Suchergebnisse

"Inter- and intra-clan conflicts in Northern Israel pit hundreds against each other in revenge cycles that take years to resolve and impact the entire community. The Sulha is a Shari'a-based traditional conflict resolution process that works independently of formal legal systems and is widely practiced to manage such conflicts in the north of Israel, as well as throughout the Muslim and Arab worlds. The Sulha process works by effecting a gradual attitudinal transformation, from a desire for revenge to a willingness to forgive, through restoration of the victim's clan sense of honour. Muslim/Arab Mediation and Conflict Resolution examines the process of Sulha, as practiced by the Arab population of northern Israel, where it plays a central role in the maintenance of peace among Muslims, Christians, and Druze alike. It presents detailed analysis of every stage of this at times protracted process. It uses interviews with victims, perpetrators, Sulha practitioners, community leaders and lawyers, along with statistical analysis to examine how Sulha affects people's lives, how various sectors of society impact the practice, and how it coexists with Israel's formal legal system. Furthermore, it examines how Sulha compares to Western dispute resolution processes. This book offers the first comprehensive exploration of the entire Sulha process, and is a valuable resource for students and scholars of Middle East studies, Islamic studies and conflict resolution."

About 3,500 Darfuri male (and a few female) asylum seekers live in Israel. The majority are 25 to 40 years old. Older men, including village and community dignitaries, stand little chance of surviving the brutal trek.In Darfur, where most inhabitants live in small villages, inter‐ and intracommunal conflicts are traditionally resolved through the customary justice process of Judiya. But in Israel, Darfuri asylum seekers no longer reside with their kin groups (villages, tribes, clans); instead they often cohabit with asylum seekers from other tribes, clans, and villages, living in crowded conditions, mostly in the poor south side of Tel Aviv—a situation that gives rise to multiple small conflicts.In the absence of their familiar tribal structure, dignitaries, and other interveners, the refugees have no access to the traditional dispute resolution mechanisms they have grown up with. Furthermore, these asylum seekers avoid bringing their conflicts to the attention of the Israeli authorities, for fear of endangering their asylum petitions. The result is that this community finds itself trying to cope with difficult, intracommunal, conflict‐rich conditions, without being able to use either traditional conflict resolution mechanisms or local formal justice processes.The response of the Darfuri asylum seekers community to this circumstance has been to develop their own multitier, quasi‐customary intracommunal dispute resolution mechanism. This new mechanism combines elements of their traditional, Darfur‐based processes, along with newly constructed modifications designed to compensate for the missing elements (e.g., lack of village elders) and make use of available resources (e.g., young community activists).This article employs analysis of multiple interviews and review of relevant literature to identify and describe the unique, informal dispute resolution mechanism that the Darfuri community developed in Israel.Insights developed in this article may help community activists, municipalities, policy makers, nongovernmental organizations, and other individuals and organizations in understanding and facilitating alternative dispute resolution mechanisms within similarly structured and similarly affected displaced persons and asylum seeker communities around the world.

AbstractThe author uses literature and interviews to compare elements of the Muslim inter‐clan, mixed‐mode mediation and arbitration tradition of Sulha in Israel's Arab community with comparable elements of Western‐style mediation and arbitration practices. The author uncovers and analyzes the similarities and differences between specific Western‐style and Sulha mediation and arbitration elements, such as confidentiality, venting, and neutrality. Such insights may be helpful when considering possible synergies and points of divergence between Muslim and Western dispute‐resolution practices.

PurposeThis paper aims to locate, describe and analyze the mechanism and impact of women's informal role within the formally male‐onlySulha– a prevalent, inter/intra‐communal dispute resolution process practiced by Muslim, Christian and Druze Arabs in Israel and in many other regions of the Middle East and the Muslim world. Furthermore, this paper seeks to explore the way men's formal roles and women's informal roles interact within theSulha's strict patriarchal settings.Design/methodology/approachThe first section of this paper uses interviews, participant observation and existing literature to locate, describe and analyze the specific ways in which women informally participate in and impact on theSulhaprocess. The second section uses a questionnaire, interviews, existing literature and analysis to examine the attitudes of men and women regarding women's current and future roles inSulha.FindingsThe paper demonstrates that the formal (male‐only) visible part of theSulhaprocess coexists alongside a significant, yet mostly invisible, informal contribution of women – at each stage of the process. Furthermore, the paper shows that both men and women are cognizant of the informal role women play inSulha, and that both men and women are open to a possible future expansion of the role of women inSulha, including into formal roles.Originality/valueThe paper highlights the need to seek and evaluate informal, sometimes invisible, yet significant contributions of women to traditional dispute resolution processes in strict patriarchal cultures.

AbstractHonor, as a "folkloristic, emotive" value (Wikan, 1984), has long been recognized as central to the Middle Eastern inter‐ and intracommunal dispute resolution tradition of Sulha (Lang, 2002). This article highlights the centrality of honor to conciliation facilitation in Sulha and demonstrates the utilitarian, rather than folkloristic, use of honor within Sulha's distinct functional stages. Further, it shows how disputants and interveners alike wield honor extensively as a purposeful, task‐specific tool to maneuver for position before and during the deliberations, move the process along (or postpone its progress), facilitate an agreement, and ensure the durability of the agreement.

"The relationship between the individual and society has been a major topic in social sciences since their emergence in the 19th century. Yet it was only at the turn of the century - when Sigmund Freud developed psychoanalysis - that the discussion of this relationship changed from a merely philosophical deliberation on the categories "individual" and "collective" into a discussion between two new disciplines with their own paradigmatic ambitions: sociology versus psychology. It is not by chance that, when hierarchizing the sciences, Auguste Comte did not consider psychology to be a science in its own right, but rather had to decide whether to assign it to either biology or sociology. As a matter of fact, in the 19th century, biology, representing "nature", was the actual counterpart to the abstract category of society. It was this reciprocal relationship on which Herbert Spencer founded his system of sociology. Thus, the triad sociology-psychology-biology, and the disciplinary combinations resulting from it, may be seen as the matrix of modern social sciences. It should be pointed out, though, that whether in the synthesis of macro-sociological Marxism and Freudian depth psychology, or in the combination of biology and sociology in US American sociobiology, the social dimension remained predominant, while the sociological explanation of collective phenomena was enriched by engaging in interdisciplinary discourses. But an interdisciplinary approach based on the full triad of sociology-psychology-biology is yet to be born. It is undoubtedly a very complex endeavor. All the more welcome is the engagement of Doron Pely and Igal Vardi in this book. One can only agree with their claim: "It is time to give a rapprochement between psychology and sociology another honest try - this time around with the help of the bridging services of neurology.""--

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to locate, describe and analyze the differences between the way migrants from communal cultures and local communities in Western Europe resolve intra-communal and inter-communal conflicts, and to use the findings to propose a hybrid alternative model that may be able to bridge across identified differences. Such a hybrid model will facilitate enhanced integration and adaptation between host and migrant communities, contributing to improved conflict resolution outcomes.Design/methodology/approachThis paper starts with an exploration, review and analysis of existing relevant literature describing refugee/migrant–host community interactions and their consequences. The second stage includes review and analysis of relevant alternative dispute resolution (ADR) literature. The third stage undertakes an examination and analysis of the practices identified in stage two, and the fourth stage proposes a method that uses potentially "bridging" practices by incorporating useful and relevant elements from host and refugee communities' ADR mechanisms, in a way that may help resolve inter-communal disputes.FindingsThe paper demonstrates significant differences between host and migrant communities' dispute resolution practices and the integrability of relevant ADR approaches toward creating a usable, hybrid, bridging approach to handle inter-communal conflicts.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper proposes a hybrid "bridging" host–refugee inter-communal conflict management model. The proposed model should be tested to prove feasibility and viability.Practical implicationsShould the proposed model prove useful, the practical implications may lead to the construction and use of different (hybrid) conflict management mechanisms in appropriate communities. Such mechanisms may lead to a reduction in the number and severity of inter-communal conflicts.Social implicationsA reduction in inter-communal conflicts within the framework of a host–migrant interface may have strong positive outcome to inter (and intra) communal relations and may reduce friction, crime, marginalization, hostility and radicalization.Originality/valueThe paper highlights the challenges to both migrant and host communities when it comes to finding a common ground for resolving inter-communal disputes and offers a pragmatic hybrid model to bridge cultural and functional gaps and help promote mutually satisfactory outcomes.