Different Religions, Similar Experiences: Intra-Group Religious Tension Among Non-Religious Jews and Arabs in Israel

Abstract

The rapid growth in interfaith peacebuilding has elevated the prominence of religion in theoretical and practical discourse, highlighting its importance in conflict dynamics. In dialogue-based encounters between distinct identity groups, religion often emerges as a key factor, regardless of participants’ specific affiliation or religiosity level. However, studies on religion-related tension typically adopt a polarized perspective, framing conflict in intergroup contexts while overlooking intra-group dynamics. This paper addresses this gap through a qualitative cross-case analysis of two studies, conducted in Israel during 2016–2019. Participants included 28 secular Jews and 28 secular Arabs (Christian and Muslim). Our findings reveal that non-religious individuals from both societies experienced similar challenges in navigating intra-group, religion-based encounters. Participants identified religion as defining boundaries of understanding, acceptance, legitimacy, and belonging within their societies. The study also highlights gaps in mutual recognition, whereby the participants expressed willingness to accept religion as integral to their religious counterparts’ identity, yet reported that this openness was not reciprocated. This gap created barriers to dialogue, weakening potential intra-group cohesion. This paper contributes to the literature on conflicts and peacebuilding, underscoring notable intra-group similarities between Jewish and Arab participants, and offers a novel framework for understanding religious dynamics across distinct social contexts.

1. Introduction

The 21st century is marked by the increasing diversification of societies, cultures, and communities across most of the world. This diversity includes cultural and social variations between groups and communities (Zanoni et al. 2010). In some societies, such distinctions are accompanied by existing or emerging inter-group tension and contrasting perceptions among group members. As a result, understanding the implications of social relations on diversity engagement in everyday life situations has become a significant area of contemporary research (Desivilya Syna 2020; Holck et al. 2016).

One key category that has been extensively studied in the context of social diversity and inter-group relations relates to the religious identities of individuals. Religious affiliation and identity are often reflected in both conflicts and interactions between groups. When analyzing the role of religion in conflict, studies emphasize its potentially destructive influence, particularly in inter-group contexts, such as Arabs and Jews (Abu-Nimer 2001; Shibli 2021; Ysseldyk et al. 2010). Moreover, the profound role of religion in shaping identity—both collective (group identity) and individual (personal identity)—has gained increasing recognition, supported by extensive research in the field (Morgan and Sandage 2016; Roth 2021; Seligman 2014; Verkuyten and Yildiz 2007).

Given the intricate and multi-dimensional role of religion, examining its impact on fostering positive relationships and encounters with the “other” is essential for advancing our understanding of these processes and their practical implications. However, such studies often adopt an inter-group perspective (Abu-Nimer 2004; Morgan and Sandage 2016). In doing so, they may oversimplify the complexity of various identities, while overlooking intra-group dynamics, such as between religious and non-religious (secular) individuals from the same religion or society.

The current paper explores the experiences of non-religious individuals from different religions (Jewish and Arab [Muslims and Christians]) who experienced a dialogic educational framework (e.g., mediation training courses, confrontation-based learning programs, and dialogic education) that promote values such as recognition, acceptance, and tolerance towards the “other” group. Doing so provides deeper insights into how these values are reflected in the perceptions and behaviors of non-religious individuals in their encounters with their religious counterparts. The study also seeks to illustrate how non-religious individuals perceive the role of religion in shaping dynamics and interactions with the “other” (i.e., religious individuals who actively adhere to religious norms), as well as the perceived boundaries of inter-identity dialogue.

Finally, the study also aims to deepen our understanding of a phenomenon that is common to many communities worldwide—namely, the existence of diverse societies that comprise both majority1 and minority2 groups which are represented by individuals from different religious backgrounds. It thus offers a more nuanced and expansive perspective on how non-religious individuals from various religions and nationalities experience encounters with religious individuals from their broader community or society.

2. Theoretical Background

Religion-related values and norms, deeply embedded in cultural identity, play a significant role in conflictual dynamics, alongside other cultural characteristics that contribute to conflict escalation (Abu-Nimer 2004; Seligman et al. 2016). In the context of inter-group relations that encompass diverse cultures, religion and its associated values and norms have emerged as key components that shape the group identity of those who are involved in the conflict. Avruch (1998), for example, suggests that religion can be understood as one of the multiple cultures that individuals embrace, in line with the view that culture functions as both a social and a cognitive process.

The power of religion lies in its profound impact on the behaviors and cultural perceptions of individuals and groups across diverse dimensions. Members of religious groups attribute meaning to their actions and behaviors, including those guided by faith, viewing them as aligned with the will of a higher power (Stodolska and Livengood 2006). This perception reinforces their commitment to preserving the group’s traditions. In this way, religious values and norms become an integral part of interactions between individuals and groups (Abu-Nimer 2001). In encounters with out-groups, individuals perceive both personal and group values as being represented by their formal religious orientation (Stodolska and Livengood 2006) and its associated cultural norms and behaviors (Deci and Ryan 2000). This alignment strengthens their stance in inter-group encounters, especially when members of religious groups are treated as minorities (Stodolska and Livengood 2006).

When examining inter-identity encounters within a single identity group, such as religious and non-religious individuals from the same religion or society, there is an increasing need for models that address inter-religious sensitivity. Specifically, these models should emphasize the importance of recognizing participants’ reactions to religious diversity during interactions, framing this awareness as essential for building relationships with the other (Abu-Nimer 2001). One notable field that has adopted this discourse is training for inter-identity encounters and peacebuilding. The importance of religion is evident in its significant role in conflict-resolution processes, often serving as a crucial step in peacebuilding (Abu-Nimer 2001; Roth 2021). The developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS) contributes to this discourse by providing a framework for interpreting and experiencing differences in a more nuanced and complex manner (Bennett 2004, 2013).

2.1. Social Identity Theory

This paper adopts the social identity theory (SIT), which posits that individuals draw on their group identity to distinguish themselves from others, thereby fostering positive self-esteem for themselves as individuals and for their group as a whole (Tajfel and Turner 1979). SIT seeks to explain how groups are categorized based on clear, measurable traits, such as socio-demographic background (i.e., religiosity), and how such categorization shapes social identities. Research that is grounded in SIT demonstrates that individuals tend to develop more favorable perceptions of in-group members who share similar characteristics, as opposed to those belonging to an out-group. This phenomenon, known as in-group favoritism, reinforces the group’s collective sense of self-worth. However, it may also heighten prejudice towards out-groups, particularly when threats to their own self-esteem are involved (Desivilya Syna 2020; Schmid and Hewestone 2011).

In the context of religious identity, an individual’s alignment with their religious group often instills a profound sense of stability, referred to by Kinnvall (2004) as “solid ground”. Moreover, the attributes of a religion can shape individuals by evoking emotional experiences, establishing deeply internalized moral frameworks, and offering personal meaning to one’s religious social identity (Kinnvall 2004; Verkuyten and Yildiz 2007; Wellman and Tokuno 2004). Combined, these elements contribute to the exceptional stability of religious identity, often surpassing that of any other forms of social identity (Ysseldyk et al. 2010), even those based on a shared belief in a higher power (Pargament 2002).

Research has extended beyond exploring the personal well-being that individuals gain from identifying with their religious or identity group. It has also delved into the role of belief systems, particularly their political dimensions, in shaping psychological and social processes (Jost et al. 2008). Similarly, religiosity—as a social identity that unites and validates a community through deeply held beliefs—exerts greater impact on the individual than any other social identity (Ysseldyk et al. 2010). Thus, beyond the well-being of the individual, religion can also create conflict between groups (Wellman and Tokuno 2004). Yet even when religious identity is not central to the inter-group conflict, religion is still a symbol of a cohesive collective identity (Ysseldyk et al. 2010). However, countering this discourse is the argument whereby social identities, such as nationality or ethnicity, play an equal or even greater role than religious identification (Kinnvall 2004; Verkuyten and Yildiz 2007). For instance, the assertion that ethnicity lies at the core of social identity, and is deemed “impenetrable,” elevates ethnic identity above other social identities (Worchel 2004).

The interplay between religious and social identities may give rise to complex tension between groups, revealing patterns of social interactions that may foster the development of extreme attitudes. Central to such dynamics are elements like hostility towards out-groups (Ysseldyk et al. 2010). Importantly, processes of marginalization may also occur within identity-groups, particularly towards in-group members who are perceived as diminishing the group’s distinctiveness, especially during times of uncertainty or perceived threat (Abrams et al. 2000; Seligman et al. 2016). This is evident, for example, in a recent study on young individuals from the Arab minority society whose individualistic characteristics were obscured by those of the dominant majority (Abboud-Armaly 2024).

These intra-group dynamics, which are rooted in religious fundamentalism (Myers 2008; Ysseldyk et al. 2010), also evoke perspectives of threat to the individual’s civil freedom, posed by religious idealism (Gey 2007). Personal life events, anger towards God, and awareness of perceived gaps and contradictions between religion and science may create fertile ground for rejecting or abandoning religion, with the individual choosing to adopt a non-religious lifestyle (Exline and Rose 2005; Myers 2008). To further understand inter-group dynamics in the context of religious identity and identification, Ysseldyk et al. (2010) and others emphasize the following question: Why do only some individuals embrace and identify with their religious group?

Although the ideological gap between religious and non-religious individuals has increased over the years (Jost et al. 2008), research on the social identification of atheism—specifically the strong affiliations that individuals may have with non-religious groups—is limited (Mavor and Ysseldyk 2020; Ysseldyk et al. 2010). Variations in the degree of religious identification, or even its mere existence, are notable. Such identification is often conceptualized as fulfilling certain psychological needs, ideally met through affiliation with a religious group. When the individual’s needs are not met, this may manifest as an apathetic attitude towards religion or as an overtly pronounced rejection of it. Just as Herriot (2007) argues that religious fundamentalism inherently relies on hostility towards a non-religious out-group that is perceived as threatening, Ysseldyk et al. (2010) claim that atheism—or the absence of religion—is similarly defined by its rejection of religion.

Despite the limited empirical studies on the reactivity of religion-related groups, including atheists, evidence suggests that these groups respond to threats that target their religious affiliation or lack thereof. Philosophical belief systems are highly valued, anchoring self and group identity, whereby “an attack on our cherished ideas becomes an attack on us” (Smyth 2002, p. 151)—the emotional and operational responses of non-religious groups mirror those of religious individuals. However, the former are more likely to perceive this threat as central to their well-being than the latter (Ysseldyk et al. 2010). The restrained responses of non-religious and atheist individuals are primarily attributed to a lack of symbols and structures that foster a strong sense of identification (Haslam et al. 2020).

2.2. From Inter to Intra-Group

Seligman (2004, 2014) explores the boundaries of inter-personal and inter-group dynamics within the context of religious identity—introducing a conceptual dichotomy that focuses on tolerance for differing ideas, highlighting pluralism as a constructive and practical element in these interactions. This conceptual framework challenges the practical dimensions of religious identity between individuals and groups, by questioning the boundaries that define and marginalize individuals who deviate from norms that were established by their religion.

These deviations, expressed through non-religious identities or “unacceptable” actions, generate tension between the private and public spheres—a dynamic that is encapsulated in discourse on inter-group conflict (Seligman 2014). For instance, while ultra-Orthodox Jews may acknowledge the existence of homosexuality within the private sphere, it is considered illegitimate in public settings. As Seligman observes, transitioning this issue into the public sphere challenges the religious identity group and exacerbates conflictual dynamics, as it necessitates a reaction that could otherwise have been avoided, had the matter remained confined to the private domain. A more extreme example can be seen in the 2016 conflict between non-religious and ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel regarding specific railway maintenance work that was scheduled to occur on a Sabbath. While the non-religious community demanded that the work proceed over the weekend as planned, to prevent transportation delays during the week, the ultra-Orthodox group strongly objected—to such a degree that the prime minister himself decided to intervene (Staff 2016). When private matters such as these are paired with the individual’s insistence to comply with social norms and conventions, these controversial and problematic issues often demand recognition and legitimization in public or group debates (Seligman 2004).

The power of recognition, therefore, is crucial in legitimizing religious identities—at both the individual and group levels. Central to this concept is the notion whereby the legitimacy of others is subjected to scrutiny, encompassing diverse beliefs and perspectives. Seligman (2014) suggests that the recognition of others is rooted in inter-group interactions, serving as a potential factor for legitimacy. For example, when two groups with different religious identities perceive the other as a threat to their own identity and existence, achieving mutual recognition becomes unlikely. The intra-group perspective highlights the complex dynamics between individuals and groups, especially when people with similar social affiliations and norms encounter individuals from different identity groups (e.g., non-religious and religious) yet from the same society (e.g., Jewish or Arab). This complexity, informed by Seligman’s principles (Seligman 2004; Seligman et al. 2016), challenges the suppression of diversity while emphasizing that such approaches are ultimately ineffective. Instead, diversity acknowledgment invites an exploration of authentic recognition through the lens of modesty and understanding. Accordingly, legitimizing the out-group greatly contributes to the cohesion of the in-group. This complex dynamic is addressed in the current research paper, conveyed from the intra-societal prism in the Israeli context, through the experiences of non-religious individuals, Jews and Arabs, regarding their relations with the religious other.

2.3. Aspects of Religion, Tolerance, and Recognition

The term “inter-group recognition” (Seligman 2004) refers to the manner in which individuals encounter, recognize, and accept the identities of others. This conceptual framework encompasses dimensions such as tolerance and legitimacy of other religions, values, and identities. When examining the private and public spheres, Seligman (2004) presents an alternative perspective, framing inter-group contact as an identity-based encounter, which could evoke concerns about potentially jeopardizing the individual’s sense of personal identity, potentially leading to shock and transformation. However, this scholar also argues that contrary to these fears, inter-group interactions tend to strengthen rather than threaten or blur one’s personal identity.

Another aspect that emerges in the context of inter-group identity-based encounters is the inclination of contemporary societies to overlook intra-group differences. This suppression and the perceived elimination of such differences reflect misconceptions that call for exploration of genuine recognition, rooted in humility and understanding (Fisher and Seligman 2007; Seligman et al. 2016). This is underscored by the argument that labeling the “out-group” as legitimate and acknowledging its validity can be as beneficial for the in-group as for the out-group (Seligman 2004; Seligman et al. 2016).

The topic of acceptance is particularly prominent in discourse on inter-religious encounters, gaining even greater significance when addressing interactions between groups from different religions. Abu-Nimer (2004) describes acceptance through the prism of a religious individual’s capacity to embrace relativity with regard to another person’s faith. What stands out is how this acceptance extends to recognizing the validity of the other’s faith, such as a Jew acknowledging the Muslim belief in the miraculous night journey of the Prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Al Aqsa in Jerusalem, and his ascension to heaven.

Such acceptance fosters a sense of tolerance and recognition of differences within interfaith encounters, contributing to the dialogue that they strive to cultivate. Moreover, acceptance is often intertwined with recognition of the perceived boundaries of interfaith dialogue. The repeated use of religious phrases, such as the Muslim saying: Lakum Dinakum Wa Lee Dini (i.e., You have your religion and I have mine), highlights the boundaries of acceptance in interfaith encounters (Abu-Nimer 2004).

Bennett’s (2004, 2017) DMIS model offers a comprehensive framework for examining how individuals navigate and respond to cultural differences between themselves and others. While the model primarily focuses on the individual’s intercultural development, it also yields valuable insights into inter-personal and inter-group dynamics. Moreover, DMIS conceptualizes the developmental process of intercultural sensitivity along a continuum, from ethnocentric orientation to ethnorelative perspectives. Ethnocentric attitudes include denial, defense, reversal, and minimization, and are characterized by low awareness, cognitive rigidity, and limited empathy towards cultural differences; ethnorelative attitudes, on the other hand, include acceptance, adaptation, and integration, and involve higher levels of self-reflexivity, cognitive flexibility, and empathy—allowing individuals to shift their perspectives and behaviors and constructively engage in cultural diversity.

According to the DMIS, the individual’s current developmental stage of intercultural sensitivity shapes their patterns of interactions and relationships across cultural boundaries. Those with a more ethnocentric orientation may find it challenging to cultivate genuine empathy and meaningful connections during intercultural encounters, often relying on stereotypes, polarized thinking, and attempts to assimilate differences. In contrast, individuals with a more ethnorelative orientation will be more adept at navigating the complexities of intercultural understandings and interactions, leveraging their cognitive and behavioral capacity to foster more effective communications and mutual respect (Bennett 2004).

In addition to providing a framework for understanding the development of an individual’s intercultural sensitivity and competence, it is important to consider how these processes of personal development may impact interpersonal and inter-group dynamics (Bennett 2004). Grounded in social constructivist assumptions, which conceptualize culture as a relative and evolving phenomenon, the model further highlights the importance of addressing the interplay between inter-personal and inter-group dimensions of intercultural encounters (Bennett 2004; Berger and Luckmann 1966). Building on this model, Morgan and Sandage (2016) frame interfaith dynamics as the need to develop interfaith capacity. This extension of the DMIS acknowledges that, as with religious diversity, cultural diversity is also increasingly prevalent in today’s multi-cultural world. These researchers provide a structured explanation of how individuals navigate and relate to religious differences, offering insights regarding the psychological capacities that maintain multi-cultural competence.

This framework places an emphasis on the vitality of specific psychological abilities, such as sensitivity and responsiveness, in developing inter-religious competence—similar to the DMIS’s focus on cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions of intercultural sensitivity. Yet in their study, replacing religion with culture in interfaith meetings posed challenges in implementing the model, highlighting resistance among interfaith dialogue groups to cultivating a religiously pluralistic consciousness.

There is also a deep concern for religion “conversion and the loss of one’s perceived authentic religious identity” (Abu-Nimer 2004, p. 13). In contrast to this description, or perhaps to reinforce it, Morgan and Sandage (2016) emphasize that acceptance inherently requires cognitive skills and flexibility, which are manifested through curiosity and respect for other religious practices and beliefs. Thus, beyond mere acceptance that is rooted in similarities between the groups, genuine differences are also acknowledged and valued. Accordingly, the model of inter-religious competence directs our attention to the individual, emphasizing their identity and self-awareness. According to Sandage et al. (2012), this capacity enables individuals to discern both the admirable and the less commendable aspects of their own religious traditions or framework. Consequently, acceptance does not necessitate rejecting the religious traditions of individuals from a particular group. Moreover, empathy towards the religious other extends beyond mere tolerance, fostering the ability to validate and appreciate significant differences across different forms and degrees of spirituality and religiosity.

Several frameworks have explored the development of skills within the context of interfaith encounters, particularly in clinical environments (Vieten et al. 2013) and peacebuilding settings (Abu-Nimer 2004). However, the broader dynamics that arise as individuals experience and engage with religious differences remain a critical area of inquiry (Morgan and Sandage 2016). This study therefore, aims to shift the research focus towards intra-group encounters and religious identity, delving into the complex dynamics of religion and its role in inter-identity intra-group relations, with particular attention to Jewish and Arab identity groups in Israel.

2.4. Jewish and Arab Identity Groups in Israel

2.4.1. The Jewish Community

In Israeli society, the Jewish public is defined as a majority group and can be categorized as non-religious, traditional, religious (Orthodox or National Religious), or ultra-Orthodox (Friedman and Desivilya 2010; Stern 2018)—based on their level of religious beliefs, behaviors, and traditions. The ultra-Orthodox category comprises three main groups—Hasidim, Lithuanians, and Spanish Orthodox—who share several distinguishing characteristics which set them apart from other religious communities (Feldman 2001; Horovitz 2016; Leon 2010). These include their distinctive appearance, their emphasis on religious guidance as central to their daily lives, and their adoption of a uniquely comprehensive Jewish lifestyle and philosophy (Stern 2018).

Both the Orthodox and the ultra-Orthodox communities are described as mitzvot-observant, as they adhere to Jewish laws and traditions (Friedman 1991); yet they differ in the weight each group attributes to Torah studies, in their relationship to the State of Israel as a political entity, and in the degree of interaction between them and non-religious Jews and non-Jewish groups (Friedman 1991; Zicherman 2014; Zicherman and Kahner 2012).

Diversity also exists within the ultra-Orthodox group, which is far from uniform. Sub-groups within this community differ greatly in their approaches to elements that may seem identical to an outside observer. This is reflected in issues such as the “equality of burden” (in terms of both the workforce and serving in the military), as well as varying degrees of openness to Western influences and globalization, among other distinctions between these sub-groups (Zicherman and Kahner 2012). The modern ultra-Orthodox group (Zicherman 2014), for example, advocates for integration into society rather than separation. This group engages in ongoing dialogue on Israeli identity and secularism, serving as an important force in challenging and gradually diminishing the separatist tendencies of the classical ultra-Orthodox sub-groups in Israel (Horovitz 2016).

Non-religious (secular) Jews in Israel are often defined as a collective of members of the Jewish public with the least affinity to religion (Brand and Stern 2013; Shoham 2014; Yadgar 2012). This definition is largely subjective, relying on self-perceptions rather than on a distinct outlook, ideology, or set of behavioral traits (Shoham 2014; Yadgar 2012). The dominant perception of secularism assumes that humans are masters of their own destiny, with a moral responsibility to care for their surroundings and others, while finding meaning in these efforts (Malchin 2000, 2003).

In recent years, non-religious groups have increased their efforts to unite and establish a cohesive collective identity. Signs of a non-religious “fraternity” have also emerged, particularly during conflicts with the out-group, i.e., Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox communities. This shift reflects a transition from individuals with a non-religious worldview to an identity-based group entity, characterized by shared goals, values, norms, and traits. For example, in Facebook groups such as the Secular Forum (The Secular Forum Facebook page) (Forum Hiloni n.d.), members actively strive to legitimize the values, perspectives, and norms that define the non-religious community. As Shoham (2014) notes, this shift is evident in how the non-religious identity group is often defined by others as anti-religious and actively opposed to the goals of Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox identity groups—which can be seen, for example, in the non-religious group’s ongoing struggles against the incorporation of religious teachings and practices in the public education system and in other areas of life in Israel.

2.4.2. The Arab Community

The minority status of Arab society in Israel underscores the intricate nature of its identity. While it shares many traits with other Arab communities in the region, its identity is also shaped by its position as a minority within a predominantly Jewish-Western majority (Azaiza 2013). Arabs comprise about 21% of Israel’s population, including about 83% Muslims, 9% Druze, and 7.7% Christians (Central Bureau of Statistics 2023). Similar to Jewish society, Arab society in Israel is far from homogeneous. Yet despite structural, normative, and value-based shifts over the years (Al-Haj 2012; Freund et al. 2024), these changes have not led to full integration into the broader Jewish society in the country.

Within this internal diversity, distinct identity groups have emerged, shaped by religious affiliation and cultural traditions. Muslim communities exhibit a wide spectrum of religious practices and identity (Jamal 2017). The Druze community, for example, maintains a distinct societal position due to its unique relationship with the State of Israel and exclusive religious customs and traditions (Halabi 2014). Christian Arabs often operate separate educational frameworks and maintain specific cultural practices (Munayer and Horenczyk 2014). These societal shifts, which are often described as a transition from a traditional society to a more modern one (Azaiza 2013), are at times interpreted as an identity crisis, particularly among younger generations (Abu-Asbah 2008). Moreover, this modernization process unfolds unevenly across different segments of Arab society, with urban populations generally adapting more swiftly than those in rural settings (Amara and Schnell 2004).

Arab society in Israel tends to be conservative (Abu-Asbah et al. 2014) and patriarchal—with traditional norms and religious values guiding both individual conduct and collective behaviors (Factor and Mehozay 2024). As Jaraisi (2013) observes: “Arab community has actually managed to preserve a traditional and conservative society with a different system of values and norms” (p. 530). Paradoxically, however, various socio-economic changes—including expanded educational opportunities, enhanced status among women, demographic shifts toward smaller families, increased urbanization, and rising socio-economic level—have in many cases reinforced rather than diminished the perceived need to preserve traditional cultural values among the Arab minority in Israel (Azaiza 2013). This suggests that what is often referred to as ‘modernisation’ is a complex, non-linear process in which traditional values persist alongside, and sometimes in response to, changing social conditions.

Examining the societal landscape, Abu-Asbah (2008) highlights tension between competing value systems. Arab society, he argues, is characterized by a duality between traditionalists, “those who did not move to the modern side because they could not or did not want to, and modernists, who for the most part have acquired an education and tend to be more modern” (p. 22). However, this distinction reflects a range, a continuum, rather than a simple dichotomy or binary divide, with multiple positions along the spectrum (Baker and Dwairy 2003). Subgroups within Arab society also differ in their attitudes toward civic engagement and integration into Israeli institutions (Rekhess 2007; Smooha 2016). Across this diverse landscape of subgroups, religious identity emerges as a unifying force. It functions not only as a component of the individual and group identity of Arabs in Israel, but also as a binding agent that reinforces collective solidarity in the face of modernization (Abboud-Armaly 2024). This process is perceived as especially threatening within the context of the minority status of this Arab society.

Building on this review of the literature, this study aims to explore the role of religion in intra-group encounter dynamics between non-religious individuals and their religious counterparts. The focus is placed on Jewish and Arab societies in Israel. Through the lens of non-religious participants, the research examines elements such as understanding, acceptance, legitimacy, and recognition, alongside the boundaries that emerge within these religion-based interactions.

3. Methodology

The central research question in this study is: What role does religion play in intra-group encounters, and how does it shape dynamics between non-religious and religious individuals from an intra-group prism? To address this question, a comparative cross-case research design was conducted, reviewing and analyzing two distinctive populations: Study A, Jewish participants; and Study B, Arab participants.

3.1. Data Collection and Participants

Qualitative data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews. These were conducted in 2017 as part of two discrete studies (Study A and Study B) that were carried out by the authors during 2016–2019. For the research reported in this paper, the researchers jointly analyzed the findings from both studies to identify common denominators across the two different religious affiliations. The participants included non-religious individuals, women, and men over the age of 18, from both Jewish and Arab societies. All participants were defined as non-religious after stating that they do not observe a religious lifestyle or conform to the traditional norms and customs of their respective religion. As stated in the Introduction, all participants had taken part in a dialogic educational framework, such as mediation training, confrontation-based learning, or dialogic education, aimed at promoting recognition, acceptance, and tolerance towards the other group.

Finally, in line with research ethics practices, all names and locations referenced in this paper are presented as pseudonyms. Study A and Study B denote the first and second authors’ research teams, respectively.

3.1.1. Study A

This study focused on the Jewish intra-group dynamics within Israeli society, examining relationships between two identity groups at opposite ends of the spectrum: secular (non-religious) and Ultra-Orthodox Jews. The aim of this study was to explore how shared learning fosters positive transformations among participants, drawing on various educational programs in which both non-religious and ultra-Orthodox individuals took part and that enabled the exploration of intra-group relationships and dynamics. Grounded in Bush and Folger’s (1994) transformative model, and in Seligman’s (2004, 2014) approach to inter-group encounters, this research focused on acceptance, identity-based recognition, and legitimacy of the other. Particular attention was given to the role of shared encounters in improving intra-group religious-based relations and mitigating conflicts.

The study was conducted following the conclusion of four mediation training courses (in which 63 individuals took part: 27 ultra-Orthodox, 36 non-religious) and one confrontation-based learning program (in which 39 individuals took part: 18 ultra-Orthodox, 21 non-religious). Confrontation-based learning is grounded on the assumption that creating a framework in which opposing identities could address core conflictual issues is essential for fostering constructive change in inter-identity dynamics (Rothman 2012). Thus, confrontation in a constructive manner could yield more understanding of the interests, values, and norms of the other, and increase legitimacy, acceptance, and inter-identity recognition.

A total of 28 non-religious participants (nine women) from these five programs consented to being interviewed for the current research, regarding their experiences during their course and with a focus on how the religious factor influenced intra-group relations in the classroom. The analysis presented in this paper is based on these interviews. Of the nine female interviewees, five were from the mediation training course and four were from the confrontation-based learning program. Of the 19 male participants, 11 were from the mediation training course and eight were from the confrontation-based learning program. Their ages ranged between 23–68 years; more than half (58.6%) were aged 23–38 years.

The interviews, which were conducted in Hebrew, consisted of 12 open-ended questions, designed to explore the interviewees’ perspectives following their participation in the joint learning programs. The questions centered on their sense of acceptance, inter-identity recognition, and identity aspects, including the impact of religion on intra-group relationships. Examples of these questions included: “Describe how the encounters with the ultra-Orthodox/non-religious participants impacted your sense of religious identity” “What did you learn about the out-group?” “What did you learn about your own identity group?” and “How would you characterize your attitude towards the other sector after participating in the program?”.

The interviews were conducted at a time and location that was convenient for the participants, with each session lasting 45–90 min. With the participants’ consent, the interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee at the authors’ affiliated academic institution [Bar Ilan University, Israel].

3.1.2. Study B

This study focused on the interplay between conflict, identity, and dialogue among young Arabs in Israel. The study aimed to reveal the characteristics and nature of the normative identity conflict, experienced by young Arabs in Israel in their daily lives—particularly in relation to Arab society. The main research question examined how young Arabs in Israel perceive and navigate tension between their individual identity and their social one, reflected through their encounters with more traditionally oriented members of their community. The study also explored the strategies that young participants employ for coping with normative identity conflicts.

The study employed purposive sampling to ensure adequate representation of Arab society in Israel. The participants consisted of young Arab women and men from different religious backgrounds (Christians and Muslims). All the participants had spent 8–12 years in unique dialogical educational frameworks within Arab society in Israel. Within this educational paradigm, dialogue is not only the central tool of educative practices aimed at shaping an individualistic self but also a way of life, a guiding principle, and an effective means for individuals to cope with conflict, uncertainty, and social conformity (Masar Institute of Education 2016). At the time of the interviews, the participants had already completed their dialogic education and were gradually transitioning into their broader social environments within predominantly religious and traditional Arab society, where they would be able to apply their newly acquired knowledge to foster recognition, acceptance, and tolerance.

This approach was based on the assumption whereby these individuals could provide valuable insights into the phenomenon under investigation (Mason 1996), namely the normative identity conflict arising from interactions with members of their identity group/society (i.e., traditional religious Arabs). As emphasized by Stake (2005), this approach could “open up a range of possibilities that are the basis for creating significant research” (p. 451).

A total of 28 non-religious participants (16 females) agreed to be interviewed, comprised of 11 Muslims and 17 Christians, aged 18–25 years. The interviews, which were conducted in Arabic, were based on a two-part interview guide. First, the participants were asked to provide background and demographic information about themselves, including age, religion, gender, education, and place of residence. The second section, comprised of 12 open-ended questions, aimed at exploring the participants’ definitions of their personal identity and characteristics, tension between themselves as young modern individuals compared to the traditional-religious Arab society, their experiences of interacting with people who differ from them within the same society, and strategies for coping with this tension. Examples of these questions included: “How would you describe your identity and what does identity mean to you?” “How would you describe your society and what is your relationship with society?” and “Can you recall encounters with people who differ from you and how do these differences manifest?”

The interviews were conducted at a time and location that was convenient for the participants, with each session lasting 45–90 min. With the participants’ consent, the interviews were recorded, transcribed, and subsequently translated into Hebrew in a double-translation process for the analysis phase. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee at the authors’ affiliated academic institution [Bar Ilan University, Israel].

3.2. Research Procedure

Guided by the research question, existing research knowledge, and available data, this study employed the case study method (Lincoln and Guba 2000) and adopted a comparative approach through cross-case analysis (Miles et al. 2014). The aim was to examine intra-group dynamics in religion-based encounters across distinct cultural contexts, specifically among Jews and Arabs of varying religious backgrounds.

3.3. Cross-Case Analysis

Within the systematic cross-case approach (Eisenhardt 1989; Miles et al. 2014; Stake 2006), content analysis is widely recognized as a suitable method for interpreting qualitative data (Ayres et al. 2003; Miles et al. 2014). As such, this methodology was adopted as the primary analytical tool for examining the interview data from both studies. This analytical process was conducted in several stages, informed by the grounded theory framework (Berg 2004). For the initial coding of the data collected from non-religious Jewish and Arab (Christians and Muslims) participants, thematic content analysis techniques were applied (Berg 2004; Terry et al. 2017), as recommended for cross-case comparisons by qualitative scholars (Bazeley 2013; Hsieh and Shannon 2005). Paragraph-length excerpts from the interview transcripts served as the core units of analysis in each case.

The preliminary analytical process generated thematic categories, derived independently from the interview data of each study—Study A, Jewish participants; Study B, Arab participants—in line with in-case analysis procedures (Ayres et al. 2003). Through subsequent readings of the transcripts, conceptually similar themes were merged based on similar concepts, according to the predefined research aims (Berg 2004; Terry et al. 2017).

Next, a systematic comparison was conducted between the categories that emerged individually in Study A and in Study B. Applying cross-case analytical methods (Khan and Van Wynsberghe 2008) enabled the identification of patterns across the two distinct populations. Based on shared categorical classifications (Theodorou and Symeou 2013), we identified both similarities and differences in the participants’ experiences (Khan and Van Wynsberghe 2008) regarding intra-group religion-based dynamics between non-religious and religious individuals. The central themes that emerged focused on the perceived role of religion in shaping intra-group religion-based relations, and the boundaries of understanding, acceptance, legitimacy, and belonging.

By identifying these shared cross-case themes through content analysis, key intra-group dynamics were revealed in both studies, offering a fresh perspective that is often overlooked in research. This multi-case synthesis enhances the analytical generalizability of our findings (Creswell and Poth 2018; Patton 2015). The central themes that were identified in this phase form the basis of the Findings section.

4. Findings

The interviews yielded valuable insights into how non-religious participants perceive their religious counterparts, particularly in the context of inter-religious encounters. Despite their different cultural, religious, and social backgrounds, both Jewish and Arab participants conveyed notable similarities in their experiences of acceptance and exclusion, which had profound implications for their self-identity. As outlined in this section, the participants reflected on their attitudes, coping strategies, and insights following such encounters. Specifically, thematic analysis of both studies led to the emergence of three shared themes: (1) religion-based exclusion; (2) boundaries of acceptance; and (3) self-identity development following intra-group encounters. The following sections expand on these themes.

4.1. Theme 1: Religion-Based Exclusion

Non-religious participants from both studies spoke of a sense of exclusion that they experienced during intra-group dialogues with their religious counterparts—often rooted in religion—as exemplified in the following quotes:

When I meet someone religious or traditional, I try to start a dialogue with them, talking about the differences between us. But within minutes, it fails. Religious people just aren’t open to hearing about “the other,” especially a non-believer. and then the conversation just comes to a halt.

(Ziad, male, Muslim Arab).

Similar thoughts were also expressed by Alaa (male, Muslim Arab), who said: “For these people, religion is sacred. It’s untouchable. The minute you mention a different approach, the conversation comes to an abrupt end”. Additionally, Galit (female, Jewish), said:

It often felt like the only people who were willing [to openly talk to one another] were the non-religious ones. The ultra-Orthodox participants in the group were much more closed off. They may have seemed open on the surface, like they’re ready to listen, like everyone is welcome to join their classes. But to me, it felt very fake because once they realize that you’re not interested in becoming more religious but just want to have an open conversation about fundamental issues that contradict their beliefs, there’s no room for dialogue, and they just become defensive.

The non-religious participants from both studies reported having encountered similar patterns of exclusion when attempting to engage in dialogue with their religious counterparts, specifically when raising questions about religious beliefs. Moreover, they perceived their religious counterparts as unwilling to engage in discussions that challenge their core religious convictions.

For some participants, it was not just the experience of an unsuccessful dialogue that impacted their sense of belonging or social inclusion. It was also their dismissive approach that labels non-religious people as negative or even harmful to society. As described by Shirin (female, Christian Arab):

One time, I went into town with my friends. We just sat there, eating and drinking quietly, we were polite and respectful. But someone from my village happened to see me there, and by the time I got home, I’d already been labeled ‘improper,’ ‘immoral,’ a dancer.’ I don’t care that he isn’t even religious himself or that he was in the same place as me. What bothers me is that he decided to interfere in my life and ruin my reputation. That’s something that religious people in our society feel entitled to do.

Similar words were conveyed by Orit (female, Jewish):

I heard ultra-Orthodox people compare someone who had become non-religious to a prostitute! One of them even said to me, “If your sister suddenly became a prostitute, how would you feel?” I didn’t understand—heaven forbid—how anyone could even make such a comparison. The ultra-Orthodox person tried to justify it, to explain how serious this was, as if someone had prostituted themselves or joined a terrorist organization.

The comparison to prostitution, or even to joining a terrorist organization, was perceived by the non-religious participants as extreme, prompting them to express strong negative sentiments as to its implications on their desired reality of inclusion and intra-group cohesion.

An additional aspect of exclusion was conveyed by the participants in their accounts of polarized dialogues with their religious counterparts. The non-religious participants felt valued, as long as the other party was trying to persuade them to adopt a more religious lifestyle. However, when such efforts failed, they felt emotionally dismissed or even attacked. As emphasized, for example, by Shirin (female, Christian Arab):

I don’t have a problem with religious people from any background and I don’t blame them. That’s just how they were raised and educated. My problem begins when they try to convince me to become religious, or when they attack me for not being religious or traditional.

Similar words were expressed by Eli (male, Jewish), who said: “I often try to talk to religious people, to understand why religion is so important to them. But as soon as I start explaining why it’s not as meaningful to me, they just dismiss me, like I don’t matter”.

In summary, the sense of being undervalued was a recurring theme, with participants describing their efforts to gain acceptance or legitimacy from the other, affirming their non-religious identity and its inherent worth.

4.2. Theme 2: Boundaries of Acceptance

The second theme that emerged in the study underscores the complex bidirectional nature of acceptance within these encounters. On the one hand, participants explored the limits of their acceptance of religion and its associated norms and values. On the other hand, they reflected on their own experiences of being accepted—or not—by their religious counterparts. These dynamics are vividly exemplified through the participants’ own words, as illustrated in the following quotes by two male participants:

I don’t have an issue with religious people. On the contrary. We were raised to accept others, to accept everyone. But I do have a problem when they don’t accept me as I am, when they expect me to be like them.

(Ziad, male, Muslim Arab).

Additionally: “Why is it that I can understand how they see religion, but they can’t understand why I perceive my values as positive and meaningful too?! It’s like they think life is either black or white”. (Nizar, male, Christian Arab).

Two female participants also spoke along these lines, saying:

Meeting religious people is such a complicated experience. There’s really no one to talk to. On the surface, they say they accept everyone, etc., but in practice, if as a woman I’m opposed to the hijab (a headscarf traditionally worn by some Muslim women), I suddenly become someone that they don’t accept.

(Huda, Muslim Arab).

We also tried to initiate a dialogue about issues that are sensitive and pressing in Israeli society. Not to challenge or change the halakha (Jewish religious laws]), but simply to share and understand where the other person is coming from. We just said, “Let’s talk about it. Let’s listen to other people’s perspectives. We might be able to find a way to understand each other’s pain and find a solution without compromising the halakha”. But there was no way to even bring it up for discussion within the group.

(Galit, Jewish).

From these participants’ perspectives, religious members of the group were unwilling to engage in discussions on sensitive or controversial issues with non-religious participants—despite the potential of such dialogue for fostering understanding or providing an opportunity for sharing painful intra-group realities. In other words, the non-religious participants perceived their religious counterparts as setting clear boundaries as to which topics are deemed acceptable for discussion with the non-religious population.

In one example from Study A, the boundaries of acceptance were shaped by both the participant’s own perspective and the manner in which he perceived the attitude of the religious other:

I came for peace, not war. I wanted to meet ultra-Orthodox people, to get to know them. But I can’t be (in the room) with him. He’s not someone I can be nearby. I can’t be beside him, because then I won’t be happy. And he can’t be beside me, because my way of life doesn’t suit him either. He can’t be my friend, and I can’t be his either, because our opinions are just too different.

(David, male, Jewish).

Notably, David was not the only participant to talk about boundaries of acceptance. Other participants conveyed this through their distinction between understanding and acceptance. Liat (female, Jewish), for example, said: “In terms of acceptance, there isn’t any. But there’s a difference between understanding and accepting others. I really do understand them, but I don’t accept every single thing that they do or want”.

The non-religious participants expressed a willingness to understand and accept their religious counterparts, yet they perceived this openness as largely unreciprocated, particularly concerning the validation of non-religious values. While they distinguished between understanding religious positions and fully accepting all aspects of them, they also noted that religious individuals often set limits on which sensitive topics are open for discussion. As a result, when exploring the boundaries of acceptance, a complex picture emerged, marked by mutual perceptions of conditional acceptance. These dynamics create barriers that hinder the possibility of authentic and meaningful dialogue between the groups.

4.3. Theme 3: Self-Identity Development Following Intra-Group Encounters

The third and final theme that emerged in the study explores the participants’ evolving self-identity, shaped by their inter-identity encounters. This theme highlights the participants’ reflections on the degree of understanding, the importance of critical thinking, the significance of respecting others, and the role of perspective-taking. As conveyed by the following two Jewish female participants:

I don’t know if my attitude has changed, but I think my understanding has. It’s helped me take a closer look at the other sector and recognize its diversity. Maybe that’s what’s changed—perceiving them as a diverse sector rather than as one uniform group.

(Michal, Jewish).

Today I have a better understanding of them, I have a better grasp of their way of life and their demands. On a scale of 1–10, I’ve probably moved from zero, one, or two to about seven or eight in terms of understanding.

(Liat, Jewish).

While the two previous quotes focused on the cognitive aspects of understanding, a Jewish male participant added an emotional dimension, reflecting the anger that he felt prior to participating in the intra-group encounters: “I was much angrier at the beginning of the course than at the end of it. Lacking knowledge (about the ultra-Orthodox sector) leads to more than just fear. It creates ignorance and misunderstandings. We don’t really understand each other’s needs”. (Yossi, Jewish).

The Arab participants also recognized the intra-group encounter as a significant contributor to the development of their self-identity, as seen in the following quote:

I’ve learned to discover myself and make decisions with greater awareness. The most important thing is to show respect for others; critical thinking doesn’t invalidate others or create conflicts. On the contrary. It opens up new possibilities and perspectives and broadens your knowledge. When you respect those who oppose you, you gain deeper insights about both yourself and them. Personally, this is how I’ve built myself to be.

(Aseel, female, Muslim, Arab).

This quote emphasizes the importance of respecting others, cultivating awareness of differences, and considering a wide range of perspectives. We further analyze its significance in understanding intra-group dynamics, particularly regarding the role of religion within this context.

Another aspect of self-identity development focuses on perspective-taking and giving, as illustrated in the following quote:

I come from a background where role-playing was a big thing. I’d repeatedly put myself and others in different situations, allowing each person to take on the role of someone else. What would they do? How would they feel? Doing this had a profound impact on me. Whenever I found myself in a challenging situation, I would put myself in the other person’s shoes. It’s something that I still do today.

(Walid, male, Muslim Arab).

Such a sense of empowered identity is also evident in the following quote:

My faith in God isn’t fragile or dependent on what others might say or do for me. In fact, the encounter with them (emphasis in the original quote)—the realization that you can openly live like this and listen to others—doesn’t contradict any of my inner truths. Instead, it’s actually strengthened my attitude, which is ideal for me. I truly don’t feel like I have shortcomings. I have both perspectives, and that’s okay; it doesn’t threaten me.

(Ruth, female, Jewish).

In their interviews, the non-religious participants highlighted how intra-group encounters can reshape their perceptions of the other. These interactions offered a window into the internal diversity and complexity within the group, fostering a deeper understanding and reducing feelings of anger or resentment towards the other. Importantly, such encounters provided a space for the participants to broaden their worldviews while maintaining their core beliefs. This process, anchored in mutual respect, enabled them to integrate new perspectives without compromising their sense of authenticity.

In summary, as seen in the findings presented above, the non-religious participants from both studies experienced a sense of exclusion by their religious other; yet they also recognized the benefits of intra-group encounters and their impact on developing their self-identity. In essence, Jewish and Arab non-religious participants conveyed a notable ability to understand and accept diversity, particularly the religious other, including their norms, values, and traditions, thereby pushing their boundaries of acceptance during their shared encounters. These findings further indicate that religion plays a significant role in intra-group encounters. These insights are expanded on in the following Discussion section.

5. Discussion

This study aimed to deepen our understanding of intra-group religion-based experiences from the perspective of non-religious individuals and identify the role of religion in shaping the dynamics with the “other” (religious individuals) from the same society, among both Jewish (Study A) and Arab (Study B) non-religious individuals in Israel. While much of the existing literature focuses on inter-group encounters and differences between these two societies, our findings highlight notable similarities between non-religious individuals from both groups in their navigating intra-group religion-based encounters. In particular, participants from both studies identified religion as a key factor that shapes the boundaries of understanding, acceptance, legitimacy, and belonging within their respective societies.

Three shared themes emerged, depicting the participants’ experiences in intra-group non-religious—religious encounters: (1) religion-based exclusion; (2) boundaries of acceptance; and (3) self-identity development following intra-group encounters. Indeed, participants from both studies shared their complex experiences of having their non-religious identities challenged by the religious other, while seeking identity-based recognition and simultaneously maintaining their separateness.

5.1. The Non-Religious Experience of Intra-Group Religion-Based Dynamics

5.1.1. Religious-Based Exclusion

The interplay of religious and social identities gives rise to complex intra-group tension. When these identities manifest within the boundaries of a shared group, they can produce subtle yet powerful interaction patterns that foster conservative exclusionary attitudes, often marked by hostility toward out-groups or sub-groups within the wider community (Abrams et al. 2000; Mavor and Ysseldyk 2020; Seligman et al. 2016; Ysseldyk et al. 2010). Ethnocentric responses—such as denial, defense, reversal, and minimization—reflect a low level of cultural awareness, cognitive inflexibility, and a limited capacity for empathy towards cultural differences (Bennett 2004). In this context, non-religious Jews and Arabs both described experiences of hostility, exclusion, and a lack of empathy from their religious counterparts. These encounters often positioned them as outsiders within their own group, undermining their sense of belonging and reinforcing their perceptions of moral or ideological inferiority.

The extreme analogies that some of the religious individuals drew, linking non-religious people to prostitutes or even terrorists, were perceived by the non-religious interviewees as both offensive and radical. Not only did these comparisons generate strong negative reflections, but they also undermined potential intra-group cohesion, positioning non-religious participants as an “out-group” within their own society. This dynamic illustrates the boundaries of religious-based exclusion, while reinforcing the fundamentalist tendency of reactive hostility towards perceived out-groups (Abrams et al. 2000; Stodolska and Livengood 2006).

Another form of exclusion was described in the participants’ accounts of polarized interactions with the religious other. They felt valued only when those counterparts were attempting to convert them to a more devout way of life. Once those attempts failed, the non-religious participants felt rejected, shunned, and even attacked (Herriot 2007). This conditional acceptance, consistently evident in the participants’ accounts, further underscored their ongoing struggle to assert their non-religious identity and achieve genuine recognition within their community.

5.1.2. Boundaries of Acceptance

The testimonies of the non-religious participants underscore the role of religion in delineating boundaries of acceptance within intra-group encounters. This experience aligns with the inter-religious competence model (Morgan and Sandage 2016), which redirects our focus to individual identity and self-awareness in the context of intra-group religious encounters. In these interactions, the participants did not seek acceptance that required rejecting one’s religious heritage, but rather an empathy that transcends mere tolerance, one that affirms significant differences in spiritual and religious expression (Sandage et al. 2012). Non-religious participants from both societies described how challenges to their core beliefs were often perceived as a personal attack, echoing Smyth’s (2002) argument that philosophical belief systems form a critical foundation of both individual and group identity.

Our findings revealed how non-religious participants defined clear boundaries of acceptance, addressing complex matters of identity and intra-group-related dynamics. Participants articulated a lack of acceptance by their religious counterparts as well as their own willingness to accept religious perspectives. Furthermore, participants made important distinctions between acceptance and understanding, emphasizing both cognitive and emotional dimensions of understanding. They noted that grasping the religious other’s needs and perspectives helped alleviate their resentment.

As suggested by Seligman et al. (2016), this complexity prompts an exploration of the authentic nature of inter-identity recognition within intra-group dynamics, through a lens of both modesty and understanding. Recognizing the legitimacy of the out-group greatly contributes to the cohesion of the intra-group. In our analysis, this identity-based recognition was evident from a non-religious perspective, where aspects of modesty and understanding manifested among both Jewish and Arab non-religious participants, thereby significantly contributing to the development of their self-identity.

While the non-religious participants acknowledged religion as central to their counterparts’ identity, norms, and values, they consistently reported a lack of reciprocal acceptance or legitimacy. Topics which they consider important—such as women’s social behaviors and status, or individual independence versus collective norms—were reportedly perceived as illegitimate by their religious counterparts and rendered off-limits for discussion. Although such discourse holds the potential to foster mutual understanding and illuminate sensitive intra-group realities (Seligman et al. 2016), participants from both studies reported that their religious others tended to avoid such engagement. Drawing on interfaith dialogue theories, Abu-Nimer (2004) conceptualizes acceptance as the ability to adopt a relative perspective towards another person’s faith. However, the non-religious participants from both societies felt that such acceptance was one-sided; while they respected their counterparts’ religious beliefs, their own values and perspectives were neither acknowledged nor meaningfully addressed in return.

This persistent lack of identity-based recognition that was experienced by the non-religious participants in this study raises concerns about potential harm to social cohesion and increased feelings of exclusion. While Abu-Nimer (2004) emphasizes that acceptance promotes tolerance and recognition of differences in interfaith encounters, the non-religious participants often experienced a lack of identity-based recognition from religious counterparts. These experiences highlight limitations in acceptance within intra-group dynamics.

5.1.3. Self-Identity Development Following Intra-Group Encounters

The current study revealed similarities in the participants’ self-identity development, facilitated by encounters with the religious other. Indeed, most non-religious participants emphasized their ability to embrace differences, which allowed them to examine and accept diverse perspectives while maintaining their own attitudes, beliefs, and values. Moreover, the participants in this study shared how their understanding deepened as a result of the inter-religious encounters. They described how these experiences and others highlighted their respect for the religious other, which led to developing important skills, such as critical thinking and awareness of differences. These skills enabled them to navigate complex interactions with religious counterparts respectfully and inclusively. The participants also acknowledged that these abilities, along with the capacity to consider multiple perspectives, became an integral part of their self-identity evolvement, shaped by their inter-identity encounters. These findings align with Bennett’s (2004) distinction between ethnocentric and ethnorelative-oriented individuals. While the former relies on stereotypes and polarized thinking in intercultural encounters, the latter demonstrates cognitive flexibility and behavioral adaptability, as seen in the current study. The interfaith capacity concept (Morgan and Sandage 2016)—as part of the DMIS framework (Bennett 2004, 2013)—provides further context for understanding our participants’ experiences.

A significant paradox emerged in our findings: participants from both studies felt empowered to accept other religious identities, while reporting that they experienced exclusion, disrespect, and hostility from their religious other. This contradictory dynamic highlights limitations in existing theoretical frameworks, which primarily attribute understanding, acceptance, respect, and openness to inter-identity encounters (Bennett 2004, 2013). Our findings suggest, however, that personal identity development may play a crucial role beyond what current theories acknowledge, necessitating further investigation into how identity formation influences inter-identity encounter outcomes.

Our findings also revealed notable similarities in intra-identity experiences among Jewish and Arab non-religious participants, offering valuable insights at both micro and macro levels. These shared patterns suggest that conflict management and resolution efforts, particularly in conflict-ridden settings, would benefit from approaches that integrate both intra-identity (in-group encounters) and inter-identity (encounters between religious and non-religious individuals) perspectives.

While this research is pioneering and contributes to the literature, several limitations should be addressed. First, the study focuses exclusively on the experiences and perceptions of non-religious individuals following their encounters with the religious other, without exploring the perspectives of the latter. Future research should address this gap by examining the experiences and perceptions of religious individuals to offer a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. Additionally, the current study focuses on the experiences of non-religious Jewish and Arab individuals who experienced a dialogic educational initiative (such as mediation training, confrontation-based learning, and dialogic education) aimed at fostering understanding with the other. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon, it is also important to examine the experiences of religious individuals who participated in similar dialogue-based programs. Such exploration could shed further light on the importance of reassessing encounters between non-religious and religious individuals as a critical component in promoting peacebuilding efforts between these groups.

6. Conclusions

Through a cross-case analysis of encounters between non-religious and religious individuals in Jewish and Arab societies in Israel, this study offers a nuanced understanding of intra-group dynamics. Simultaneously investigating two distinct societal contexts sheds light on the similarly intricate dynamics between non-religious and religious individuals within an intra-societal prism. Our research revealed compelling similarities in how non-religious individuals from both societies experience and navigate interactions with their religious counterparts.

Moreover, placing the multi-dimensional role of religion at the forefront of the research enriches both theoretical understanding and practical applications for fostering positive relationships and meaningful encounters with the religious other. The study highlights the perceived gaps in mutual recognition between non-religious and religious individuals. While non-religious participants expressed a willingness to accept religion as integral to their counterparts’ identity and worldview, they consistently reported a lack of reciprocal acknowledgement of their own non-religious perspectives. These disparities in recognition pose obstacles to achieving meaningful dialogue, while weakening the potential for generating intra-group cohesion.

Furthermore, the shared patterns that were observed across the two ethno-national groups suggest that addressing tension between non-religious and religious individuals through dialogue-based initiatives may support broader conflict-management efforts. Moreover, recognizing the common experiences of non-religious individuals across different societies could help pave the way for new approaches to intra-group peacebuilding. Integrating academic knowledge from the literature with the findings from the current research establishes a new channel for inter-sector collaboration, blurring traditional boundaries and fostering greater empathy and openness by emphasizing shared similarities rather than reinforcing divisions. This study advocates for the development of more sophisticated approaches to intercultural sensitivity and conflict resolution, prioritizing the exploration of commonalities over the conventional focus on gaps and differences.