Dialogue As Resistance: A Qualitative Evaluation of a Jewish-Palestinian Student Dialogue Group during War

Background and Purpose:
War and political conflict have severe implications on all members of society. One key consequence of the deadly Israel-Gaza war (2023-2025) has been a marked escalation in social polarization, intensifying intergroup tensions across diverse contexts (Mishra, 2025). University campuses have become focal points of this polarization, with students particularly affected and wartime dissent within universities often silenced or tightly constrained, limiting the boundaries of acceptable political expression and protest. Schools of social work face acute and unique challenges in such contexts. Grounded in commitments to social justice, human rights, and opposition to oppression, these values are strained by political pressures that shape institutional responses. This study examined a Jewish–Palestinian student dialogue group in a School of Social Work at an Israeli university, exploring its potential as a structured pedagogical approach to addressing polarization, repression, and the ethical responsibilities of social work education.

Methods:
A critical ethnographic approach was used to examine a Jewish–Palestinian dialogue group facilitated by a Jewish-Israeli faculty member and a Palestinian citizen of Israel BSW graduate during the 2024–2025 academic year. Data included approximately 50 hours of participant observation and 13 in-depth interviews with group participants conducted between July and November 2025.

Findings:
The group functioned as both a space for psychological support and a form of political resistance within a restrictive academic climate. Four major themes emerged: a) The dialogue group as a space for mutual healing; b) Exploring and negotiating identity through dialogue; c) Structural inequalities and the difficulty of initiating dialogue during war; and d) Dialogue as a space for reclaiming moral and professional meaning. The findings show that Palestinian students expressed the distress of witnessing violence in Gaza alongside the strain of institutional silencing, while Jewish students remained engaged with these narratives without retreating into defensiveness. The group enabled participants to explore complex identities safely and fostered moments of empathy, mutual recognition, and witnessing. By centering Palestinian voices and acknowledging structural power asymmetries, the group created what participants described as a “breathing space” amid ongoing moral and emotional strain.

Conclusion and Implications:
The findings provide rare empirical insight into intergroup dialogue conducted during active war and highlight the value of affect-centered, conflict-aware pedagogies. At a time when many institutions world-wide have narrowed the boundaries of permissible political expression, the dialogue group demonstrates the potential value of structured, facilitated spaces that directly address political violence, power asymmetries, and collective trauma. For schools of social work, the implications are particularly significant. While social work has struggled to offer concrete steps to address political conflict, the present model offers a structured space in which students can enact the profession’s ethical commitments in real time. As universities world-wide are experiencing profound political changes, innovative ways to uphold their commitment to freedom of speech, human rights and inclusion, the dialogue group can serve as a model to be tailored to various contexts of social polarization, political conflict and democratic backsliding.