Understanding Both Sides: An Abstract Report on Educational Solutions' October 2005 Pilot Dialogue on the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict between Classes at the American University of Sharjah, UAE, and the Oregon Institute of Technology, USA

During October and November 2005, Educational Solutions (ES) conducted a three-week pilot program to evaluate the curriculum for an ES online dialogue course about the Israeli/Palestinian. College students at the Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT), USA and the American University of Sharjah (AUS) in the United Arab Emirates participated in this pilot dialogue.

Over a three-week period, students in both locations studied the same curriculum on the topic of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. They dialogued across the Arab/American divide via text on the ES Website and via school videoconferencing facilities.

General Results

An AUS student: "I learned about the Israeli side of the story. It helped me to better understand the conflict. I especially enjoyed learning about some of the solutions, like the Arc. [The Arc: A Formal Structure for a Palestinian State. D. Suisman, S. Simon, G. Robinson, C. Anthony, and M. Schoenbaum. The Rand Corporation.]"

An OIT student: "I've learned that the Palestinians are suffering much more than I thought."

After participating in the ES course insert, 100% (13/13) of AUS and 100% (11/11) OIT students said they have a better understanding of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Students were asked what they felt was the most important point they learned from the course insert. 31% (4/13) of AUS students and 36% (4/11) of OIT students referred to learning both sides of the conflict as the most important point. Students were asked what they felt were the two best solutions to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The two solutions cited most frequently were the two-state solution and the Arc.

Four Specific Advances in Understanding about the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Overall, all students showed marked improvement in their understanding of the four key questions related to understanding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Two AUS students and one OIT student did not take the Pre Test, so their answers to the Post Test were not used to evaluate knowledge gain.

Question 1, "What was the Holocaust?": 69% of participants from both schools showed improvement in their answers from the pretest to the post test, 92% improvement in the answers of the AUS students and 40% improvement in the answers of the OIT students.

Question 2, "How do the Palestinian suicide bombings (terrorist attacks) contribute to the Israel/Palestine cycle of violence?": 87% of participants from both schools showed improvement in their answers from the pretest to the post test, 100% improvement for AUS students and 70% improvement for OIT students.

Question 3, "What were the two causes of Palestinian suffering during the Second Intifada?": 87% of participants from both schools show improvement in their answers from the pretest to the post test, 100% improvement for AUS students and 70% improvement for OIT students.

Question 4, "How does the Israeli settlement policy contribute to the Israel/Palestine cycle of violence?": 87% of participants from both schools show improvement in their answers from the pretest to the post test, 100% improvement for AUS students and 70% improvement for OIT students.

Solutions

An AUS student: The best solutions are those that ... counter ... the cycle of violence. A solution that give Palestinians a right to a viable state works best because it give them security, lessens attacks on Israelis, and therefore the Israelis don't feel threatened. Hence projects/plans that develop Palestine such as the "Arc" solution by Rand Corp. or the Sheikh Khalifa City from the UAE work best to assure that each side has some vision of the future and some notion of peaceful coexistence. The second solution is that provided by the "One Voice" movement because a grass roots level discussion sometimes works more effectively than direct, formal political channels. This is because it involves citizens on both sides who want peace and are ready to talk, rather than people at the top pre-disposed to disagree with one another.