perceptions of forgiveness among palestinian teachers in israel

This article was downloaded by: [Drexel University Libraries]On: 10 October 2014, At: 00:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Peace EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjpe20

Perceptions of forgiveness amongPalestinian teachers in IsraelIlham Nasser a & Mohammed Abu-Nimer ba College of Education, George Mason University , 2200 UniversityDrive, Fairfax , VA , USAb Department of Peace and Conflict Resolution , AmericanUniversity , Washington , DC , USAPublished online: 21 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Ilham Nasser & Mohammed Abu-Nimer (2012) Perceptions of forgivenessamong Palestinian teachers in Israel, Journal of Peace Education, 9:1, 1-15, DOI:10.1080/17400201.2011.614568

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2011.614568

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjpe20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/17400201.2011.614568

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2011.614568

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Perceptions of forgiveness among Palestinian teachers in Israel

Ilham Nassera* and Mohammed Abu-Nimerb

aCollege of Education, George Mason University, 2200 University Drive, Fairfax, VA, USA;bDepartment of Peace and Conflict Resolution, American University, Washington, DC, USA

(Received 30 April 2011; final version received 11 August 2011)

This article presents the results of a study conducted among Palestinian teachersin Israel to address their contextual understanding and perceptions offorgiveness. It sheds light on K–12 teachers’ responses to daily cultural andsocial conflict situations in a Middle Eastern context. This research aims tocontribute to our understanding of forgiveness on conceptual as well asperceptual levels, hoping to enhance the knowledge-base needed to educate forforgiveness and reconciliation in Arab society. The present study is the first ofseveral examining forgiveness among teachers in four Middle Eastern countries(Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt). Sixty-two classroom teachers inArabic-speaking schools among Palestinians in Israel participated in the study.The teachers filled out a survey that included 10 hypothetical scenarios requiringforgiveness. The results from the survey and qualitative written responsessuggest a high level of forgiveness when the situation involves parents, children,and social commitments, such as in giving wedding gifts. When the wrongdoingwas intentional, there was less willingness to forgive in all cases, except in thecase of parents of a child misbehaving. In addition to the present study’scontribution to the research on forgiveness and reconciliation, it also adds to theknowledge-base on constructing curricula for peace education in the MiddleEastern context.

Keywords: peace education; conflict resolution; forgiveness and reconciliation;teacher beliefs; cultural and social values

Perceptions of forgiveness among Palestinian teachers in Israel

Forgiveness as a psychological and emotional construct has been studied exten-sively in the field of psychology. It has also been researched in moral educationand highlighted as a critical component of human lives in many religions. However,there are very few studies that examine the perceptions of the forgiveness conceptamong individuals and groups in conflict areas. There is the need to learn moreabout the characteristics of people who forgive and the conditions in which they doso. The present study sheds light on teachers and their views of what constitutesthe required conditions for forgiveness in the Middle Eastern cultural and socialcontexts. An extensive review of the existing literature suggests a need to examinethe topic at both individual and group levels, and specifically in the conflict regionsof the Middle East. The results of the present study will inform the design and

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Journal of Peace EducationVol. 9, No. 1, April 2012, 1–15

ISSN 1740-0201 print/ISSN 1740-021X online� 2011 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2011.614568http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dre

xel U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

future direction of this research agenda among teachers and others in the MiddleEast.

Literature review

Forgiveness is an important and powerful behavior to ameliorate the destructivecycle of conflict and violence between individuals and groups (Ahmed andBraithwaite 2005). Previous research also suggests that building connectionsincorporating positive values and relationships with a close family member or a tea-cher is essential in preventing violence among youth and children. In fact, teachers,peers, and families can become agents for positive change in society (Boulter2004). A deeper understanding of a school’s values as represented by teachersincreases the chances of a continuity of influence between the home and schooland, in return, benefits children and the shaping of their values and civil engage-ment (Shumow and Miller 2001).

Educators also play a crucial role in building a culture of peace, especially indeeply divided societies that have experienced ongoing conflicts and wars. Schoolsand educators in particular hold the key to unlock fixed destructive patterns of con-flict management held by children who have inherited these from their parents orother socialization agents. Boulding (2000) emphasized the need to introduce educa-tion for peace methodologies and themes (including forgiveness and reconciliation)as an integral component of every educational system, and as a necessary step toprevent institutionally all forms of violence.

The study of reconciliation and forgiveness has been an emerging field in peaceeducation and conflict resolution, especially in post-war and conflict contexts(Abu-Nimer 2001). Some of the major issues examined in this field address the rea-sons behind some people’s ability to forgive and reconcile versus others who can-not, and the political, social, economic, and spiritual conditions that need to existfor forgiveness behavior to prevail (Abu-Nimer 2008). Various scholars in areas ofreligious studies, character education, international relations, and social psychologyhave attempted to respond and find answers regarding the characteristics required toforgive. For example, in exploring the connection between forgiveness and reconcil-iation in a post-conflict context, scholars of peace-building have established thatexperiencing or reaching a state of forgiveness is not a necessary condition forachieving national reconciliation (Rigby 2001).

In conflict areas, individual and collective forms of forgiveness have beendocumented in situations in which both ongoing collective violence and post-warrealities prevail (Henderson 2008). For example, in the Palestinian–Israeli conflict,groups such as Bereaved Parents and Parents Circle have members who haveforgiven the other side, despite the ongoing political violence in the conflict.1 Simi-larly, in Rwanda and Sierra Leone, individuals who have lost their relatives haveparticipated in rituals for forgiveness since the civil wars ceased in these two socie-ties.2 What motivates those individuals, despite their horrendous loss and unstablepolitical reality, to engage in forgiveness? Most peace and conflict resolution studiesfocus on the macro-processes of reconciliation and collective forgiveness, but thereis very little research on forgiveness between and among individuals, and inschools.

Forgiveness, as a construct, has been examined in the social, psychological, andemotional domains, especially in the social, emotional, and moral areas of

2 I. Nasser and M. Abu-Nimer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dre

xel U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

development (Todd 1985; Denham et al. 2005; Maio et al. 2008). However, thereare very few empirical studies that examine the role of educators in shaping the per-ceptions, tendencies, and attitudes of individuals and groups about forgiveness,especially in conflict areas such as the Middle East. This dearth of research alsoexists in studying the connections between people’s understandings of forgivenessand their related behaviors and actions in response to forgiveness. The present studyaims to fill some of these gaps and is the first of its kind to include participantsfrom Middle Eastern cultures.3

A variety of views exists about the relationship between empathy, reconciliation,and forgiveness. In different disciplines, the three terms have been used to define aperson’s ability to overcome a state of anger and revenge. In fact, forgiveness as aconstruct was defined by Maio et al. (2008, 307) as ‘a deliberate process that trans-forms a vengeful, negative response into a positive one’. Enright and Gassin (1992,99) define the concept as ‘an act of mercy that can occur independently of thewrongdoer expressing any remorse’. They suggest six stages for forgiveness, start-ing with revenge and ending with forgiveness as an act of love. More specifically,these stages are: revengeful forgiveness; restitutional forgiveness; expectational for-giveness; lawful expectational forgiveness; social harmony; and forgiveness as anact of love.

Abu-Nimer (2001) proposes that forgiveness is one particular component of rec-onciliation and that, although there are certain stages to reach reconciliation and for-giveness (acknowledgement; confession; repentance; and restitution), one shouldnot adopt one specific model of forgiveness because the process may vary depend-ing on the social, cultural, and religious contexts in which forgiveness takes place.Furthermore, studying and mapping forgiveness and reconciliation processes in dif-ferent social cultural contexts would be more effective for peace-builders and edu-cators than attempting to generate a standard process for both.

There are documented physical and mental benefits correlated to forgiveness;people who forgive more often are also better adjusted and more socially awarethan those who do not. It is also suggested that being in a state of un-forgivenesscan create stress, conflict, and emotional imbalance (Worthington 2005). Accordingto Denham et al. (2005), the forgiveness process can be a challenging process thatis difficult but important for all parties involved. On the other hand, White (2002)introduced forgiveness as a more relaxed state that she called ‘no problem’. Thisview focuses on the fact that we all make mistakes and all do things that we latercould regret. According to White (2002) both sides of the forgiving act should betreated equitably. She adds that humans learn to apologize for their actions whennecessary, but also learn to accept a genuine apology or move to right the wrong.

In early years, in addition to the family, teachers play an important role in shap-ing children’s views and behaviors, such as developing self-esteem and pro-socialskills. Thus, teachers’ stories and images about forgiveness can influence children’sinitial perceptions and attitudes regarding the forgiveness process. In fact, teachers,who have a lot of influence on students, can be agents for creating social changeand transforming people’s attitudes towards others within their cultural context andbeyond. The present study is part of an ongoing project focusing on attitudes andperceptions held by teachers about forgiveness in four different Arab countries inthe Middle East. The focus of the present study is on a sample of Palestinian-Arabteachers in Israel and their views on forgiveness. The knowledge gained will gener-

Journal of Peace Education 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dre

xel U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

ate lessons and insights on how best to educate children to respond to cultural chal-lenges involving issues of conflict and violence.

Educators are expected to teach children to apologize for wrongdoing when inconflict with others, but society does not seem to provide them with the methodsand skills needed to address this expectation and model these behaviors construc-tively. A deeper understanding of the factors that influence and shape teachers’ mes-sages to children about forgiveness is a core ingredient in transforming Arabchildren and youth and their ways of dealing with conflict, especially those requir-ing reconciliation. The most recent events in Egypt, Tunisia, and other Arab coun-tries testify to the ability of youth to transform society and political regimespeacefully. Furthering the knowledge on how to transform schools will assist inmainstreaming the democratic action and civil engagement of children and youth inthe region. It will also further promote understanding of forgiveness and reconcilia-tion regarding conflict situations among students and members of those societies.These conflicts very often involve people within the same culture but also from out-side cultures. Inevitably, children receive certain messages about reconciliation andforgiveness in schools (through formal and informal curricula); the goal is to get adeeper understanding of what these messages are and to understand the perceptionsof teachers who typically model cultural and social values accepted by the largersociety.

Methodology

The present study is a preliminary investigation of the understanding of forgivenessand responses to situations requiring forgiveness among teachers. It aims at explor-ing the perceptions of forgiveness among a group of 62 Palestinian-Arab4 educatorsin Israel with an orientation to expand the research to other Middle Eastern coun-tries. This study attempts to address questions on the conditions that support achoice of forgiveness; major cultural, social, and religious values that encourage orobstruct forgiveness behaviors and decisions; and the identification of areas whereforgiveness is out of reach. Some of the research questions include: To what extentdoes intentionality play a role in determining educators’ decisions to forgive? Howdoes the nature of a conflict or disputed issue influence the decision to forgive theperson in an Arab cultural context? What are the various justifications utilized byteachers in explaining their decisions to forgive or withhold forgiveness? Do reli-gious affiliations and values play a role in shaping the decision to forgive in anArab cultural context?

The survey administered to explore the aforementioned questions utilized for-giveness scenarios to which teachers were asked to respond. The teachers wererequired to address hypothetical situations that required a determination of whetherto forgive the wrongdoer or not and the reasoning behind this determination. Theywere also asked about differences between intentional and non-intentional wrongdo-ings requiring forgiveness. Analyzing the teachers’ responses to these questionsmight aid in learning more about the variables impacting educators’ abilities to for-give and could propose methods to teach the skills needed to educate for forgive-ness and reconciliation.

The participants in this research were a group of teachers who volunteered totake part in the study. They were attending a summer professional developmentinstitute and were from several schools and areas serving students in K–12 class-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dre

xel U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

rooms. Although this is not a representative sample of all Palestinian teachers inIsrael, it is a good random sample to explore notions of forgiveness among suchgroups of Palestinian teachers.

The teachers were asked to complete a survey and respond to forgiveness sce-narios (originally designed by Tangney et al. [1999]).5 The survey was adapted tothe Arab culture by a team of three researchers – natives of that culture. It was writ-ten in English and went through multiple back-translations to ensure accuracy oflanguage use, in addition to a review by an expert in Arabic. The survey questionsranged from mild to more serious situations of conflict. They also covered questionsranging from personal to professional relationships. All questions were adaptedfrom the original scale to respond to the Arab cultural context. The 10 scenariosaddressed situations related to: professionalism; telling a secret; wedding gifts; childbehavior (breaking a vase); argument with parents; a car accident; gossip; loan pay-ments; erecting a fence; and a disagreement between sisters. Some of the scenariosfocused on the teacher as the wrongdoer and others on the people around the tea-cher. Teachers were asked to rate the scenarios on a scale of 1–5 for some questionsand 1–3 on others. For example: in the scenario of ‘loan payment’ the story goes asfollows:

Imagine that your cousin borrowed from you a lump sum of money to pay for hiselectric bill (as he claimed), and the next day you discovered that he had wasted themoney to buy a very expensive stereo.

(1) How bad is his behavior?(2) Should he be punished?(3) Can you forgive him?(4) Why should you forgive him/might forgive him/not forgive him? (Explain

the reasons behind your choice in Question 3.)

The survey was administered to the teachers as part of a professional developmentcourse. They were asked to complete the survey on a voluntary basis and anonym-ity was guaranteed by providing a number for each participant instead of using per-sonal information. Participants were from three different regions of the countrywhere Palestinians are especially concentrated in Israel (the Galilee, the Triangle,and Alnaqab). The teachers were working in different school systems in the afore-mentioned areas.

The survey included demographic questions that asked participants to indicatetheir gender; education; style of living – rural (village), urban (city), north (Galilee),center (Triangle), and south (Alnaqab); religious affiliations – including the impor-tance of religion; age; and marital status. The hypothetical situations were designedto measure the variation in teachers’ responses based on the degree of perceivedseverity. There were expected differences in response to mild situations versus moreserious ones that could be considered harder to forgive in Arab-Palestinian society,such as scenarios involving building a fence, or family relations and honor.6 Sincethis was a preliminary investigation of this topic, it was anticipated that patternswould be detected in the responses and that there would be significant differencesin response to different scenarios. The researchers also expected that the writtenresponses to the question of why or why not one would or would not forgive would


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dre

xel U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

provide further insights into the teachers’ choices. This mixture of quantitative andqualitative methodology ensured results with greater accuracy and richness.

The demographic data in Table 1 suggest the sample had more males thanfemales and more married than single participants. The mean age was 32.5 (a rela-tively young group) and a majority of college-educated teachers, with 56 peopleholding bachelor’s degrees. One should also note that the majority of the samplewas Muslim and cared a great deal about religion (in response to a question askingabout ‘importance of religion for you’).

Results

Descriptive analyses and correlations were conducted where appropriate. The quan-titative analysis of the survey responses resulted in a range of findings which arereported in Tables 2–5.7 However, the majority of factors or variables, such as reli-gion, gender, geographical affiliation, and education, did not significantly affect the

Table 1. Demographic information.

Variable n

Gender Male 40Female 22

Education High school 2Higher education 56

Marital status Married 38Single 22

Number of children Mean 3Birth place Galilee 22

Triangle/center 9Al Quds/Jerusalem 5Naqab 24

Residency City 17Village 36Mixed city 7

Religion Muslim 55Christian/other 5

Importance of religion Very much 50Very little 8

Table 2. How bad was his/her action (on a scale of 1, not bad at all to 5, very bad)?

Question/scenario 1 and 2 (%) 3 (%) 4 and 5 (%)

Professionalism 0 0 100Keeping a secret 2 7 92Wedding gift 28 25 46Child’s behavior 34 27 40Argument with parents 0 0 100Car accident 5 7 88Gossip 0 7 93Loan payment 0 13 83Erecting a fence 3 15 81Sister 12 9 80


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dre

xel U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

teachers’ decisions to forgive or not to forgive in the majority of the hypotheticalconflict cases.

Table 2 captures how the teachers viewed the severity of the hypotheticalactions with which they were presented. Overall, all the actions (except blaming fornot giving a wedding gift and a child breaking an item in a house when visiting)were perceived as very bad behaviors and sources of conflict (in all cases there

Table 3. Should he/she be punished?

Question/scenario Yes (%) Maybe (%) No (%)


Table 4. Can you forgive him/her and can you forgive if the action is intentional? Data arepresented as percentages.

Question/scenario YesYes

(if intentional)Maybe Maybe

(if intentional) NoNo

(if intentional)

Professionalism 10 3 72 42 18 55Keeping a secret 52 28 43 50 5 23Wedding gift 66 36 20 34 14 30Child’s behavior 81 30 9 50 10 20Argument with parents 62 47 28 34 10 19Car accident 53 18 42 43 5 38Gossip 27 15 63 51 10 37Loan payment 33 25 43 38 23 37Erecting a fence 45 10 40 38 15 52Sister conflict 28 18 31 17 41 65

Table 5. Can you forgive if he/she felt bad?

Question/scenario Yes (%) Maybe (%) No (%)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dre

xel U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

were at least 80% responses of 4 or 5 on the Lickert scale). In the cases of notoffering a wedding gift and a child breaking a vase, only 46% and 40%, respec-tively, viewed the actions as very bad. The involvement of the child in the eventinfluenced the responses, which was evident in the qualitative responses (reasonsfor forgiveness) where participants justified their reaction by saying you cannotblame a child, while the case with the wedding gift was explained as not importantand a social practice not followed by many teachers in this group. This might, inpart, be because of their urban living and disconnection from their home villagesand towns, and the high level of resentment educated Palestinians have towardssocial obligations such as attending weddings and giving wedding gifts. The mostagreed-upon cases in terms of their severity were arguing, insulting, or screaming atparents, and the case of betrayal of a co-worker. Both had a 100% response rate ofthe action judged as ‘very bad’. These responses are consistent with the strongcultural values of high respect for parents, characteristic of Arab culture. It is alsoconsistent with the cultural views of teachers as professionals with high ethical stan-dards.

Further analysis using Spearman’s Rho correlation test to evaluate how badactions were perceived by the teachers showed a significant negative correlationbetween the teachers’ reactions in the case of professional misbehavior at work andviolating the norm of giving an appropriate weddings gift (rs = – 0.35, p = .005). Apositive correlation (rs = 0.42, p = .001) existed between giving a wedding gift andviews of a child causing damage during a friend’s visit. This indicates that teacherswho viewed misbehavior at work as a bad or severe action tended to have signifi-cantly different reactions when evaluating the case of the wedding gift or a child’smisbehavior during a visit. Similarly, there was a strong negative correlationbetween the responses of teachers who viewed not offering wedding gifts and caus-ing damage to a friend’s car as bad, and those who viewed the wedding gift sce-nario as far less severe than the case involving sisters’ disagreements. Thesignificant correlations are also consistent with the previous analysis of the strongcultural values of respecting parents and valuing the disagreement of sisters as moresevere.

A positive correlation (rs = 0.36, p = .004) was found among teachers whoviewed revealing a secret as bad and teachers responding to a child causing damageduring a visit. In fact, the majority of the teachers’ responses to the child’s causingdamage during a visit correlated positively with reaction to building a fencebetween two neighbors (rs = 0.28, p = .026). Similarly the teachers’ reactions to thewedding gift correlated positively with the car incident (rs = 0.43, p = .001), andreactions to the fence (rs = 0.31, p = .016). Such correlations can be explained bythe fact that participant teachers viewed the child’s misbehavior and the weddinggift as the least severe; therefore, the same group obviously evaluated building afence and damaging a car as more severe. The same pattern of positive correlationswas found between teachers’ reactions to the case of violating a secret and arguingwith parents (rs = 0.39, p = .002), and defaulting on a money loan (rs = 0.29,p = .023).

In responding to the question of whether the person should be punished for hisor her bad action, teachers’ responses were correlated with their perceptions of howbad the action was. For example, regarding professionalism and argument with par-ents – the highest ranking actions in terms of their severity – 73% and 66%, respec-tively, agreed that the person should be punished, while 70% and 77% of the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dre

xel U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

teachers’ responses did not endorse a punishment for child misbehavior during avisit and not offering an appropriate wedding gift, respectively. This was also con-sistent with their responses in terms of how bad the action was considered to be. Inaddition, the responses of the teachers to this question with regard to the rest of thecases/scenarios tended to be concentrated in the ‘maybe’ category, which suggeststhat, despite their evaluation of the actions as bad (80% and above), participantshad difficulty in arriving at a clear decision on whether or not punishment was war-ranted. For example, for the secret (42%), gossip (40%), and fence (38%) scenariosthey responded with ‘maybe’.

When responding to the question of whether they could forgive the person whocommitted the bad action (when it was carried out either intentionally or uninten-tionally), teachers’ responses were also consistent with the perception of how badthe action was. For example, 81% were willing to forgive the child who broke thevase during a visit (regardless whether the act was intentional or not, the teachersstill did not rule out forgiving the child, with 50% of them indicating that maybethey would forgive this). Similarly, a high percentage (66%) of participants waswilling to forgive the person who did not give a proper wedding gift (even whenthe act was intentional, 36% of the teachers still said they would forgive). The 62%response rate for forgiving the person who insulted a parent is also relatively highin comparison to other cases (even when the act was done intentionally, 47% con-tinued to forgive). It is possible that the strong family ties and the social and cul-tural beliefs that parents are supposed to be forgiving of their children’s misdeedshave influenced teachers’ responses, despite the perceived severity of the action.

Overall, when examining the teachers’ responses to these questions of willing-ness to forgive intentional and unintentional acts, it is clear that, when the teachersdid not forgive, they also did not select the total rejection of no forgiveness, butrather chose the middle category of ‘maybe’. Nevertheless, in the last scenario of thedisagreement between sisters, 41% of respondents chose not to forgive the personwho disengaged from the relationship, especially when the act was perceived asintentional (65% would not forgive in this case). The high percentage of non-for-giveness in these responses can be explained by the strong emphasis on the value ofhonor associated with relations and informal contracts between males and females.Additionally, it is worth noting that the highest percentage of uncertainty in forgivingwas in the category of professional incident (72% would maybe forgive), which canbe explained by the implications of this scenario where the decision to forgive lies insomeone else’s hands rather than the participants themselves. The intentionality fac-tor was also influential in teachers rejecting forgiveness when erecting a fence (52%)and damaging a car (38%) when these actions were intentional.

The preceding results support the notion that issues of honor are more sensitivefor the respondents of the present study and illustrate the difficulty in forgiving aperson when the situation relates to a sister (also possibly relationships versus prop-erty issues). The cases of the car and the fence symbolize conflict involving prop-erty (also breaking civil laws), while the case with the sister symbolizes conflictsinvolving issues of honor, shame, social status, and reputation in the community(relationship).

Lastly, the shift in responses on the question of intentionality when comparedwith the question of general forgiveness (without the intentionality factor) tookplace mainly between the category of ‘yes, forgive’ and ‘no, will not forgive’.This means that the percentage of the responses in the category of ‘maybe will


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dre

xel U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

forgive’ did not change much (in cases of erecting a fence, money, gossip, car, anargument with parents, not giving a wedding gift, and a secret). However, in thecase of the work misbehavior and the sister scenario, the shift was to a responseof ‘maybe’.

The cross-tabulation analysis on the question of intentionality resulted in signifi-cant correlations between teachers’ responses to the case of an argument with par-ents, not giving a wedding gift (w2 = 18.35, p < 0.01), a child damaging a vase(w2 = 10.51, p < 0.05), and social gossip (w2 = 19.7, p < 0 to 0.1). Similar patternsof association were found between teachers’ responses to the erection of a fenceand not giving a wedding gift (w2 = 14.7, p < 0.01). The same correlation was seenbetween erecting a fence and revealing a secret (w2 = 12.69, p < 0.05). The teachersexpressed similar patterns of reactions to forgiveness in those cases.

The reactions to the question of ‘feeling bad about the act’ also indicated thatteachers expected to be forgiven because of their guilty feeling indicating remorse,especially in the cases of an argument with parents (71%) and child’s misbehavior(72%). While in the case of the sisters’ disengagement, 35% continued to reject for-giveness. Cross-tabulation of results on this question, indicated that there was a sig-nificant correlation between those who thought they should be forgiven with regardto their misbehavior with car damage and be forgiven if they felt bad in the samecase (w2 = 9.56, p < 0.05). There was strong correlation between the two on thisquestion. On the reliability test question ‘will you not forgive despite an apologyby the person?’, the factor of ‘apology’ seemed to influence the teachers’ responsesin the category of parents’ argument, child’s misbehavior, and not giving a weddinggift where they thought it would not matter as much. Such findings are consistentwith previous responses to these categories. However, teachers’ reactions shifted tothe category ‘maybe forgive’ if an apology was extended in the cases of revealing asecret and gossip.

On the question of feeling bad, there were 53% who would forgive and only3% who would not in the case of the damaged car, while these percentages shiftedto 27% and 33% in the case of breaking engagement with a sister. The same pat-terns of responses were found when the questions of un-intentionality, having anexcuse, and avoidance or denial of an act were introduced in these two cases. Theteachers’ responses to the denial or avoidance factor in response to the misbehavioror bad action illustrate that in all the cases there was a low percentage of teacherswho were willing to forgive, except in the three consistent cases of argument withparents (57%), child’s misbehavior (57%), and not giving a wedding gift (40%).

Teachers’ reasoning about forgiveness

The qualitative analyses of the teachers’ responses, on justifying their ability to for-give or not, suggest consistent results. In analyzing responses to the 10 cases in thisresearch, two researchers (one of whom was not involved in the present study)reviewed the written qualitative responses to the questions about reasoning behindthe choice to forgive or not. There were 10 possible responses to this questionbecause there was one for each scenario. Separately, the two researchers reviewedthe responses and highlighted the dominant themes. Then the two researchersreviewed the emerging themes and identified ones that were common. The themesthat were similar across the two raters were selected to ensure reliability. Table 6presents the themes that emerged in the analysis of teachers’ responses, with exam-ples of each.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dre

xel U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Further analysis of which themes emerged as reasoning for each scenario andwhich reasoning teachers used to justify certain actions (whether conducted bythemselves or others around them)8 suggested similar results to the quantitativedata, which confirms the hypothesis about the centrality of the family in the Arabculture and mentality. In their reasoning, regardless of the case, the most commonexplanations were human mistakes and nature, especially in the case of children’sbehaviors (40 out of 56 responses), followed by family and friends as the secondhighest reasoning, especially in the case of an argument with the parents (36 out of57). In addition, the qualitative analysis suggested that religious explanations werenot as important in justifying the acts of forgiveness or not among this group. Fur-thermore, the theme of understanding the reasoning was highest when it had to dowith the case of wedding gift giving, consistent with the findings in the quantitativedata (Table 7).

The following section provides a discussion that highlights interpretations of thefindings based on the literature in this area.

Table 6. Responses to ‘Why will you forgive/not forgive?’.

Emerging themes Example

Human mistake/human nature(HM)

‘I can forgive him because maybe he didn’t mean it.’

Family member/friend/closerelationship (FF)

‘If I don’t forgive my brother who else will?’

It depends on person or situation(ID)

‘There are people who can easily forgive and others whodon’t.’

Crossed the line (CL) ‘I can’t forgive in two situations: land and family honor.’Understand the reasoning (UR) ‘Maybe he has a good reason for the action.’Religion and culture (RC)

‘Muslims are naturally forgiving – We are not like un-Muslims.’

Good deeds (GD) ‘I am a good person and it is good to forgive.’Takes responsibility (TR) ‘I will forgive him. . . Greed is useless. It’s my fault if I

didn’t pay attention.’Beyond my control (BC) ‘This situation is too complicated and I don’t see a

solution for it.’

Table 7. Themes across scenarios (frequency).

Question/scenario and theme HM FF ID CL UR RC GD TR BC Total

Professionalism 8 6 18 6 3 3 7 2 1 54Keeping a secret 9 16 9 4 3 1 4 7 0 53Wedding gift 2 2 5 2 36 3 4 2 0 56Child’s behavior 40 4 3 0 2 4 1 0 2 56Argument with parents 6 36 3 0 1 8 1 1 1 57Car accident 13 7 8 9 7 8 1 5 7 65Gossip 13 9 15 10 2 3 1 1 1 55Loan payment 8 2 8 17 4 1 4 7 4 55Erecting a fence 15 9 16 7 3 2 1 1 1 54Sister 5 1 8 16 9 13 0 0 2 54

Abbreviations are defined in Table 6. Bold numbers indicate largest number of responses.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dre

xel U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Discussion and future direction

The contribution of this study to the field of peace education and conflict resolutionis especially important in increasing our knowledge and understanding of conditionsand trends for forgiving among school teachers in Arab culture and society. Theresearch outcomes shed light on educators who have a large impact on their stu-dents and families, especially in the Palestinian context where families have highappreciation of teachers. The results can guide professionals in peace education andcurriculum instruction in constructing appropriate curricula on such themes in thePalestinian context.

The findings of the present study confirmed existing literature on forgiveness incultural settings, especially with regards to the importance of intentionality in influ-encing people’s willingness to forgive. The results suggest that teachers believe thatif one can forgive an intentional argument with parents, then he/she can certainlyforgive someone who did not intend to engage in such a behavior. In addition, inthe majority of cases, intentionality mattered in the decision of teachers to forgiveor not, as indicated by the increase of percentages between the decision not to for-give and not to forgive if done intentionally. In cases where wrongdoing was unin-tentional, teachers reacted with the same attitude of ‘no problem’ suggested byWhite (2002). In her research, White found that most people are forgiving by natureand do not take it too much to heart when wrongdoing is accidental and thathumans tend naturally to ‘right the wrong’ (White 2002).

The intentionality and un-intentionality factors (we asked if the act is uninten-tional) are clearly an influential force in the decision of the teachers to grant orexpect forgiveness in all of the cases, especially in the case of the parents’ argument,the wedding gift, child misbehavior, damage to a car, or erecting a fence. However,the cases of sisters’ disagreement and defaulting on payment (money) remainedlower on the willingness and expectation to forgive or receive forgiveness.

Also, issuing an apology is a determining factor in increasing people’s ability toforgive (Henderson 2008). In the Arab cultural context, it was also confirmed thatfamily public image and reputation, especially with regard to female honor, continueto be a more challenging issues to forgive than others. One should also point out thatthis study suggests more tolerance and willingness to forgive when children areinvolved, as reflected in the consistency of responses about the behavior of the childwho caused damage to a friend’s vase. Overall, regardless of the wrongdoing, whenan apology was made, the person tended to forgive more often. Apology is an impor-tant construct in the Arab context owing to the expectation to restore social balanceand public image of a person. This was evident also with the sisters scenario.

Framing forgiveness processes within a family and personal friendships or rela-tionship context can decrease the resistance of the parties to settle the conflict orengage in forgiveness. This practice has been utilized by mediators and conflict reso-lution specialists in Arab society for centuries (Antoun 1997; Abu-Nimer 2003). Themajority of the teachers were consistently willing to forgive when the situationinvolved arguments with parents, yet they ranked the act as very bad. Focusing on thematerial aspects of a conflict rather than on the principle of honor and shame mayallow parties to engage more in processes of conflict resolution and negotiation.Similarly, if the conflict involves factors or elements affecting honor and shame, it isimportant for third parties to frame their process of intervention as aiming to restorethe honor and dignity of the parties. Such conflict resolution framing can facilitate


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dre

xel U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

and improve chances for forgiveness among the parties. The teachers’ reactions in thecase of the sisters’ disagreement and revealing a secret confirmed the research foundin the initial literature on the importance of face-saving practices in high context cul-tures in general (Avruch 1998), and Arab cultural contexts in particular (Abu-Nimer20039; Salem 1997). The decisions and attitudes displayed when forgiveness is withinthe close family circle (parent and siblings) suggests the strength of the emotionaldomain in forgiving that is suggested in psychological research (Denham et al. 2005).It should also be noted that the ability to forgive on issues such as the sisters scenarioand wedding gift giving, which are socially charged, symbolizes an attempt amongthis group of teachers to rid themselves of traditional Arab values such as honor andsocial obligations that burden many in Arab culture.

Curriculum implications and directions

In addition to conflict resolution processes of intervention, there are other implica-tions for education and curriculum design on conflict resolution and forgiveness inschools. The teachers in the present study, who had relatively high degrees of educa-tion, showed high willingness to forgive and tolerate conflicting behaviors (such aschild misbehavior, lack of reciprocity in giving and receiving wedding gifts, propertydamages, etc.). Thus, teachers can be a resource when introducing a new specializedcurriculum on forgiveness for children in schools and communities. Based on thepresent study, there are several guidelines in building and introducing forgivenesscurricula into Arab schools. First, when designing the curriculum and other educa-tional content programs in conflict and forgiveness, it is important to be aware of theconditions that motivate people to forgive and those which prevent them from for-giving. For example, deriving the justifications for forgiveness from their religiousidentities was an import characteristic of teachers’ responses (‘We are all human andmake mistakes’). Second, when providing guidelines and tools for educators to teachfor forgiveness and reconciliation process and skills, it is important to implementappropriate and culturally sensitive programs in the schools. In the context of Arabteachers and schools, relating to revealing intentionality and offering public apologyare significant factors in accepting forgiveness in most conflict situations. Third, thecurriculum should increase awareness and sensitivity of teachers to the cognitive,emotional, and cultural factors involved in forgiveness attitudes and behaviorsamong students.

The results of the present study also point to the importance of identifyingteachers’ perceptions of forgiveness as a necessary step in institutionalizing educa-tion for forgiveness in schools, especially when the teachers themselves are willingto forgive when faced with difficult situations of conflict (for example, issuesrelated to honor, religion, etc.). Such willingness indicates that the teachers can bereceptive to new curricula that promote forgiveness in schools.

Measure development and future research

The present study was a preliminary one in terms of measurement and its applicabil-ity and development to fit the context. It is clear from the responses that there is aneed to add additional scenarios specifically addressing religion and other ethnicgroups. In addition, there is a need to change the scale on the measure from (‘yes’,‘maybe’, and ‘no’) to a (1–5) Likert scale to yield more accurate and preciseresponses from participants, and provide more possibilities to respond. We have


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dre

xel U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

already developed a revised measure to include the changes and will administer thismeasure with an additional group of educators. In developing the field of forgivenessstudies in the Arab context, scholars need to develop research agendas and questionsaimed at investigating the variation in people’s attitudes towards forgiveness basedon cultural and religious factors. Considering the important role that religion plays insocial interactions, it is essential to provide further direction on how to utilize reli-gion in shaping attitudes and behaviors about forgiveness among students.

In addition, there is a need to collect more qualitative data to understand furtherthe teachers’ discourse regarding their responses to these cases. Local, recent, andhistorical cultural stories and figures who reflect forgiveness are also essential toolsthat can enrich our understanding of the terms for forgiveness in an Arab culturalcontext. Such tools can be developed in the next phase of this work, too.

Finally, the current sweeping political changes in the Arab countries, especiallythe revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, have opened up new social spaces to exploreand introduce forgiveness in educational settings. Furthermore, moving forwardtowards a more pluralist approach would require engaging in a national dialogaround issues of forgiveness and reconciliation. Arab teachers can have a leadingrole in such efforts.

Notes1. More details on these organizations are available at: http://www.theparentscircle.com/.2. More details on Fambul Tok, a reconciliation and forgiveness project in Sierra Leone,

are available at: http://www.fambultok.org/about-us/staff-profiles.3. Using the term ‘Middle Eastern Arab culture’ is a reference to the shared cultural pat-

terns and common cultural threads that guide perceptions and behaviors in the greaterMiddle East, while acknowledging the existence of specific local commonalities amongdifferent communities in the region regarding forgiveness in particular and conflict reso-lution in general.

4. This term will be used to refer to the Palestinian-Arab minority in Israel.5. This survey is one of the few instruments that exist in the field to measure responses to

forgiveness. Other instruments were examined and were determined not suitable to adaptto the cultural context of the participants in this research.

6. Both land and honor are perceived to be of great importance and value in Arab culture(see Sharabi [1985] on Arab culture).

7. The analysis was conducted by a statistician familiar with the measures and context.8. The survey included 10 cases and in each case there was one open-ended qualitative

question. This resulted in a possible total of 620 responses; however, not everyparticipant responded to all the qualitative questions. The range of responses for eachquestion was 54–65. The numbers in Table 7 are derived from that total.

9. High context culture is a term presented by Hall (1976) as the tendency to cater in com-munication to the in-group which is the group that has similar qualities and experiences.In a high context culture, there are less explanations and the culture itself providesexplanations without words.

Notes on contributorsIlham Nasser is an associate professor in Early Childhood Education at George MasonUniversity, and has spent over twenty-five years in teaching and research in different educationalsettings in the US and the Middle East. She completed a PhD in Human Development and ChildStudy at the University of Maryland-College Park and worked for several years as classroomteacher. She has researched and published on the topic of teacher development includingteachers’ motivation, teacher preparation and professional development, and teaching for peaceincluding ways to promote peace education in school settings.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dre

xel U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.theparentscircle.com/

http://www.fambultok.org/about-us/staff-profiles

Mohammed Abu-Nimer is a full professor at American University’s School of InternationalService in International Peace and Conflict Resolution in Washington, DC. He completed hisPhD in conflict resolution at George Mason University. He is the Director of thePeacebuilding and Development Institute. Dr. Abu-Nimer is also the Founder and Directorof the Salam: Peacebuilding and Justice Institute, and the co-founder and co-editor of theJournal of Peacebuilding and Development. He has written, edited, and co-authored manybooks including: Peace-Building By, Between and Beyond Muslims and EvangelicalChristians; Reconciliation, Coexistence, and Justice: Theory and Practice; Unity in Diversity:Interfaith Dialogue in the Middle East, and Peacebuilding and Nonviolence in Islam.

References

Abu-Nimer, M. 2001. Reconciliation, justice, and coexistence: Theory and practice. NewYork: Lexington Books.

Abu-Nimer, M. 2003. Nonviolence and peacebuilding in Islam. Gainesville, FL: UniversityPress of Florida.

Abu-Nimer, M. 2008. The role of religious peacebuilding in traumatized societies: Fromwithdrawal to forgiveness. In Peacebuilding in traumatized societies, ed. Barry Hart,239–61. New York: University Press of America.

Ahmed, E., and J. Braithwaite. 2005. Forgiveness, shaming, shame and bullying. TheAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 38, no. 3: 298–323.

Antoun, R. 1997. Institutionalize deconfrontation: A case study of conflict resolution amongtribal peasants in Jordan. In Conflict resolution in the Arab world: Selected essays, ed.P. Salem, 140–75. Beirut: American University of Beirut.

Avruch, K. 1998. Culture and conflict resolution. Washington, DC: United States InstitutePress.

Boulding, E. 2000. Culture of peace: The hidden side of history. New York: SyracuseUniversity Press.

Boulter, L. 2004. Family–school connection and school violence prevention. The NegroEducational Review 55, no. 1: 27–40.

Denham, S., K. Neal, B. Wilson, K. Pickering, and C. Boyatzis. 2005. Emotional developmentand forgiveness in children: Emerging evidence. In Handbook of forgiveness, ed. E.L. Wor-thington, 127–42. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Enright, R., and E. Gassin. 1992. Forgiveness: A developmental view. Journal of MoralEducation 21, no. 2: 99–114.

Hall, E.T. 1976. Beyond Culture. New York: Doubleday.Henderson, M. 2008. No enemy to conquer: Forgiveness in an unforgiving world. Waco,

TX: Baylor University Press.Maio, G.R., G. Thomas, F. Fincham, and K. Carnelley. 2008. Unraveling the role of forgive-

ness in family relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94, no. 2:307–19.

Rigby, A. 2001. Justice and reconciliation: After violence. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Pub-lishers.

Salem, P., ed. 1997. Conflict resolution in the Arab world: Selected essays. Beirut: AmericanUniversity of Beirut.

Sharabi, H. 1985. Neopatriarchy: A theory of distorted change in Arab society. New YorkNY: Oxford University Press.

Shumow, L., and J. Miller. 2001. Parents’ at-home and at-school academic involvement withyoung adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence 21, no. 1: 68–91.

Tangney, J.P., A.L. Boone, R. Fee, and C. Reinsmith. 1999. Multidimensional forgivenessscale. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.

Todd, E. 1985. The value of confession and forgiveness according to Jung. Journal of Reli-gion and Health 24: 39–48.

White, P. 2002. What should we teach children about forgiveness? Journal of Philosophy ofEducation 36, no. 1: 57–67.

Worthington, E.L. 2005. Handbook of forgiveness. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor &Francis Group.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dre

xel U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

perceptions of forgiveness among palestinian teachers in israel

Documents