage.
Mitchell, G. (2000). Making peace. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Morris, B. (1987). The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem 1947–1949. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nave, E., & Yogev, E. (2002). Historiot—Likrat Dialog him Haetmol [Histories—towards a dialogue with the past]. Tel Aviv: Bavel (In Hebrew).
Nets-Zehngut, R. (2008). The Israeli National Information Center and the collective memory of the Israeli-Arab conflict. The Middle East Journal, 62(4), 653–670.
Nets-Zehngut, R. (2011a). Palestinian autobiographical memory regarding the 1948 Palestinian Exodus. Political Psychology, 32(2), 271–295.
Nets-Zehngut, R. (2011b). Origins of the Palestinian refugee problem: changes in the historical memory of Israelis/Jews 1949–2004. Journal of Peace Research, 48(2), 235–248.
Nets-Zehngut, R. (2011c). Kibaon Veshinuy shel Hazikaron Haisraeli Harishmy shel Haexodus Hafalestiny be-1948 [Fixation and Change of the Israeli Official Memory regarding the Causes for the 1948 Palestinian exodus], 1949–2004. PhD dissertation, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. (In Hebrew).
Nets-Zehngut, R. (2012). The passing of time and the collective memory of conflicts. Peace and Change, 37(2), 253–285.
Nets-Zehngut, R. (2013a). Major events and the collective memory of conflicts. International Journal of Conflict Management, 24(3), 209–230.
Nets-Zehngut, R. (2013b). Israeli approved textbooks and the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Israel Studies, 18(3), 41–68.
Nets-Zehngut, R. (2013c). Palestinians and Israelis collaborate in addressing the historical narratives of their conflict. Quest: Issues in Contemporary Jewish History, 5, 232–252.
Nicholson, M. (2003). International relations. New York: New York University Press.
Novick, P. (2000). The holocaust in American life. New York: Mariner.
Nozaki, Y. (2008). War memory, nationalism and education in postwar Japan, 1945–2007: the Japanese history textbook controversy and Ienaga Saburo’s court challenges. London: Routledge.
Olick, J. (2007). The politics of regret: on collective memory and historical responsibility. New York: Routledge.
Olick, J., & Robbins, J. (1998). Social memory studies: from ‘collective memory’ to the historical sociology of mnemonic practices. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 105–140.
Paez, D., & Liu, J. (2011). Collective memory of conflicts. In D. Bar-Tal (Ed.), Intergroup conflicts and their resolution—a social psychological perspective. New York: Psychology Press.
Pail, M. (1979). Min “Ha'agana” Letsva Ha'agana [From the “Hagana” to the defense army]. Tel Aviv: Zmora, Bitan, Modan. In Hebrew.
Papadakis, Y., Peristianis, N., & Welz, G. (2006). Divided Cyprus: modernity, history, and an island in conflict. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Peffley, M., & Rohrschneider, R. (2003). Democratization and political tolerance in seventeen countries: a multiple-level model of democratic learning. Political Research Quarterly, 56(3), 243–257.
Podeh, E. (2002). The Arab-Israeli conflict in history textbooks (1948–2000). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Rabin, Y. (1979). Pinkas Sheirut [Service Notepad]. Tel Aviv: Ma'ariv (In Hebrew).
Rosoux, V. (2001). National identity in France and Germany: from mutual exclusion to negotiation. International Negotiation, 6, 175–198.
Ross, M. H. (1998). The cultural dynamics of ethnic conflict. In D. Jacquin-Berdal, A. Oros, & M. Verweij (Eds.), Culture in world politics (pp. 156–186). Houndmills: Macmillan.
Safran, N. (1978). Israel—the embattled ally. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
Sasser, A. (2004). ‘Narrativim Historiim, Plitim Vesofiyut Hasichsuch’ [Historical narratives, refugees and thetermination of the conflict]. In V. Yochy (Ed.), Mokdei Mashber—Hamizrach Hatichon [Crisis centers—the Middle East] (pp. 75–85). Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, The Moshe Dayan Center for Middle East and Africa Studies. In Hebrew.
Segev, T. (1986). 1949—the first Israelis. New York: Free Press.
Shalom, G. (2003). (Emet, Emet mul Emet—Mabat Shone Legamrey al Hasichsuch Haisraeli-Falestiny [Truth versus truth—a totally different perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict]. Tel Aviv: Gush Shalom.
Shapira, A. (2000). ‘Hirbet Hiza—Zikaron Veshichecha’ [Hirbet Hiza—Memory and Amnesia]. Alpaiim, 21, 9–53 (In Hebrew).
Shapira, A., & Allon, Y. (2004). Aviv Heldo [Yigal Allon—the spring of his life]. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hamehuchad (In Hebrew).
Sharvit, K., & Bar-Tal, D. (2005). Etos Hasicsooch Batikshoret Haisraelit Betekoofat Haimoot Ha'alim’ [The ethos of conflict in the Israeli media during the violent phase of the conflict]. In Y. Bar-Siman-Tov (Ed.), Hasicsooch Haisraeli-Falestini: Mita'alich Shalom Leimoot Halim [The Israeli-Palestinian conflict: from a peace process to violent clashes] (pp. 277–316). Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. In Hebrew.
Shelter, I. (2010). Historical memory as a foundation for peace: network formation and ethnic identity in North Mara Tanzania. Journal of Peace Research, 47, 649–650.
Southgate, B. (2005). What is history for? New York: Routledge.
Stone, R., Guttman, L., & Levy, S. (1982). Social change in Israel: attitudes and events, 1967–1979. New York: Praeger.
Takashi, Y. (2006). The making of the “rape of nanking”: history and memory in Japan, China and the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tevernise, S. (2009, March 2009). Nearly a million genocide victims, covered in a cloak of amnesia. The New York Times.
Tint, B. (2010). History, memory, and intractable conflict. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 27, 239–256.
Tokatly, O. (2000). Mediniyut Hatikshoret Beisrael [The media policy in Israel]. Tel Aviv: The Open University (In Hebrew).
Tutu, D. (1999). No future without forgiveness. New York: Doubleday.
Volkan, V. (1997). Bloodlines: from ethnic pride to ethnic terrorism. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Waldman, G. (2009). Violence and silence in dictatorial and postdictatorial chile: the noir genre as a restitution of the memory and history of the present. Latin American Perspectives, 36, 121–132.
Wertsch, J. (2002). Voices of collective remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. (2008a). A narrative organization of collective memory. Ethos, 36(1), 120–135.
Wertsch, J. (2008b). Blank spots in collective memory: a case study of Russia. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 617, 58–71.
Willis, R. (1965). France, Germany, and the New Europe, 1945–1963. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Winter, J. (2010). Thinking about silence. In E. Ben-Ze'ev, R. Ginio, & J. Winter (Eds.), Shadows of war—a social history of silence in the twentieth century (pp. 3–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Winter, J., & Sivan, E. (1999). Setting the framework. In J. Winter & E. Sivan (Eds.), War and remembrance in the twentieth century (pp. 6–39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wyer, R., & Albarracin, D. (2005). Belief formation organization and change: cognitive and motivational influences. In D. Albarracin, B. Johnson, & M. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 273–321). New York: Psychology Press.
Yadgar, Y. (2004). Hasipur Shelanu—Hanerativ Haleumi Baitonut Haisraelit [Our story—the national narrative in the Israeli newspapers]. Haifa: Haifa University and Pardes Publisher (In Hebrew).
Yuval-Davis, N., & Yuval-Davis, N. (1997). ‘Matspen—Irgun Socialisty Israeli’ [Mtspen—Israeli Socialist Organization]. In T. Hermann (Ed.), Tenuot Hevratiyot Vemechaha Politit in Israel [Social and political protest movements in Israel] (pp. 335–385). Tel viv: Open University. In Hebrew.
Zand, S. (2004). Hahistorin, Hazman Vehadimyon: Measkolat “Haanal” Vead Harotseach Hapost-Tsiyony [The historian, the time and the imagination: from the “Anal” School until the post-zionist murderer]. Tel Aviv: Am Oved.
Zerubavel, Y. (1995). Recovered roots: collective memory and the making of israeli national tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zheng, W. (2008). National humiliation, history education, and the politics of historical memory: patriotic education campaign in China. International Studies Quarterly, 52, 783–806.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the reviewers of this article and the editor of IJPCS for their valuable comments to earlier versions of the article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nets-Zehngut, R., Bar-Tal, D. Transformation of the Official Memory of Conflict: A Tentative Model and the Israeli Memory of the 1948 Palestinian Exodus. Int J Polit Cult Soc 27, 67–91 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-013-9147-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-013-9147-6