Facilitator, Mediator or Activist?

Fadi Shbeita
Acts Studies- Novisad University
September 2007

This paper focuses on a group of young Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel, of

which I use the term "conflict group" in order to differentiate this type of group from

others. Using this test case, the paper will address various approaches to facilitation and

their applicability to this kind of group. I shall argue that a specific method of facilitation

is the appropriate and correct one to use when working with a conflict group of the type

described here. The paper will describe the group and the model of facilitation as well the

conflict which arose in discussion; in addition, I will analyze the significance of the

facilitators' interventions in juxtaposition to various approaches to intervention.

Background of the test case

In the organization in which I work, "Sadaka-Reut – Arab-Jewish Youth Partnership",

every year a new group of volunteers aged 18-19 is chosen after finishing high school.

The volunteers live together in an apartment belonging to the movement and undergo

training and education activities related to social justice and the Israeli-Palestinian

conflict. This group of volunteers devotes its year to joint Arab-Jewish volunteer work.

The work is usually educational or community-based. The volunteers are chosen

according to criteria such as level of socio-political awareness, teamwork ability,

commitment to socio-political change etc.

All group members, Palestinian and Jewish, are Israeli citizens. The population of Israel

is 18% Palestinian, 78% Jewish and 4% other. This is an important background fact for

those seeking to understand the situation in terms of the participants' majority or minority

status and the connection between their opinions and conceptions and the power relations

in the society in which they live. There are eight participants, three of whom are

Palestinian and five Jewish. Two facilitators work with the group – one Jew, and one

Palestinian (myself). The participants' opinions and conceptions are left-wing, both in

terms of tolerance towards multiple identities in society and in economic terms, and they

have all come to volunteer in an Arab-Jewish organization for ideological reasons, among

others.

The test case under consideration is a two-day period which forms part of the group's

program of training and dialogue before they begin their year of volunteer work in the

organization.

Background, type of activity and type of facilitation

The test case under consideration is a two-day period out of a two-week program. This

program is a process combining dialogue and training. The goal of this dialogue, the

enablement of a personal face-to-face encounter, is an outcome of the belief that direct

encounter confronts the participants with external reality much more fully than would a

discussion within the national group only. The encounter is mostly composed of joint

work of the two groups, but also includes uni-national work, in which each group

deliberates separately. This combination is based on the assumption that uni-national

work is an important component that enables all participants and both groups to observe
and process the goings-on in the bi-national meetings within a uni-national framework,

while also providing space for contemplation of the internal social issues that the groups

prefer to deal with in a uni-national framework. The uni-national process also enables

participants to reflect on the differences and commonalities of the roles they choose to

play in the uni-national as opposed to the bi-national meeting and to think about their

aspirations as a group without the reactive dynamic that takes over in the other group's

presence. (Halabi R. 2004)

There are various approaches to the role of the facilitator. Obviously, the type of

intervention depends on the kind of group and its purpose, but the variation in

conceptions of the facilitator's role is often traceable to different world-views and socio-

political agendas. In Israel/Palestine it is possible to identify different conceptions of the

facilitator's role in a bi-national group working at the grassroots level. I argue that these

approaches are directly affected by the positions of decision-makers in the organization.

The approaches and work methods in the field known as "peace work" in this country are

not a matter of differing methodologies, but are derived first and foremost from the

organizers' socio-political vision. When the organizers aspire to maintain and improve the

current situation based on a conception of Israel as a Jewish state and a national home for

the Jewish people spread all over the world, the resulting approach is completely different

from that in an organization whose leaders aspire to the transformation of the area to a

commonly-owned one in which the injustices of the past are corrected and national

oppression is abolished.

The model of facilitation which we employ is based on the work of a duo of two

facilitators coming from the two national groups who both subscribe to the ideological
agenda upon which the work is based. This model represents an approach based on the

belief that the intervention of two insider-partial facilitators (J .P. Lederach, 1995) is the

appropriate method for an organization that grapples with national oppression from a firm

rooting in ideas and which encourages participants to be activists. This is the background

for our choice of a method of facilitation combining dynamic facilitation with

empowerment and Freirian critical education (Freire, P,1970) .

This approach links to that of James Laue & Gerald Cormick, based on principle of social

justice, who believe that “playing the role of a mediator, when empowerment is needed,

would be unethical". (J Laue, G Cormick, 1978).

In dynamic facilitation, the facilitator's role is that of the mirror, reflecting the goings-on

in the group, as well as the power relations outside it, to the participants. This reflection

enables the participants belonging to the dominant or ruling group to see the national

oppression and the privileges accruing to individuals based on their membership in, or

ascription to, the oppressing majority. The assumption is that this kind of encounter will

encourage these participants to take responsibility for dismantling oppression and

rectifying the injustices it causes. The activity of reflection helps the oppressed group (the

Palestinians in this case) to see the reality in which it is dominated by the stronger group,

to achieve moral force, and to confront this oppression within the encounter. The

assumption is that this confrontation assists in the development of tools for future

confrontation of oppression, outside the limits of the group.

Critical education adds an important dimension to the reflection which serves as the main

tool of dynamic facilitation. This process involves a dialogue between facilitator and

group: the educator is expected to bring knowledge, conceptions, triggers etc. to the
group's work, in order to deepen the level of understanding of reality. In our case, when

concentrating on the dismantling of national oppression the educator's role is to bring

subject matter, knowledge and materials which may help the group to understand the

social and governmental mechanisms which reproduce oppression, such as the ILA1,

ethnically based discriminating laws2, discriminatory budgets3, etc…

Here the facilitator is a partner in the dialogue, not just an indicator and reflector.

The combination of these two approaches (dynamic facilitation and critical education) is

complex. The facilitator must combine the introduction of content and direction with

maintenance of the ability to assume the role of a reflecting facilitator, and balance both

of these with the procedural and emotional level of the group.

Our model of dual facilitation attempts to create an egalitarian environment different

from the outside environment. This is an environment where it is legitimate to speak

either language, while on the outside Arabs know both languages and Jews don't know

Arabic. The numerical proportions in the group are almost equal, in opposition to

external reality, as well as other elements which have been investigated here over the

years.

Description and analysis of the conflict in the group

As part of the training program introducing the participants to the year of volunteer work

we planned a two-week seminar. I led this seminar as the Palestinian facilitator alongside

a Jewish staff member. The program began with acquaintance and group-building before

proceeding to an analysis of (in)equality of opportunity in society and from there to our

1
See http://www.mmi.gov.il/Envelope/indexeng.asp?page=/static/eng/f_general.html
2
See http://www.mossawacenter.org/default.php?lng=3&pg=1&dp=2&fl=2
3
See http://www.mossawacenter.org/default.php?lng=3&pg=2&dp=2&fl=2
identity as staff in an Arab-Jewish organization dealing with the conflict. After the phase

of acquaintance and group-building, the group moved on to talk about different groups in

society, each group's social status, which groups are considered "better" than others,

people's background and the connection between it and their ability to get ahead in

society etc. This discussion raised understandings of a critical nature, making the

distinction between groups that are socially and economically weaker and strong groups

monopolizing power and using it to maintain their status.

The next phase, upon which I will focus in this paper, took two days. It began with a task

which each group received from its facilitators. The group was divided into the two uni-

national groups, and each group was asked to answer the same questions: what groups

exist in my society? What is the relationship between these groups? What would I like to

change in my society? This mapping was planned as the basis for designing a form of

intervention.

After each group finished its uni-national work, both groups were asked to present their

results. The Jewish group presented a map of the groups in Israeli society. A large

number of sub-groups were presented, including Mizrahim and Ashkenazim (Jews of

Middle Eastern and European origin respectively), recent immigrants from Ethiopia and

Russia, religious and secular people, rich and poor, students, disabled people, old people,

Arabs, Muslims, Christians, Bedouins, Druze, etc.

The Palestinian group chose to define the society to which it belongs as the Palestinian

Arab society. Its map reflected the groups within Palestinian society. The Palestinian

group presented after the Jewish group, but it was quickly truncated by a conflictive

argument.
The Jewish group was bewildered and disappointed by the Palestinian group's choice to

talk about Palestinian society, thus excluding the Jews, as opposed to its own choice to

define the subject matter as "Israeli society", including Arabs. The Palestinian

participants explained its lack of desire to be included in a so-called "Israeli society" it

does not feel part of. "The symbols of this state do not represent me, its anthem does not

represent me, the state is defined as Jewish and I cannot be part of this society", said a

Palestinian participant.

On the second day, after a conflict which divided the group clearly into two national

groups, we asked the participants to process and reflect on the conflict. Why did each

group choose differently? Is there a connection between this and our national identity?

Did we understand correctly what the other group was referring to? On this day, part of

the activity went on in uni-national groups and part in the bi-national group. The uni-

national work was focused on conceptualizing what the group would like to express,

processing what it felt in the bi-national discussing, and thinking about the connection

between what is happening in the group and the world outside. At this point we, as

facilitators, took a role combining participation in the discussion and introduction of the

discourses and approaches that exist on the outside and pertain to the subjects of

discussions. As facilitators we took on a role of knowledge suppliers and even sometimes

expressed and explained our opinions about these approaches. The members of the

Palestinian group continued to resist inclusion in "Israeli society" insofar as, as far as

they are concerned, Israeli society is a Jewish-Zionist society in which they are not

willing or able to be included. On the other hand, it was unclear in what society the

Palestinian group would like to be included, and it was necessary to conceptualize more
clearly what needs this resistance springs from. At this point I decided to bring some

outside information into the discussion. Clearly, the way in which I present the discussion

expresses the way I see it. I chose to do this, but in a way that presents different extremes

of the position and returns the discussion to the group. For example, one of my

interventions was along these lines: "On the outside, no establishment figure ever talks

about the Palestinian population in Israel. The establishment has always treated

Palestinians in Israel as a collection of minority groups divided on a religious and cultural

basis, and not as a national minority collective. In establishment parlance, we are called

'minority populations' while the Jewish people is treated as a collective which has

realized its national dream. Splitting the Palestinian minority into interest groups through

the control of resources is part of a policy of 'divide and conquer' that has been going on

since the days of the Turks. The Palestinian national struggle has always focused on

fighting this division and posing the demands of the Palestinian minority as a collective."

On the other hand, one could say: "In Israeli society many groups are oppressed on many

levels. The discrimination against Palestinians is one of many forms of social oppression.

You have resisted this understanding of reality – let's think why."

At this phase, our intervention was based on an understanding that the group's dynamic

reflects outside dynamics. The Jewish group saw our society as including everyone and

expressed a pluralistic viewpoint in which equality of opportunity is perceived as

everyone's right, while the Palestinian group expressed primarily its need to differentiate

itself from the majority, to fight for its existence and identity. The majority group does

not need to fight for its identity, as its starting point is secure and unthreatened. The two

approaches are not necessarily contradictory, and may even complement each other when
we understand the connection between the struggle against national oppression and other

struggles in society.

It appears that the conflict arose when the Palestinian group's focus on its own needs

appeared to the Jews as a dismissal of others, and the Jews' disappointment was

interpreted as a refusal to recognize issues of importance to the Palestinian group. While

the Jewish group saw its activity as joint struggle against injustice in everyone's society,

the Palestinian group was skeptical of its own place in the society about which the Jewish

group talked. The Jewish group's disappointment with the Palestinian group also reflects

the dynamic of a majority which treats its positions and the standards it sets as a moral

basis which it expects others to accept and follow. As a result of our analysis of the

situation, we chose to intervene in a way that inserted us into the discussion as partners,

and permitted ourselves to share our understanding of the situation through the

expression of our political views.

It was important to us to use the conflict that arose in order to achieve understandings of

the meaning of our national identities within joint work, and at the same time give the

group tools with which to analyze external reality with the instruments of political

thought. An additional aspect was the difference in the interventions performed with each

group during the uni-national part. In the Palestinian uni-national group, I legitimated and

strengthened the Palestinian group's position in the larger group with theoretical

concepts, while the Jewish facilitator used the uni-national meeting to question the

obvious for the Jewish group and its position in the larger group. These were two

different forms of intervention which may even be seen as opposed, and they are based
on a working approach which attaches importance to strengthening the weaker group and

questioning the consensus which the dominant group attempts to create.

Approaches to intervention in conflict

There are different approaches to the essence of the role of the intervening side in a

conflict. It would be dubious to argue that one approach could be appropriate for every

conflict situation. A conflict may be interpersonal; it may revolve around inheritance in a

family; as it may also be between peoples or states. Choosing and planning a form of

intervention must be a function of two factors: our understanding of the reasons and roots

of the conflict, and the definition of the desired outcome of our intervention, also taking

into account the level on which the intervention is performed and its target audience.

Moderation in a conflict between neighbors might be based on the intervention of a third

party who is disinterested in the result; this third party is only there in order to help the

sides reach an agreed-upon result, and is not emotionally involved in the conflict. In our

case, though, the conflict is a complex national one, and the intervention with a young

target audience is educational. This is not a negotiation between decision-makers who

come with set positions and attempt to quickly reach an agreement, nor is it an

intervention by a stronger third party interesting in forcing the sides to come to an

agreement, or a research project. This is an activity aimed at changing the consciousness

of participants from both oppressing and oppressed groups and liberating it from social

roles which reproduce injustice. This is a long-term activity, in which the organizers are a

combination of activists and advocates empowering the weaker group and facilitators

enabling a safe playing field for dialogue between the two groups. In this case, the
organizers have a socio-political analysis upon which they base themselves when

planning the activity; they are also themselves inseparably members of the sides to the

conflict. The organizers' involvement in the activity does not pretend to be external or

agenda-less. According to this approach, professionalism does not mean disconnecting

the facilitator's perceptions and personal values from his or her work in the group; rather

the opposite. Professionalism is the development of each facilitator's ability to think

critically and not dictate slogans and positions. On the one hand, the facilitator has an

agenda and solid convictions which direct his activity with the group, and on the other

hand he or she has the ability to bring these forward in a sensitive, dialogic way, so the

participants can develop themselves. At the same time, it is important that the facilitator

recognize his or her power in the group, as the inequality of power may stop the group

from taking responsibility and initiative.

There are approaches that see "professionalism" as the facilitator's ability to stay outside

the conflict, with no agenda determining the desired endpoint of the process. This

approach may be appropriate to conflicts of a very particular nature, or to very particular

worldviews. But sometimes, these approaches are grafted onto every conflict situation in

the name of objectivity. Objectivity, like many other concepts that sound good, may

achieve adverse consequences when it is lifted out of context. "Objective" intervention in

an unbalanced situation, in situations of strong versus weak, occupier and occupied, may

easily reproduce the situation and the existing dynamic of ruler and ruled. When this

results, objectivity is nothing but a tool used by the dominant side to maintain its

dominance.
 In spite of the above, the issue of the level of direction by the facilitator, as opposed to

the level of belief in the ability of the participants to reach understandings through their

own experience and knowledge remains open. The balance is influenced by the

facilitator's style, the type of group and the potential within it, and other factors. In this

case, we facilitators based our actions on our own personal analysis of the situation,

which is a function of our political positions in general. In this case, as in other cases in

which facilitators break the boundaries and enter the discussion, one may argue that our

analysis may not fit the situation, that our intervention is inappropriate to the needs of the

group, that our direction prevents the group from reaching more creative results on its

own, etc. These are questions that must always be taken into consideration, but one

should always remember that every kind of intervention involves risks or prices of some

kind.

:References

J Laue, G Cormick, (1978), ‘The Ethics of Social Intervention’. pp.217-230

Halabi R. (2004), “Israeli and Palestinian Identities in Dialogue”

John Paul Lederach. (1995). ‘preparing for peace: conflict transformation across cultures’

Yiftahel, O. (2000). Land, planning and injustice, Adava Centre Publications.

http://www.adva.org/view.asp?lang=he&catID=11&articleID=290

Norbert Ropers, ‘From resolution to transformation: assessing the role and impact of
dialogue projects’

Z. L. Galia, (2006), ‘Main topics in critical pedagogy’ (Hebrew)

Paulo Freire, (1970), ‘Pedagogy of the Oppressed’

Frantz Fanon, (1994), ‘Black Skin, White Masks’. Grove Press