1. Creation of alternative spaces: There is a range of alternative spaces and platforms for dialogue and discussion such as radio programs, joint publications and grassroots initiatives used to overcome geographical and psychological barriers. Examples are the commemoration of both Palestinian and Israeli deaths during the alternative Memorial Day held in Tel Aviv, introduced by Combatants for Peace (CFP) in 2006, and the alternative tours held in the West Bank and East Jerusalem organized by both Israeli and Palestinian NGOs aimed at integrating conflicting narratives or building a new comprehensive narrative that challenges the hegemonic one.

2. Use of the media: Platforms such as All for Peace Radio and the Palestine- Israel Journal (PIJ) contribute to overcoming geographical boundaries by creating channels for debate and exchange on many aspects of the conflict, focusing particularly on Jerusalem. Mossi Raz, the Israeli codirector of All for Peace Radio, explained that the priority is to reach Jerusalemites: “They are on the East and West side of the same street, yet consume totally different media and listen to different news and narratives.”

3. Flexibility: The unstable environment has led joint organizations to use flexible structures to minimize the impact of restrictions on movement. Meetings are kept to a minimum and organizations rely on computermediated communication (CMC) for coordination. This flexibility ensures continuity of their work under unpredictable circumstances. For example, CFP has adopted a flexible internal structure: This NGO is composed of approximately 150 activists who are divided into five regional bi-national groups but have no headquarters. The members meet only under specific circumstances that involve the physical presence of both Palestinians and Israelis, and the meetings take place in Area C, often in Beit Jala (30 km from Jerusalem), a location to which both sides have access.

4. Personal stories: Joint organizations have developed strategies based on storytelling to counteract processes of dehumanization. This practice constitutes a major part of CFP’s activities. Personal stories facilitate the empathic identification of the audience with the narrator. Within this framework, the sense of belonging to the land, common to both Jews and Palestinians, ideally serves to unite rather than divide them. One pattern can be identified in the different personal stories: The speakers describe an initial state of lack of awareness or bias toward the other side followed by a significant experience of violence (direct or indirect) which led them to an epiphany regarding the need for a nonviolent struggle to end the occupation.

Participatory Mapping as a Re-appropriation of Space

This study did not encounter any effective response to the stigma of normalization attributed to joint initiatives. Arguably, the phenomenon of the anti-normalization drive expresses a collective need and, as such, it is particularly hard to counter with arguments centred on mutual understanding. Joint organizations, it is felt, do not directly address the need for self-determination of the Palestinians. Thus, the anti-normalization drive can be interpreted as the expression of the Palestinian communities’ need for the affirmation of a stronger Palestinian identity.

For the Palestinians, the wall embodies a deep violation of the sense of belonging to the land, which in itself has deep symbolic meaning. The violent uprooting that resulted from the construction of the wall represents an offense to the Palestinian spatial identity as it is felt to be a denial of their relationship with their land — a denial actualized in the loss of the land as well as the restrictions on movement. In fact, the land is conceived to be both a fundamental resource for livelihood and a symbol of identity, as agriculture has always had strong cultural, social and economic significance for Palestinians. For example, the olive tree symbolizes their connection with the land and is the object of positive associations with heritage, tradition and roots.

The concept of spatial identity refers to the bond between a specific group and the place they come from and to the moral experience of that place: The physical presence (or absence) of a group in a certain setting is an integral part of its members’ identity. Thus, boundaries and territorial divisions — such as the separation barrier — come to form part of one’s spatial identity: “They are not merely physical lines of exclusion, but symbolic, allegorical and metaphorical markers of identity” (Kaplan, 1999, p. 46). Territories are not only spaces inhabited and contended for by people but come to define the people themselves. This perspective can explain how the displacement and land grabbing following the erection of the wall could deeply affect people in the region, not only economically but culturally as well.

Arguably, the Palestinian need for a spatial identity based on a strong connection with the territory, rather than its loss, did not find expression in dialogue-based approaches. In fact, this specific need is overshadowed by the joint organizations’ efforts directed toward the creation of a common ground between the two sides. At the same time, this need has found expression in the work of other grassroots organizations that work to connect Palestinian NGO networks and Palestinian communities within and outside of Jerusalem, such as Stop the Wall and Grassroots Jerusalem. These movements flourished as a direct reaction to the wall, with the purpose of counteracting its negative impact by connecting Palestinian communities on either side of the barrier.

Grassroots Jerusalem argues that modern maps are actively perpetuating colonialist practices by not showing streets or shops in Palestinian villages. As suggested by the lack of satellite navigator indications, cartography is not untouched by political biases. Google Maps, by far the most widely used map application in the world, does not provide information on West Bank roads and routes although it provides detailed information about cites in Israel (with the exception of East Jerusalem) and the Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Grassroots Jerusalem created an online platform in collaboration with partners from 80 community organizations in 40 Palestinian communities around Jerusalem. The organization planned to tackle the fragmentation between Palestinian communities in the Jerusalem area by encouraging a participatory mapping process. Participatory mapping is a way for people to define their territory and, by doing so, to reaffirm their spatial identity. In other words, participatory mapping is a tool for regaining spatial control. In practice, participants are given a GPS and are asked to provide information about Palestinian street names, the amount of land that was confiscated in their neighborhood, and the places that the community would like to mark on a map, such as hotels, schools, public institutions, etc.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This assessment of whether the achievement of dialogue and common spaces is a feasible goal in the current situation, albeit limited, has demonstrated that the main obstacle to joint endeavors relates to the inability of Palestinians to move freely in and out of Palestine and Israel. In addition, findings revealed that dialogue-based initiatives do not seem to meet the needs for affirming a Palestinian spatial identity based on the sense of belonging to the land.

In conclusion, is it possible to work for peace through dialogue in a fenced region? Arguably it is, but with great limitations. Possibilities for cooperation still exist and are supported by the following strategies:

1. Exposing individuals to both cultures and strengthening cultural awareness of the experience of the other.

2. Encouraging open discussions as a means to address controversial issues.

3. Counteracting the alienating impact of the wall on the population.

4. Creating emotional connections and empathy.

However, the wall has undermined the optimal use of dialogue-based approaches by prejudicing people’s ability to freely meet in shared spaces. On the whole, the positive impacts of these initiatives are impoverished by the structural imbalance — lack of freedom of movement and unequal civil rights — of the discriminatory system in place.

Alternative spaces are destined to remain weak until the system of segregation is not at least mitigated. Consequently, spatial planning and urban design have key roles to play in achieving reconciliation. Public spaces are a critical force in determining the level of dialogue and tension within a contested place; they can provide an arena for reconciliation or for disputation. For example, in the case of urban design as a force for peace, contested spaces can be transformed into shared spaces that display the symbolic affirmation of a shared identity. The Israeli government should give priority to projects with the potential to integrate rather than segregate, in Jerusalem and elsewhere. Finally, the removal of defensive walls and barriers should be considered a long-term objective and should begin with a gradual reduction in the appearance of permanence in these structures.