Stereotypes and Prejudice in Conflict:
Representations of Arabs in Israeli Jewish Society

Daniel Bar-Tal and Yona Teichman
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 502 pages.

During the last twenty years, a discernible increase in the analysis of stereo-
types and the role they assume during conflicts has occurred, with significant
interest emanating from the field of social psychology. For the authors of
Stereotypes and Prejudice in Conflict: Representations of Arabs in Israeli
Jewish Society, years of research have culminated in a publication that
unflinchingly explores such diverse topics as delegitimization tactics and
unity as well as the development of perceptions among pre-schoolers. 

Daniel Bar-Tal, a professor in Tel Aviv University’s Psychology Depart-
ment, is the author of several notable works on the issue, including Social
Psychology of Intergroup Conflict (Springer-Verlag: 1998) and How
Children Understand War and Peace (Jossey Bass: 1999). Likewise, Yona
Teichman, a clinical psychologist at Tel Aviv University, brings a level of
expertise honed from extensive research on the development and application
of an implicit, free-response measure of social representations based on the
systematic analysis of human figure drawings. Through this dynamic, they
strive to contribute to future peace endeavors by prompting the critical
analysis of one’s own society and the processes that impede conflict resolu-
tion, while encouraging new perspectives that will end the violent cycles that
sustain conflict. 

From a strong opening chapter, the authors negotiate through twelve
chapters adeptly, the most notable of which include chapter 4, “Represen-
tation of Arabs in Public Discourse”; chapter 5, “Representation of Arabs in
School Textbooks”; and chapter 10, “Studies with Schoolchildren, Adoles-
cents, and Young Adults.” All of these chapters are supported by a plethora
of tables comprising generalization, characterization, and negativity; color

104 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 24:1



plates by the children and adolescents surveyed depicting delegitimization,
gender, and traditionalism as well as figures on the formation of stereotypes
and prejudice; discrepancies between Jewish and Arab images; and delegit-
imization during intractable conflict. 

Introducing the concept of the “psychological intergroup repertoire,” a
theme that is explored throughout the book, chapter 1, “The Psychological
Basis of International Relations,” addresses the special influence that stereo-
types and prejudice bring to bear on psychological functioning. In addition
to the numerous theories that rationalize the formation of stereotypic con-
tents and prejudice, the chapter dedicates particular attention to the nature of
intergroup relations as an important basis for the evolving psychological
intergroup repertoire. Generally viewed as a harmful element in society, the
authors explore the positive and negative aspects of stereotypes. Though
destructive and polarizing, stereotypes can, conversely, satisfy the needs of
individuals and groups for simplicity and order while reflecting the necessity
to make better than random decisions at a minimum information cost, often
under the pressures of time. Moreover, “stereotypes allow an understanding
of the other groups by attributing to them traits, intentions, goals, disposi-
tions, or capabilities. Friendly intergroup relations yield information about
positive characteristics of the outgroup” (p. 35). In such a manner, then, one
can comprehend the association between the power of stereotypes and the
political climate and its collective influence on the repertoire between the
Israelis and the Palestinians. 

The evolution of the Arab image within the Israeli consciousness is
traced through pre-state literature for children and adults via school textbooks
and drama, the mainstream of which presented Arabs “in a romantic way at
best, but mostly as enemies who could not comprehend Jewish aspirations
and who violently opposed the return of the Jews to their homeland” (p. 206).
In the aftermath of the state’s foundation, the Palestinian population endured
the negative metaphors that portrayed them as a depersonalized, undifferen-
tiated, and threatening entity. The metaphors, though of little interest to the
writers, frequently served as ruses through which the promulgation of the
Jews’ problems and concerns could be channelled to readers and audiences
and, in turn, stoke pre-existing negative stereotypes and delegitimization. 

By the 1970s, however, the tide of representation shifted and the
Palestinians increasingly came to be represented differently: as individuals
with complex and multidimensional personalities who had experienced suf-
fering because of the Israelis. This change brought with it a personalization
and a differentiation within the images of Arabs and finally provided a voice
for the peace camp, as writers, playwrights, and film makers prompted their

Book Reviews 105



readers and audiences to consider critically how the various authorities treat
the country’s Arab citizens. 

The author’s indication that the peace treaties with Egypt (1979) and
Jordan (1994) as well as the two Palestinian uprisings presented a catalyst
to which the arts world responded by revolutionizing the perception of
Palestinians is debatable. As Tamar Liebes notes in Reporting the Arab-
Israeli Conflict: How Hegemony Works (Routledge: 1997), the positive
portrayal of Palestinians in films is witnessed “only rarely, and even then to
an audience which is self-selected, with a relatively high level of education,
and a special interest in being exposed to an image which could arouse cog-
nitive dissonance” (p. 134). Thus, as over 70 percent of the population con-
tinues to perceive the Palestinians through often delegitimizing television
news reports, the cinema’s role in quashing stereotypes is nullified. 

It is with great irony, moreover, that the publication’s second flaw should
emerge amidst its enlightening chapters. In what should be lauded as a com-
plex triumph, chapter 3, “The Context: The Arab-Israeli Intractable Conflict,”
smacks of inconsistencies as it blunders through a history of the Arab-Israeli
conflict omitting the demeritorious activities exacted by the Israeli govern-
ment and military, choosing instead to dwell upon the Palestinians’ actions.
The tangible absence of an Arab perspective on the events is sorely missed,
while the language employed virtually perpetuates the delegitimization that
is the subject of the study. For example, a typical account informs the readers
that “the Palestinian leadership initiated the ‘terror Intifada’ in September
2000, supposedly because of the visit to the Temple Mount by the Israeli
opposition’s head Ariel Sharon” (p. 115). While such events are open to inter-
pretation, as an introduction to the conflict the chapter holds too little neutral-
ity to be extolled. 

The publication’s real virtue lies in the authors’ ability to demonstrate
the evolution of a negative psychological intergroup repertoire about the
rival in the course of a long process. That the experiences of intractable con-
flict assume a significant role in this process is clear; yet other mechanisms,
such as the views expressed by leaders as well as information and analyses
presented in the media, equally strengthen the developing repertoire and
maintain it through the years. The need for change to emanate not only from
the people but also from the leaders is strongly reinforced in subsequent
chapters, which enables the publication to recover its position as a com-
mendable evaluation of the role of prejudice and stereotype in conflicts.

K. Luisa Gandolfo
Ph.D. Candidate, Institute of Arabic and Islamic Studies

University of Exeter, United Kingdom

106 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 24:1