Call/WhatsApp: +1 914 416 5343

The End of the Clash of Civilizations

How does Martin Buber’s teaching help reduce conflict and bring Israeli-Palestinian together?

The work must be written in a dignified and qualified academic manner, so do not take a significant side in the matter (neither Israeli nor Palestinian) but present the issues and discuss academic research dignifiedly. It must be written in a liberal manner that allows for coexistence and dialogue between people and restores trust. For any question, misunderstanding, or desire to express yourself in another way, I ask to be contacted for approval.

Table of Contents
• Abstract
This is a brief explanation of the work’s content, purpose, and how it adds to the general study.
This chapter summarizes what is said in the working body (here, write a paragraph or two).
• Introduction
This chapter is the beginning of the work and should present the issues discussed in the paper, Buber’s thinking, various divisions/splits in Israel, an overview of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and how Buber’s teaching can help reduce the conflict and restore trust between the two peoples (Palestinian and Israeli).
This chapter explains in more detail about the research and the content in this work (it is necessary to add briefly about possible further studies to deepen the current research).
In The Clash of Civilizations, Samuel Huntington argued that cultural and religious identity would be the primary source of post-Cold War conflict in the world. The philosopher Martin Buber holds that the discourse between human beings should not correspond with the divine commandment. That is, optimal interpersonal communication will take place when human beings unite around shared beliefs and opinions. He further argued that the interpersonal encounter would inspire hope, trust and lead human beings to a collaborative and inclusive world.
This paper will delve deeper into Buber’s thinking in the seminar’s work while emphasizing the religious-mental precedent relevant to the work’s subject. This paper will examine the meanings that emerge from Buber’s thinking in the context of social discourse in Israel, that is, his teaching on the possible healing of the deep rifts that exist in Israeli society and how we as a modern Jewish society can lead normalization and trust between the Arab world and Zionist entity in general and Palestinian society in particular.
Will expand the meaning of a whole and reformed society based on the existence of communities/cooperatives that have ties to other communities, but not in the anarchist meaning as presented by Buber’s friend Gustav Landauer but in the existence of cooperative societies that express genuine trust in each other and develop mutual bonds.
I will explore similar in-depth perceptions that have been made in practice to lead to the connection between the societies in which I concentrate on the research question. I will delve into aspects of the tangible impact on Israeli and Palestinian public opinion while emphasizing the assimilation of Bubrian “world repair” values. Accordingly, I will try to present possible solutions to unite the many rifts in Israeli society, which lead to new social construction that advocates are expanding the discourse and restoring trust between Israeli and Palestinian society.
In summary, I will present conclusions for the seminar’s work and changes to the intelligent solutions that are based on Buber’s thought. These aspirations will lead to a possible reduction of the conflict between Israeli and Palestinian society.
• Buber’s Thought
Presentation and discussion of Martin Buber’s thought while delving deeper into “Tikun Olam.”
It is impossible to investigate Buber’s possible contribution to resolving the conflict without referring to his political activities as a member of the Brit Shalom organization / as someone who supported the establishment of a bi-national regime in the country. Focus on his philosophical thought. However, you have to look at the practical translation of Buber’s ideas that he also made on his own. Most of the relevant articles are collected in the book “A Land for Two Peoples.” It is also worth looking at Shalom Ratzbi (find it – also add to bibliography), who wrote a book on the Brit Shalom movement. (In this context, it is also worth noting the tremendous religious value that Buber attributes to the Land of Israel).
• Buber’s thought as a factor helps to heal the rifts in Israeli society.
Introducing the existing rifts in Israeli society (national rift, religious rift, ethnic rift, social rifts) – and an explanation of how Martin Buber’s thought can settle them. The idea is how rapprochement, according to Buber, can resolve internal conflicts in Israel and consequently at a later stage also rapprochement and resolving crises in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (details on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the following chapters).
• Review of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Details about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
How the conflict was created, in short, what factors led to the crisis of trust between the two peoples (Israeli and Palestinian), and also today’s situation with the conflict.
It should be shown in this chapter that on both sides, there are factors that are interested in bringing people together and healing the rifts (this is part of social and national interest, particular interests and universal interests) and also that both parties understand that trust must be restored (this chapter is preparation for the next chapter). Moreover, in restoring trust by bringing people together and Tikun Olam, according to Buber).
• Buberian “Tikun Olam” in reducing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
This chapter makes up most of the work and will get a larger volume than the other chapters.
In this chapter, we discuss the possibility of reducing the conflict (not its solution) by restoring trust between the “simple” people and hence restoring trust between the leaderships of the two sides, thus leading to implementing government strategies that will gradually reduce hostility between the people and thus restore trust.
As part of presenting Buber’s thinking, it should be noted that Buber was a European thinker with a very orientalist tendency and even “arrogant.” Buber even sought to “return to the East” and be absorbed into the Middle East. However, he was unfamiliar with Arab Culture. Some claim that his aspirations reflect a certain level of naivety. Buber is a European thinker, and so in this chapter, another thought should be offered to reduce the conflict, perhaps Oriental thought, perhaps Arabic (not a breakdown of it but only its presentation).
• Summary and Conclusions
This chapter is a summary of the content of the work, summarizing the things presented throughout the work and therefore also presenting and explaining possible conclusions and implications of the study on reducing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and bringing hearts together.
I ask that the summary (like all work) be written in a liberal (coexistence) trend and aspiration for a better future through the work of Buber and thinkers like him who advocated Tikun Olam.
• Bibliography
Ashmore, Richard D., Lee Jussim, and David Wilder, eds. Social identity, intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction. Oxford University Press, 2001.
Bastian, Brock, Dean Lusher, and Abe Ata. “Contact, evaluation, and social distance: Differentiating majority and minority effects.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36, no. 1 (2012): 100-107.
Buber, Martin. “Images of good and evil.” (1952).
Buber, Martin. A land of two peoples: Martin Buber on Jews and Arabs. University of Chicago Press, 2005.
Buber, Martin. Tales of Rabbi Nachman, “Rabbi Nachman’s Journey to Palestine”
Buber, Martin. On Judaism. Schocken, 2013.
Hasidism: Writings on Devotion, Community, and Life in the Modern World (selections TBA)
Huntington, Samuel P. “The clash of civilizations?.” In Culture and politics, pp. 99-118. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2000.
Yachtsman-Yaar, Ephraim, and Michael Inbar. “Social distance in the Israeli-Arab conflict: A resource-dependency analysis.” Comparative Political Studies 19, no. 3, (1986).