All the nations and ethnic groups1 need a common past. Without it, it is impossible to structure social identity and solidarity. A common past provides a line of continuation and commonality in experiences, which are crucial ingredients for group construction. A common past of a group is expressed in a narrative that provides epistemic foundation for the group existence. This narrative, called collective memory, tells the story of the group’s past. Beliefs of collective memory provide a narrative, make sense of the past, illuminate the present and serve as a basis for planning the future.

Essence of Collective Memory
Collective memory has a number of characteristics: (a). It is shared by group members and is treated by many of them as truthful account of the past and valid history of the group; (b). It does not necessarily tell the truthful history of the past, but intends to tell the past that is functional for the group existence and functioning. Thus, collective memory is tendentious, providing a story that is biased, selective and distorted. It is constructed to fit the needs of the group; (c) Collective memory is perceived by group members as self characterization. It is unique, distinctive and exclusive. It tells the particular story of the groups past and outlines the boundaries for group’s description and characterization; (d). Beliefs of collective memory serve the politicalsocietal and economic decisions and are used to justify societal actions in the past, present, and for the future. Thus they serve as a basis for mobilization of society members to activities which are implied by them. (e). Collective memory serves to fulfill various functions of the group. Of special importance is the contribution of the beliefs of collective memory to the formation, maintenance and strengthening of social identity – a crucial requirement in the formation of any society or group. They thus provide basis for feelings of commonality, cohesiveness, belonging, uniqueness and solidarity – all necessary elements for the evolvement of social identity.

Collective Memory of Intractable Conflict Of special importance is collective memory during an intractable conflict as it plays in this situation a special role. First of all, the beliefs of collective memory fulfill the epistemic function of illuminating the situation of the conflict. In addition, the beliefs of collective memory serve to justify the acts of the ingroup towards the enemy including violence and destruction. Also the beliefs of collective memory create a sense of differentiation and superiority. Finally, the beliefs of collective memory have a motivating function for mobilization and action.

To fulfill these functions beliefs of collective memory provide a black and white picture, enable parsimonious, fast, unequivocal, and simple understanding of the history of the conflict and in terms of particular contents they touch on at least four important themes, which influence the perception of the conflict and its management.

First, they justify the outbreak of the conflict and the course of its development. They outline the reasons for the supreme and existential importance of the conflictive goals, stressing that failure to achieve them may threaten the existence of the group. In addition, they disregard the goals of the other side describing them as unjustified and unreasonable.

Second, beliefs of collective memory of intractable conflict present positive image of one’s own group, as it engages in intense self-justification, self-glorification and self-praise.

Third, the beliefs of collective memory delegitimize the opponent. Since societies involved in intractable conflicts view their own goals as justified and perceive themselves in positive light, they attribute all responsibility for the outbreak of the conflict and its continuation to the opponent. The beliefs focus on the violence, atrocities, cruelty, lack of concern for human life and viciousness of the other side. They describe inhuman and immoral behavior and present the adversary as intransigent, irrational, far-reaching and irreconcilable, who precludes any possible peaceful solution and, therefore, the conflict cannot be resolved. All these beliefs present the opponent as an existential threat to the group’s survival.

Fourth, the beliefs of collective memory present one’s own group as being a victim of the opponent. These beliefs are formed over a long period of violence as a result of society’s sufferings and losses. In other words, focusing on injustice, harm, evil, and the atrocities of the adversary, while emphasizing one’s own society as being just, moral and human, leads society members to present themselves as victims. Beliefs about victimhood imply that the conflict was imposed by an adversary, who not only fights unjust goals, but also uses immoral means to achieve them.

The beliefs of collective memory are transmitted and disseminated among society members through various societal channels of communication in a systematic, consistent and continuous way. Of special importance is the fact that collective memory serves as a basis for school textbooks’ contents in societies involved in intractable conflicts. These contents are in fact the most coherent and systematic presentation of the collective memory, but they include also elements of historical account of events.

Collective Memory and Education
Schools thus are principal agents of disseminating and institutionalizing beliefs of collective memory to whole generations. In essence, these disseminated beliefs of collective memory construct the social reality for the society members engaged in intractable conflict. They exert a determinative influence on the course of the conflict. On the one hand, by serving as an epistemic and motivating basis, as indicated, they allow the development of the psychological conditions that support persistence in the conflict. But, on the other hand, these same beliefs perpetuate animosity and hostility by rationalizing the conflict and delegitimizing the enemy.

In this way, beliefs of collective memory help create the vicious cycles of violence which characterize intractable conflicts: on the one hand, the adherence to them intensifies conflictual activities, while on the other hand, one’s own actions and those of the enemy increase the commitment to them. In this respect these beliefs constitute the psychological investment that prevents peaceful resolution of the conflict. As long as society members, including leaders, view the conflict through the glasses of the described beliefs of collective memory, it is difficult for them to consider an alternative to the conflict.

The question arises then as to how the vicious cycles that are typical of the intractable conflict can be broken. Such change is not easy. Years of indoctrination cause internalization of the beliefs of collective memory: they are held with great confidence and considered as central. Clearly any progress towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict requires a change of the beliefs that support the continuation of the conflict, including the beliefs of collective memory.

Collective Memory of Conflict and Reconciliation
There is widely accepted agreement that reconciliation, as part of the peace-making process, requires the formation of a new common outlook of the past. It is suggested that when there is a shared and acknowledged perception of the past, both parties take a significant step towards achieving reconciliation. Acknowledgement of the past implies at least recognition that there are two equally valid narratives, which describe the course of the conflict. Reconciliation does not require a complete change of societal beliefs of collective memories but their modification. The new collective memory has to be in line with the reconciliation process. The process of collective memory modification is not a simple one. The new narrative emerges through negotiation in which one’s own past is critically revised and synchronized with the past of the other group.

It is assumed that a change of beliefs of collective memory can be done only in very advanced phases of the reconciliation process, after the conflict was fully resolved to the satisfaction of both sides. This is so because changing beliefs of collective memory is a very serious change as they feed the essence of social identity of the group. It can be done when the rival groups establish trusting relations and are sensitive to the needs and goals of the past rival. Only then are they able to realize that both contributed to the outbreak, evolvement and maintenance of the conflict and are ready to rewrite their collective memory. The rewriting of the history must be an agreed act by both sides and is usually carried by a joint committee of historians, representatives of both sides, who work together, collecting and selecting materials, and finally negotiate to establish one agreed account of the past events.

The final product requires adherence to agreed facts and clarification of biases and distortions. It requires an omission of myths, lies, fallacies and unfounded stories. On the other hand it requires an inclusion of the following new contents: 1. contents that recognize and admit own responsibility to the outbreak and maintenance of the conflict; 2. Contents that tell about own performed misdeeds during the conflict, including various atrocities. 3. Contents that present the rival group in a more human and positive way; 4. Contents that describe positive relations between the rival groups in the far past, if they were and depict the evolvement of the new peaceful relations as goals for the future.
The commonly published document not only has a symbolic value, but should also have practical applications. It should serve as a basis for rewriting history and other subjects’ textbooks, especially those used in schools, which can affect the beliefs and attitudes of new generations. In addition, the new history books may infuse many cultural and educational products such as books, films, T.V. programs etc. – all of which can influence society members.

It should be noted however that rewriting of the historical accounts does not have to be symmetrical. Parties in conflict do not necessarily bear equal responsibility for the outbreak of the conflict and its continuation, and/or equally perform immoral misdeeds of atrocities such as mass killings and even genocide. It happens that one side is responsible for the eruption of the conflict and it may happen that only one side is entirely responsible for the atrocities performed. In these cases, the responsible side for the eruption of the conflict and/or the atrocities performed has a special role in the rewriting of the history. This side has to acknowledge the misdeeds, describe them and apologize in the rewritten history, as a minimal requirement. Reconciliation may require also a public apology, trials of the responsible individuals and compensation.

One example of producing a new history is the Franco-German commission of historians, which by the 1950s had already critically scrutinized the myths of hereditary enmity between French and German peoples and revised the existing history textbooks. As a final product the commission provided new accounts of the history of both nations, based on agreed facts by the historians of the two groups. Another example is the committee of historians from both Germany and the Czech Republic who wrote a document, which provided an agreed account of their common history. But there is not always a need to revise the whole history between nations. Sometimes, the reconciliation may require rewriting only the history of a significant and symbolic event. This is so in the case of reconciliation between Poles and Russians in which a joint commission of Polish and Russian historians was established to investigate the murder of 15 thousands Polish officers in Katyn by the Soviet authorities in 1939. For years the Soviets claimed that the Germans performed the atrocity, while many of the Poles blamed the Russians. This event was one of the major obstacles in the reconstruction of the Polish-Russian relations. The commission, which completed the investigation of the Soviet state archives, provided unequivocal evidence of the Soviet responsibility. The work of the commission led to the formal Russian acknowledgement of responsibility and apology to the Polish people.

In sum the reconstruction of the collective memory allows a construction of a well-founded and agreed narrative, which sheds new light on the past of the two groups. It provides each group with an opportunity to reveal to the other group own unbiased past and be exposed to the unbiased past of the other group. It allows building common ground, satisfying the group’s needs for recognition and the acknowledgment of past maltreatment – all facilitating elements for reconciliation.

Note: 1 Present paper, referring solely to ethnic groups and nations, will use the term group and society interchangeably.