Even now, in the midst of the current dreadful escalation in Israel-Palestine, there is an opportunity to change the trajectory of events and put the region on a path toward peace. To realize this opportunity, advocates of Palestinian-Israeli peace must make a strategic investment in engaging with the mass media in the region. Supporters of peace, both local civil society actors and international partners, need to make a sustained effort to promote conflict resolution by shifting the public discourse of traditional and new media outlets, especially in Israel. It will not be easy, but with the right approach and backing, concentrated efforts to impact the public discourse could yield results that contribute significantly to the likelihood of peace.
The public discourse arena
When people talk about peacemaking and peacebuilding in the context of the intractable conflict in Israel-Palestine, they are usually referring to two arenas. The first is the “top-down” arena that involves mobilizing world leaders, regional actors, global stakeholders, and prominent figures to advance the resolution of the conflict. The professionals in this arena are politicians, diplomats, think-tank experts, acclaimed academics, and others with international and regional clout trying to find ways to change the situation from the top down. Formal, less formal, and informal negotiation attempts fall into this category, as do policymaking efforts that seek to tempt or coerce the parties into a peace process.
The second is the civil society arena, which strives to change policies and the hearts and minds of individuals from the “bottom up.” The professionals in this field are grassroots leaders, activists, community organizers, group facilitators, educators, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working on the ground. They establish dialogue groups, coordinate people-to-people encounters, develop and implement educational programs, and offer policy recommendations to lay the groundwork for peace and conciliation. Though worthy in their own right, the impact of civil society programs on advancing Palestinian-Israeli peace has been, so far, marginal. Looking at the trajectory of the conflict over the last 30 years, it seems that the top-down approach has been equally ineffective.
Both top-down and bottom-up efforts are essential to advance Israeli-Palestinian peace. However, proponents of peace often overlook what, I propose, is the most critical arena of influence, at least in our era of media hyper-consumption. This is the arena of mass media and popular culture, where public discourse and, thus, public opinion are shaped every moment, where traditional media (TV, radio, press) and new media (social media) generate the discourse that forges how people think and feel. The professionals in this field are content-makers, marketers, advertisers, communication specialists, campaigners, journalists, podcasters, influencers, and other celebrities who often indirectly shape the prism through which people interpret reality.
The peacebuilding and peacemaking fields have not abandoned this arena; they never seriously engaged with it, thus leaving it to be shaped by fundamentalists on both sides. Currently, the Israeli public discourse is dominated by opponents of peace and conciliation. Consequently, the terminologies, framings, commentaries, interpretations, and rhetoric disseminated in traditional and new communication channels are saturated with worldviews promoting hatred and distrust. This toxic discourse provides the needed widespread public support to intensify violence and aggression toward the other side.
It is true, of course, that public discourse is also affected by reality and that the bloody atrocities committed by both sides in the last year naturally create great animosity and distrust that are then reflected in the media. However, it also works the other way around. Explicit and implicit dissemination of ultranationalist and ethnocentric worldviews, when repeated again and again, become cemented in peoples’ hearts and minds. When these worldviews become the common sentiment, governments have their constituent’s full backing to raise the stakes and the levels of hostilities.
My claim is simple. To create a real chance for conflict resolution in the region, there has to be a strategic investment in influencing public discourse. In other words, a deliberate effort must be made to engage with mass media. Generally speaking, this engagement should be done in two steps. The first is infusing the media with items (reports, commentary, in-depth pieces, posts, blogs, vlogs, etc.) on top-down and bottom-up work promoting peace. If done correctly, this step will create a breach in the current discourse, which is dominated by ethnocentric propaganda.
Of course, items about conflict resolution and conciliation will be, at first, naturally rejected. However, there are many creative ways to generate content that captures the media’s attention. To do that, professionals in the peacemaking and peacebuilding field must be educated on communication strategies, content creation, media appearance, effective spokesmanship, impactful campaigning, and other media-related skills that could help them generate interest and make a difference.
The second is to invest in building infrastructures and cohorts of professionals (e.g., content-makers, marketers, advertisers, communication specialists, journalists, popular artists and actors, and other influencers) who will create new platforms and content and, with them, an effective presence of peace-supporting discourse in the media. The main aim of this step is to establish a new arena that will work in parallel with the top-down and bottom-up arenas. The content of these platforms need not only be centered on peace but should, for many reasons, also promote topics like democracy, equality, women’s rights, and pluralism. When infused into the public discourse, these related topics reinforce one another to create a deeper and broader shift in public sentiment.
With proper investment and professional help, proponents of peace could begin shaping the public discourse toward a discussion more conducive to conflict resolution. More specifically, international organizations and funding agencies that seek to advance peace in the region should consider supporting projects and initiatives that engage with the local mass media. It is important to note, however, that the power disparities between Palestinians and Israelis, as well as other differences between the societies, necessitate different approaches when it comes to shifting public discourse. I will here focus on one aspect pertinent to Israeli society (though insights could also be relevant to Palestinians).
Infusing peace-supporting content into the public discourse in Israel
Peace was once a cherished ideal among most Israelis, a goal worth striving for despite the obstacles. However, in the last two decades, the perceived value of “peace” has significantly diminished among Israelis. One reason is that until Oct. 7, 2023, Israelis were living in relative security. The low immediate price they had to pay for the continuation of the conflict simply made peace with the Palestinians a non-issue. Another reason is that Israeli hardliners made deliberate efforts to remove peace and conciliation from the national discourse. Indeed, for nearly two decades, there has been a noticeable absence of any positive portrayal of Israeli-Palestinian peace in Israeli media and popular culture.
The responsibility of ensuring peace remains a topic worthy of discussion lies in the hands of its proponents. However, it seems that even peace advocates do not speak about it in compelling and inspiring ways. For instance, the various peace models (e.g., the two-state solution) are typically articulated in dry policy or technical terms and thus have little appeal to the public. This dry tone leaves the media indifferent and people uninspired, making advocating for peace even more difficult. In the wake of Oct. 7, natural skepticism also needs to be addressed, and existing models must be updated.
Yet for any progress toward conflict resolution to occur, it is crucial to paint an inspiring picture of what peace could look like. This description should transcend specific policies or configurations and go beyond technical topics like borders, security measures, or international guarantees. It should be centered, instead, on the fruits of peace and the benefits it will bring the people of the region when it finally comes about.
Moreover, if international and grassroots leadership (or other stakeholders) seek to advocate for peace effectively, they must use simple and compelling language, framing, and imagery to portray its positive outcomes. This is not an easy task, yet one of the first steps that advocates of Palestinian-Israeli peace could take to engage with the public discourse is to learn how to describe the fruits of peace in simple and inspiring ways.
An opportunity for change
Still, one question that may arise is the matter of timing. When would be the best time for supporters of peace to start engaging with the public through mass media in a concerted way? After all, from Gaza to Lebanon, the region is currently in a state of war. The horrific atrocities committed by Hamas on Oct. 7 and the gruesome Israeli retaliation that followed are dominating the public discourse. Intergroup animosity is on the rise, and hate speech is ubiquitous. Maybe it would be better to wait till the flames go out?
Due to its character, scope, and bloodiness, this war is like no other in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As such, it can shift existing paradigms, including the conflict management paradigm endorsed by the Israeli public. For over a decade, Israel’s dominant approach to its relationship with the Palestinians was one of conflict management, predicated on the central premise that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is irresolvable and will likely continue forever. It is, therefore, better to minimize its cost for Israel, the thinking goes, rather than seek to resolve it by peaceful means. This approach seemed to be working for Israel, which maintained its strength, paid a tolerable price for the conflict, and began to normalize its relations with the Arab world.
Taking conflict management one step further, right-wing governments over the last decade did what they could to ensure that a mutually acceptable resolution to the conflict (and, with it, a territorial compromise) would never happen. One way to limit the chances for peace was to weaken moderate Palestinian views while maintaining a steady “cat and mouse” game with militant Palestinian factions like Hamas. Hamas was (and still is) an asset for the Israeli hardline leadership, who could use it to enflame the conflict, reap domestic support, and provide proof that the idea of a mutually agreed upon solution to the conflict is impossible.
The flaws and contradictions of this approach were exposed on Oct. 7. Rather than managing the conflict, Israel is now managed by it. It is still hard to assess the impact of the current escalation on the conflict management approach. Yet even if the popularity of the conflict management paradigm declines, the question of what will replace it remains.
The first option is for ultranationalist hardline approaches to take over. In other words, if the conflict cannot be managed, it must be solved by eliminating the rival party. This could involve expelling Palestinians, minimizing their geographical spread, or limiting their economic resources even further. Several right-wing figures in Israel promoted similar ideas before Oct. 7. Perhaps now, these ideas will seem more appealing to a larger segment of the Israeli population.
The second option is for the conflict resolution approach to regain traction. After about two decades of unpopularity, Israelis might adopt the rationale that because the conflict cannot be managed, it must be peacefully resolved. This change will not happen on its own though. To ensure that the conflict resolution paradigm regains popularity, supporters of peace must begin to inject these ideas into the public discourse through mass media now.
Dr. Oded Adomi Leshem is a Political Psychologist and a Senior Researcher at the Psychology of Intergroup Conflict and Reconciliation Lab at the Hebrew University. Leshem is also the Director of the International Hub for Hope Research and the lead researcher of the Fruits of Future Peace Project.
Photo by MENAHEM KAHANA/AFP via Getty Images
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is an independent, non-partisan, non-for-profit, educational organization. It does not engage in advocacy and its scholars’ opinions are their own. MEI welcomes financial donations, but retains sole editorial control over its work and its publications reflect only the authors’ views. For a listing of MEI donors, please click here.
Even now, in the midst of the current dreadful escalation in Israel-Palestine, there is an opportunity to change the trajectory of events and put the region on a path toward peace. To realize this opportunity, advocates of Palestinian-Israeli peace must make a strategic investment in engaging with the mass media in the region. Supporters of peace, both local civil society actors and international partners, need to make a sustained effort to promote conflict resolution by shifting the public discourse of traditional and new media outlets, especially in Israel. It will not be easy, but with the right approach and backing, concentrated efforts to impact the public discourse could yield results that contribute significantly to the likelihood of peace.
The public discourse arena
When people talk about peacemaking and peacebuilding in the context of the intractable conflict in Israel-Palestine, they are usually referring to two arenas. The first is the “top-down” arena that involves mobilizing world leaders, regional actors, global stakeholders, and prominent figures to advance the resolution of the conflict. The professionals in this arena are politicians, diplomats, think-tank experts, acclaimed academics, and others with international and regional clout trying to find ways to change the situation from the top down. Formal, less formal, and informal negotiation attempts fall into this category, as do policymaking efforts that seek to tempt or coerce the parties into a peace process.
The second is the civil society arena, which strives to change policies and the hearts and minds of individuals from the “bottom up.” The professionals in this field are grassroots leaders, activists, community organizers, group facilitators, educators, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working on the ground. They establish dialogue groups, coordinate people-to-people encounters, develop and implement educational programs, and offer policy recommendations to lay the groundwork for peace and conciliation. Though worthy in their own right, the impact of civil society programs on advancing Palestinian-Israeli peace has been, so far, marginal. Looking at the trajectory of the conflict over the last 30 years, it seems that the top-down approach has been equally ineffective.
Both top-down and bottom-up efforts are essential to advance Israeli-Palestinian peace. However, proponents of peace often overlook what, I propose, is the most critical arena of influence, at least in our era of media hyper-consumption. This is the arena of mass media and popular culture, where public discourse and, thus, public opinion are shaped every moment, where traditional media (TV, radio, press) and new media (social media) generate the discourse that forges how people think and feel. The professionals in this field are content-makers, marketers, advertisers, communication specialists, campaigners, journalists, podcasters, influencers, and other celebrities who often indirectly shape the prism through which people interpret reality.
The peacebuilding and peacemaking fields have not abandoned this arena; they never seriously engaged with it, thus leaving it to be shaped by fundamentalists on both sides. Currently, the Israeli public discourse is dominated by opponents of peace and conciliation. Consequently, the terminologies, framings, commentaries, interpretations, and rhetoric disseminated in traditional and new communication channels are saturated with worldviews promoting hatred and distrust. This toxic discourse provides the needed widespread public support to intensify violence and aggression toward the other side.
It is true, of course, that public discourse is also affected by reality and that the bloody atrocities committed by both sides in the last year naturally create great animosity and distrust that are then reflected in the media. However, it also works the other way around. Explicit and implicit dissemination of ultranationalist and ethnocentric worldviews, when repeated again and again, become cemented in peoples’ hearts and minds. When these worldviews become the common sentiment, governments have their constituent’s full backing to raise the stakes and the levels of hostilities.
My claim is simple. To create a real chance for conflict resolution in the region, there has to be a strategic investment in influencing public discourse. In other words, a deliberate effort must be made to engage with mass media. Generally speaking, this engagement should be done in two steps. The first is infusing the media with items (reports, commentary, in-depth pieces, posts, blogs, vlogs, etc.) on top-down and bottom-up work promoting peace. If done correctly, this step will create a breach in the current discourse, which is dominated by ethnocentric propaganda.
Of course, items about conflict resolution and conciliation will be, at first, naturally rejected. However, there are many creative ways to generate content that captures the media’s attention. To do that, professionals in the peacemaking and peacebuilding field must be educated on communication strategies, content creation, media appearance, effective spokesmanship, impactful campaigning, and other media-related skills that could help them generate interest and make a difference.
The second is to invest in building infrastructures and cohorts of professionals (e.g., content-makers, marketers, advertisers, communication specialists, journalists, popular artists and actors, and other influencers) who will create new platforms and content and, with them, an effective presence of peace-supporting discourse in the media. The main aim of this step is to establish a new arena that will work in parallel with the top-down and bottom-up arenas. The content of these platforms need not only be centered on peace but should, for many reasons, also promote topics like democracy, equality, women’s rights, and pluralism. When infused into the public discourse, these related topics reinforce one another to create a deeper and broader shift in public sentiment.
With proper investment and professional help, proponents of peace could begin shaping the public discourse toward a discussion more conducive to conflict resolution. More specifically, international organizations and funding agencies that seek to advance peace in the region should consider supporting projects and initiatives that engage with the local mass media. It is important to note, however, that the power disparities between Palestinians and Israelis, as well as other differences between the societies, necessitate different approaches when it comes to shifting public discourse. I will here focus on one aspect pertinent to Israeli society (though insights could also be relevant to Palestinians).
Infusing peace-supporting content into the public discourse in Israel
Peace was once a cherished ideal among most Israelis, a goal worth striving for despite the obstacles. However, in the last two decades, the perceived value of “peace” has significantly diminished among Israelis. One reason is that until Oct. 7, 2023, Israelis were living in relative security. The low immediate price they had to pay for the continuation of the conflict simply made peace with the Palestinians a non-issue. Another reason is that Israeli hardliners made deliberate efforts to remove peace and conciliation from the national discourse. Indeed, for nearly two decades, there has been a noticeable absence of any positive portrayal of Israeli-Palestinian peace in Israeli media and popular culture.
The responsibility of ensuring peace remains a topic worthy of discussion lies in the hands of its proponents. However, it seems that even peace advocates do not speak about it in compelling and inspiring ways. For instance, the various peace models (e.g., the two-state solution) are typically articulated in dry policy or technical terms and thus have little appeal to the public. This dry tone leaves the media indifferent and people uninspired, making advocating for peace even more difficult. In the wake of Oct. 7, natural skepticism also needs to be addressed, and existing models must be updated.
Yet for any progress toward conflict resolution to occur, it is crucial to paint an inspiring picture of what peace could look like. This description should transcend specific policies or configurations and go beyond technical topics like borders, security measures, or international guarantees. It should be centered, instead, on the fruits of peace and the benefits it will bring the people of the region when it finally comes about.
Moreover, if international and grassroots leadership (or other stakeholders) seek to advocate for peace effectively, they must use simple and compelling language, framing, and imagery to portray its positive outcomes. This is not an easy task, yet one of the first steps that advocates of Palestinian-Israeli peace could take to engage with the public discourse is to learn how to describe the fruits of peace in simple and inspiring ways.
An opportunity for change
Still, one question that may arise is the matter of timing. When would be the best time for supporters of peace to start engaging with the public through mass media in a concerted way? After all, from Gaza to Lebanon, the region is currently in a state of war. The horrific atrocities committed by Hamas on Oct. 7 and the gruesome Israeli retaliation that followed are dominating the public discourse. Intergroup animosity is on the rise, and hate speech is ubiquitous. Maybe it would be better to wait till the flames go out?
Due to its character, scope, and bloodiness, this war is like no other in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As such, it can shift existing paradigms, including the conflict management paradigm endorsed by the Israeli public. For over a decade, Israel’s dominant approach to its relationship with the Palestinians was one of conflict management, predicated on the central premise that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is irresolvable and will likely continue forever. It is, therefore, better to minimize its cost for Israel, the thinking goes, rather than seek to resolve it by peaceful means. This approach seemed to be working for Israel, which maintained its strength, paid a tolerable price for the conflict, and began to normalize its relations with the Arab world.
Taking conflict management one step further, right-wing governments over the last decade did what they could to ensure that a mutually acceptable resolution to the conflict (and, with it, a territorial compromise) would never happen. One way to limit the chances for peace was to weaken moderate Palestinian views while maintaining a steady “cat and mouse” game with militant Palestinian factions like Hamas. Hamas was (and still is) an asset for the Israeli hardline leadership, who could use it to enflame the conflict, reap domestic support, and provide proof that the idea of a mutually agreed upon solution to the conflict is impossible.
The flaws and contradictions of this approach were exposed on Oct. 7. Rather than managing the conflict, Israel is now managed by it. It is still hard to assess the impact of the current escalation on the conflict management approach. Yet even if the popularity of the conflict management paradigm declines, the question of what will replace it remains.
The first option is for ultranationalist hardline approaches to take over. In other words, if the conflict cannot be managed, it must be solved by eliminating the rival party. This could involve expelling Palestinians, minimizing their geographical spread, or limiting their economic resources even further. Several right-wing figures in Israel promoted similar ideas before Oct. 7. Perhaps now, these ideas will seem more appealing to a larger segment of the Israeli population.
The second option is for the conflict resolution approach to regain traction. After about two decades of unpopularity, Israelis might adopt the rationale that because the conflict cannot be managed, it must be peacefully resolved. This change will not happen on its own though. To ensure that the conflict resolution paradigm regains popularity, supporters of peace must begin to inject these ideas into the public discourse through mass media now.
Dr. Oded Adomi Leshem is a Political Psychologist and a Senior Researcher at the Psychology of Intergroup Conflict and Reconciliation Lab at the Hebrew University. Leshem is also the Director of the International Hub for Hope Research and the lead researcher of the Fruits of Future Peace Project.
Photo by MENAHEM KAHANA/AFP via Getty Images
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is an independent, non-partisan, non-for-profit, educational organization. It does not engage in advocacy and its scholars’ opinions are their own. MEI welcomes financial donations, but retains sole editorial control over its work and its publications reflect only the authors’ views. For a listing of MEI donors, please click here.
