Interview Process

An influential component of the following thesis is the data collected from the interview process. Throughout the study, the contribution of those interviewed is referenced constantly.

Thus, it is important to justify its relevance to the thesis, as well as give some indication of how this process transpired and the data accrued.

The material collected during the interviews immensely contributed to the central argument anchoring the thesis. It was whilst discussing a range of social, political and legal issues pertaining to the conflict with interviewees that the investigation’s theoretical starting point concerning the human rights discourse was located. Haaretz journalist Khaled Diab, biologist Mazim Qumsiyeh, UN observer Hamed Qawasmeh, NGO leaders Roie Revitsky and Adam Keller, author Ilan Pappe, political activist Jamal Juma, and political scientist Ahmed Hamad all attested to the developing human rights discourse amongst Palestinians on the ground.

Those interviews conducted during the initial interview process such as Saeb Erekat did not gather anything pertaining to this phenomenon since the author was primarily concerned with the academic discourse surrounding the one-two state solution debate. Unfortunately, little scholarly discussion concerning the phenomenon of a human rights-based discourse in the Holy Land exists, which is why it was considered necessary to reveal its manifestation and analyse it alongside the philosophical underpinnings of human rights as a body of law, and the overall social and humanitarian context of the Israel–Palestine conflict.

The thesis further hinges on the views of those interviewed since despite the emerging portent of a human rights discourse being palpable on the ground, it is by no means an organised movement. This explains why it is difficult to give any indication of when this new discourse began to materialise, for it is yet to be encapsulated into a single ideological unit. There is no civil movement occurring in the form of an active group collectively protesting for Israel to abide by its human rights obligations. Rather, it is more a dispersed and disjointed discourse which is becoming more audible and nascent. As Jamal Juma states, “We want to have a civil rights movement.”⁵⁶ It is thus more of a hope amongst those who believe in its practicality than

56 Juma, J., Interview, 24/8/15

a well-established concrete strategy. The views of interviewees who attested to this development were therefore used to analyse what human rights mean and entail in the Israel-Palestinian context, using the theoretical pillars of Lederach and Parlevliet. Given the limitations in terms of academic evidence to estimate the scale of this development, the views of those interviewed was used as an opportunity to introduce a significant social development on the ground into the academic discourse regarding the conflict.

In accordance with traditional ethnographic research, the vast majority of the data gathered during the interviews was accumulated from within the social context. Though some of the interviews were conducted over the internet using various communication interfaces (Skype, email), the majority of interviewees lived and worked in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Interviews with participants from outside the immediate social context were all conducted via the internet: Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Miko Peled and Virginia Tilley. All are prominent and respectable figures within the academic discourse surrounding the conflict. The common thread connecting these interviews with those within the immediate social context was the employment of the in-depth technique.

In-depth interviews are characteristically extensive in their duration and tend to involve a greater sense of personal expression on the part of the interviewer in order to build a sense of intimacy. The interviewer often seeks a deeper, more complex understanding of the subject matter and asks a range of open and closed questions to multiple tangents relating to the overarching topic of conversation.⁵⁷ Most of the interviews conducted for this thesis lasted well over an hour and in some cases consisted of multiple meetings. More importantly, the in-depth method offered a means to unearth weightier and more cogent information than is usually found in surveys. This is not to disparage the validity of the information offered by surveys, for this thesis also makes extensive use of a number polls throughout the course of the investigation. It is to say, by looking beyond the statistics and percentage figures, in-depth interviewing offered a valuable technique in which to contextualise a range of normative issues in more personal terms. In tandem with the data collected from various polls and surveys, the interviews were synergised to amalgamate both quantitative and qualitative research methods in formulating a singular portrayal of the current social reality in Israel-Palestine. Moreover, referring to the statistical analysis in surveys conducted by Palestinian, Israeli and international organisations

57 Johnson, J., & Rowlands, T., The Interpersonal Dynamics of In-Depth Interviewing, in Gubrium, J., Holstein, J., Marvasti, A., & McKinney, K (eds)., The Sage Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft, Sage, London, 2012, pp. 99

was not only to convey the perspectives of all key stakeholders but to demonstrate how the data in all the polls paradoxically assimilated. Of course, statistical data collected through surveys has its own complications and can never be relied upon as pure empirical fact. But in this case, its value lay in its ability to explicate how the views of Jews in Israeli polls correlated with the concerns of Arabs in Palestinian surveys, and more importantly, with the testimonies of the interviewees.

Another crucial benefit of the in-depth method is that it offers the interviewer a chance to evaluate theories they have “formulated through naturalistic observation, to verify independently knowledge that they have gained through participation as members of a particular cultural setting.”⁵⁸ This particular dynamic of in-depth interviewing was instrumental to the conceptualisation of this thesis since originally the author had intended to focus primarily on the question of a one-state solution. A burgeoning enclave of academics pontificate the logistics of a single state between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea. Most of these analyses focus on the irreversibility of the settlement enterprise and the projected imbalance of Arab-Jewish demographics in the future to justify this radical proposition. The author originally intended to investigate the possibility of sharing the land under a single state at the outset of the data collection process. Nevertheless, it became apparent once talking to interviewees and interacting with people on the ground that the one-state-two-state dichotomy was a non-existent discussion for most people despite its growing relevancy in political and academic circles. This discovery was reflected in the pattern of questioning as the data was collected. With the initial interviews, along with the obligatory introductory questions, the majority of the questions centred on this dichotomy and the possibility of establishing a single democratic state between Israel and the occupied territories. In-depth interviewing enabled the author to review the relevancy of this debate in the context of grassroots movements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Once it was discovered the average Palestinian was disillusioned with the political process, it became clear the human rights discourse provided a fall back initiative to circumnavigate numerous political and ideological hurdles to finding a definitive resolution. Albeit some questioned the potency of the tactic, several of the interviewees, as shown above, testified to this growing phenomenon.⁵⁹ The in-depth method therefore provided a significant technique in which to evaluate the relevancy of the author’s own assessment of

58 Ibid, pp. 100

59 Rivitsky, R., Interview, 1/9/15

the conflict and compare this to the opinions of academics, politicians and activists on the ground.

Finally, the actual means by how the interviewees were selected was a result of the author’s engrossment into the conflict’s social context. Whilst conducting field research, the author simultaneously undertook an internship in a local academic publication: Palestine-Israel Journal. As part of his responsibilities, the author was expected to attend conferences, lectures and protests on behalf of the organisation as well as interview key figures while on assignment.

This enabled the author to meet the vast majority of the individuals interviewed for the following thesis, who in most cases, had also previously written for the publication. For instance, the author met Jamal Juma and Haitham Khatib at political protests in the West Bank.

Robin Twite was present at a conference on religious co-existence, and Gerald Steinberg held a public lecture regarding the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement in West Jerusalem.

The author was instructed to attend all of these events for the purpose of reporting what happened for the publication’s online blog. Furthermore, Khaled Diab’s acquaintance occurred at the journal’s offices in East Jerusalem. Diab was a participant in the roundtable discussions, which consisted of several civil society figures and journalists discussing the growing religiosity of the conflict. The author also participated in this discussion and was tasked with transcribing it for the journal’s forthcoming issue. Some of the comments Diab made during the roundtable discussion concerned the author’s own research, convincing the latter to request an interview at the end of the meeting.In some cases, such as Claire Anastas, the process was more organic and reactionary. While the author was browsing in their souvenir shop in Bethlehem, Anastas struck up a general conversation with the author. Conversely, with the likes of Noam Chomsky, Virginia Tilley, Norman Finkelstein and Miko Peled, the interviews were a result of investigative, formal researching. In this sense, they were contacted by the author directly. The decision to contact the aforementioned individuals was based on the author either reading their academic works or understanding their significance to contemporary debate surrounding the conflict. At the same time, it is important to note the unsuccessful interview attempts. Several current Jewish and Arab-Israeli Knesset members including Ze’ev Elkin, Avi Ditcher, Haim Katz, Tzipi Livni, Hanin Zoabi and Osama Sa’adi were contacted. The presumed counter opinion of all these prospective interviews could have added a greater sense of balance to the investigation given they reside on either sides of the political spectrum. Unfortunately, all either declined to speak or chose not to reply to the invite of an interview. Nevertheless, both interviewees and non-interviewees were selected on the basis of their shared engagement

with the conflict. Whether it be directly in terms of politics and civil society, or indirectly in terms of academic works written from outside the conflict arena.