ORIGINAL

Abstract

People-to-people (P2P) initiatives in Palestine/Israel grew in popularity during the late 90's as a civil society level support mechanism for the peace process; however, the failure of the peace process led to the rejection of P2P initiatives as similarly failed projects, labeling such efforts at dialogue-like activity in the post-Oslo era as "normalizing" activities. A large body of research has been focused on the history of these programs, the psychology behind such encounters, and why people-to-people work “failed”. Much less has been discussed about how organizations and participants of current initiatives navigate critiques and barriers in the present political reality, and why they continue their work now despite the perceived failure of the past. Space and mobility both affect the ways in which organizations working within the occupied territories navigate their work and how they respond to critiques of power asymmetry and normalization. While all these organizations rally behind a similar theme of humanization and opposition to separation, the ways in which organizations choose to interact with their spatial limitations and environment are reflective of their specific motivations behind their work. Using Lefebvre’s perceived-conceived-lived triad, I will narrate and analyze the work of three different organizations within a framework of space, ultimately arguing that the ideological space produced by organizations in a new paradigm of peace is resistant to the status quo thus justifying its importance in the current moment. This thesis will ultimately attempt to answer the following questions: What are the challenges these organizations face in navigating their spatial reality? How are they combating these challenges and carving their own spaces? Why do they find it important to continue pursuing their work in the current moment? What is the relationship of each of these spaces to the idea of dialogue?