Families of organ donors between Jews and Arabs in Israel during a military operation: Constructing meaning through participation in an epistemic Community - Media analysis of two cases

Abstract

This study explores how bereaved families of organ donors become participants in an ‘imagined epistemic community’ of organ donor families, amidst a national conflict between Jews and Arabs in Israel. Utilizing a media case study approach, we identified factors contributing to the creation of this bi-national community and examined what the families received in return for their part. Additionally, we explored the reasons behind the community splitting into two separate entities. Based on the media reports, we suggest that entry into the community is conditional on donating organs during wartime, granting these families a special moral status in return, resonating messages of altruism, solidarity and coexistence. Further to this, we propose that when the Arab family felt they did not receive the expected recognition, they withdrew from the common community in favor of a separate national community.

Introduction

Organ donations in cases of sudden loss of a loved family member

Losing a loved one, especially suddenly or through violent means, is a significant stressor (Djelantik et al., 2020). Research shows that different types of loss have varying effects on grieving individuals. Those who experience violent deaths, like accidents, suicides, homicides or catastrophes are at a higher risk of complicated grief compared to those who experience natural deaths (Kristensen et al., 2012). In cases of neurologically determined death, involving the complete and permanent loss of brain function, families play a central role in deciding on potential organ donation within a limited timeframe (Kentish-Barnes et al., 2019a).

Organ donation can provide comfort during bereavement if families are convinced their decision is right (Kentish-Barnes, 2019b). Factors influencing this decision include the wishes of the deceased, acceptance of death, relationship with medical staff, and the family’s beliefs and knowledge about the importance of donation (Walker et al., 2013). Previous studies have shown that donor families seek recognition, appreciation and information (Dicks et al., 2018; Ono et al., 2008). They often think about the recipients and appreciate receiving thank-you letters acknowledging the donation (Azuri & Tabak, 2012).

The current study delves into two exceptional organ donation cases that occurred in Israel during “Operation Guardian of the Walls” in May 2021, involving families from opposing sides. Despite their profound grief, they made the conscious decision to donate their loved ones’ organs, knowing that recipients might come from the perceived “other side.” Organs from a Palestinian young man were transplanted into Jewish recipients and vice versa.

Organ donation in Israel is regulated by the 2008 Organ Transplantation Law, overseen by the National Center for Transplantation. This institution ensures a steady supply of organ donations, facilitating matches between donors and transplant recipients. Additionally, it combats organ trafficking and advocates for collective organ sharing and solidarity on the political front (Boas, 2011). The only study conducted in Israel so far, against the backdrop of the prolonged conflict between nationalities (but not during wartime), focused on cross-cultural heart donations between Jews and Arabs (Ashkenazi et al., 2004). Its findings revealed that altruism was the main reason for organ donation, transcending the boundaries of religion and ethnicity.

Our study focuses on the media coverage of cases of organ donations between Jews and Arabs in Israel during a military operation, and its role as a social agent “staging the grief” (Neimeyer, 2013) of families through the cognitive process of framing. Through this process the media offer perspective and meaning (Entman, 2007). Metaphors play a crucial role in framing, influencing the unconscious thinking of the audience (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003).

We argue that the media bestows a special moral status, labeling the families as a larger imagined epistemic community of organ donors and "moral beacons" (Helzer, 2023). This recognition stems not only from their choice to donate organs after brain death, but notably for doing so during wartime, acknowledging the possibility that organs may reach the opposing side.

The media framing of the unique organ donation during wartime gives recognition to the families’ loss and a sense of belonging to a larger grief community (Lebel, 2014). Past studies, in this context, revealed that bereaved mothers gained public visibility but had to adhere to the rules of the “Grief regime,” adopting pro-establishment discourse and behaviors deemed normative (Lebel, 2013). Those unwilling to meet these expectations may not belong to the community and might establish alternative bereavement groups. In the context of the present study, the rhetorical expectations that the families must meet are related to solidarity and coexistence, during a national war. Wallaschek (2020) defines solidarity as a meaning-making process focusing on both its content enfolding in discourse and the actors who are included or excluded from this content.

Meaning construction after the death of a loved one

Grieving families, according to our perception, exist in a liminal intermediate state and need to bridge the life before the loss and the life after it. Studies examining the processes of creating and forming an identity (Beech, 2011; Ellis & Ybema, 2010) have shown that individuals in liminal situations, where their identity is fragile, develop feelings of stress and anxiety, which necessitate the construction of renewed meaning in life.

Park’s (2010) Meaning-Making model combines existing theories with stress research and coping theories, illustrating how individuals construct meaning when facing traumatic events. This process involves reassessing global meaning and creating coherent interpretations in response to stress, ultimately leading to comprehensive meaning (Park, 2010). Researchers have extensively explored how individuals find meaning after trauma and loss, affecting personal narratives and initiating processes of self and world rediscovery (Bottomley et al., 2019; Park et al., 2016). These feelings intensify when it comes to war-related loss. War and armed conflicts have significant repercussions on individuals and societies, embodying extreme traumatic events that may involve physical or psychological abuse, loss of family members, and economic insecurity (Kelmendi et al., 2022).

Meaning-making occurs on personal and interpersonal levels, involving communal shared meaning-making within a social group (Neimeyer, 2000). In some cases, new meaning involves conflicting narratives, as seen in a study of 10 Israeli parents who lost a child during military service or in a terror attack. They constructed opposing ideologically driven perspectives, questioning and affirming Zionist ideology while interpreting the loss as both coherent and random, all while embracing the collective ethos alongside individualized interpretations (Barak & Leichtentritt, 2015).

Along these lines, Lebel (2011) demonstrated how public exposure of bereavement in the media, within the context of a national war, transforms private mourning into public political mourning, and individual grief into communal hope. One of the ways in which the media does this is by turning the grieving families into an imagined epistemic community, that resonates through interviews a rhetoric of hope and unity, and in return the families receive a sense of visibility, belonging and even a new identity. Belonging to the media-portrayed grief community provides intrinsic meaning through shared familial narratives. It offers a platform to valorize the loss, crafting a heroic narrative around a family member’s death (Lebel, 2014).

Organ donor families during a national war, as discussed by Lebel (2011, 2014), can be considered participants in epistemic communities. These communities, engaging in media interviews with seemingly free rhetoric, ultimately adhere to rhetorical expectations set by social and political institutions. The media, as per the functional theory, is one such institution contributing to strengthening solidarity during crises like war (McQuail, 2010). Prior research explored the aftermath of events like the Paris Attacks (Morse, 2018) and the significance of constructing death as grievable within a community (Butler, 2009). In the context of organ donations, previous studies have examined how media stories detailing recipient identities and personal stories increase support for opt-out policies (Harel et al., 2017), and how printed media shapes public perception through unique framing (Moloney & Walker, 2000). To the best of our knowledge, to date, no research has examined the way in which bereaved families of organ donors, in general, and organ donors against the background of a national war, in particular, become partners in an epistemic community by responding to the media’s rhetorical expectations. The present study focuses on how this unconscious process has the potential, from the point of view of the media’s audience, to construct new meaning and identity for the bereaved families. Accordingly, our research questions were:

1. 1.a. How does the media portray families of organ donors during wartime as participants in an imagined epistemic community, and what are the identified expectations they are supposed to endorse according to the media report?

2. 1.b. To what extent does media framing of these themes enhance the sense of meaning during wartime, according to the media report?

3. What might be the presumed factors, according to the media report, that contribute to the disintegration of the epistemic community into two separate entities?

Method

Principal investigators

In qualitative inquiry, researcher reflexivity, as highlighted by Creswell (2013) and Braun and Clarke (2023), is vital for scrutinizing personal biases and assumptions. This self-awareness enhances research accuracy by acknowledging uncertainties and considering alternative interpretations. In our study, the principal investigators, two Israeli Secular Jewish women and one secular Jewish man, all clinical social workers experienced in working with bereaved families and terror victims, recognize the importance of their backgrounds within a specific social context. The women are faculty members at the School of Social Work at Bar Ilan University in Israel, while the man is a PhD candidate at the same university.

Sample and analysis

Our research is centered on the examination of two cases involving civilians who suffered fatal injuries during a violent political conflict, in the form of a military operation.

Case 1 concerns Yigal Yehoshua, a 56-year-old Jewish Israeli man from the diverse city of Lod. Yigal was attacked by six Palestinians and lost his life on May 11, 2021. Following his passing, his organs, including two lungs, two kidneys, his liver, and his heart, were transplanted into four Jewish recipients and a Palestinian woman from East Jerusalem.

Case 2 concerns Muhammad-Mahameed Kiwan, a 17-year-old Palestinian boy from the Arab city of Umm al-Fahm, who tragically died on May 12, 2021, after being shot by an Israeli Jewish policeman during a protest against the military operation. Following his death, Muhammad’s heart, two lungs, his liver and liver lobe, and two kidneys were transplanted into five Jewish recipients and one Palestinian baby. Both donors lacked a donor card. The Jewish and Arab families sought approval for the donation from religious authorities (Rabbi and Mufti, respectively).

Our analysis is based on 72 Israeli media articles in the Hebrew language. Israeli media in the Arabic language scarcely covered the cases, only mentioning the death of the Arab boy and later briefly noting the mufti’s approval of organ donation, without specifying that it included donation to Jews. It seems that the media treated the boy’s death as that of a religious victim amidst the struggle between nationalities taking place throughout Israel at the time.

It is also noteworthy that Israeli media reports did not differ as a function of the political orientation of various media outlets.

We uncovered recurring patterns in our data, by building insights from the bottom up, as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2023). Initially, we familiarized ourselves with the data by reading and re-reading each media coverage, writing down our own initial thoughts. Independently, two of the authors created initial codes that were then organized into potential themes, forming a thematic "map" of the data. Regular meetings ensured consensus on coding and themes; any discrepancies were resolved through discussion, refining the coding structure by introducing new codes or clarifying existing ones.

Ethics

Ethics approval was obtained from the ethics committee of Bar Ilan University (no.052206). We adhered to ethical guidelines established by Eysenbach and Till (2001), following these principles: (1) All studied articles were originally in the public domain, making complete anonymity for individuals impractical. (2) The data collection process did not involve direct interaction with human subjects, hence it is not mandatory to sign an informed consent.

Findings

Our first research question focused on how families of organ donors, from two different sides of a military conflict, unconsciously align with rhetorical expectations set by the Israeli media and become participants in a unique epistemic community, according to the media report. In addition, we investigated how, from the point of view of the media’s audience, participation in the epistemic community promotes or hinders meaning-building processes among each of the families examined.

We found that both families became the media’s center of attention as soon as it became known that the organs of their relatives were transplanted into people from “the other side.” The murder of Yigal Yehoshua, a Jewish resident of Lod, received extensive Israeli media coverage from the moment it occurred, until he was declared brain dead, leading to his family’s decision to donate his organs. Muhammad Kiwan’s death, during the military operation, gained attention in Israeli media only after his passing, in light of his family’s decision to donate his organs. Yigal’s brother spears to reflect the family’s strong religious background and commitment to coexistence, as evident in his statement that he wasn’t the target of the murder.

‘We were together, joyful, participating in the placement of a Torah scroll for a close family in Moshav Petahia. He received a blessing from the rabbi, and before we parted ways, I said to him: ‘Don’t return home to Lod. It’s dangerous to travel at night. Come sleep at my place, and tomorrow morning, you can head home.’ He replied: ‘Everyone knows me, Arabs and Jews alike. No one will harm me. I have a weapon, though I’ve never used it in my life – but, if necessary, I will use it’ (Ynet, 17.5.21). (Supplementary material)

Initial media reports in connection with Muhammad Kiwan predominantly focused on the immediate reactions of the family and the Arab society:

‘A week ago, Muhammad Kiwan, a 17-year-old boy from Umm al-Fahm, suffered a severe gunshot wound and subsequently succumbed to brain death at Rambam Hospital in Haifa. According to the family, he was shot by a policeman at the Mi Ami intersection south of the city. The police confirmed yesterday that the inquiry is ongoing. In response to the shooting, numerous activists and local residents in the area staged a protest’ (Haretz,19.5.21). (Supplementary material)

It was also reported that following Kiwan’s death, the Umm-al-Fahm municipality declared a day of mourning and a general strike. So far, the coverage had adhered to a conventional pattern, framing the family from Umm-al-Fahm’s grief and public anger. The turning point in the Israeli media’s narrative in connection with the Kiwan family’s story came when the family decided to donate the organs. This was also the stage where space was given in the media reports to the family’s story and feelings regarding the circumstances of Muhammad’s death.

The mother was quoted as saying:

"It was during Ramadan when we stay awake at night and enjoy ourselves," she explained. “Half an hour later, one of his friends called to deliver the devastating news that Muhammad had been wounded…” (Haaretz, 1.6.21). (Supplementary material)

It seems that the ‘entry ticket’ to the imagined epistemic community was given to the families when they began to echo the rhetorical expectations of the media through interviews. Three main themes arose in this context: Altruistic giving across religions, races, and nationalities; The belief that in his death the donor bequeathed life to other people; and Hope for peace and coexistence.

1. Altruistic giving across religions, races, and nationalities

One of the main rhetorical features emphasized by the media interviews was altruistic giving regardless of religion, race, and nationality. A family that echoes the rhetorical expectations of the media receives, in return, an ideal presentation of the family member whose organs were donated. At this juncture, the media employs metaphorical rhetoric to amplify the message of altruistic giving. In an interview with Channel 7 (18.5.21) Yigals’ brother alluded to the values of altruism that defined his brother:

‘He was a man of action, a giver, someone who helped Arabs, Christians, widows, and the elderly through his work as an electrician. It’s incredibly difficult to fathom that he was taken from us. He wasn’t the target; the target was murder, regardless of the victim’s identity’. (Supplementary material)

Examining this interview through the theoretical lens of meaning construction shows that, on one hand, there were complex emotions, including a sense that the murderers had harmed the coexistence that the family held. On the other hand, there was an effort to draw strength from spiritual and religious sources and to entrust law enforcement agencies with the task of apprehending the culprits.

‘We strive to find strength and unity, avoiding the boundaries that stretch beyond our spiritual and physical perspectives. Words elude us. We are still grappling with the loss, and even during the seven days of mourning, I’m uncertain if we’ll fully come to terms with his passing. We’ve shared our lives with Arabs for many years, and when an incident like this occurs at our doorstep, it’s difficult to fathom… I’m at a loss for what to do. It’s certain that neither I nor the family will take matters into our own hands. We entrust those responsible for resolving this issue to do so wisely and diligently, ensuring justice prevails in dealing with the perpetrators’ (Channel 7, 18.5.21). (Supplementary material)

The quotes brought from Muhammad’s family’s may suggest collaboration with the media in conveying the message of altruistic giving resulted in an idealized portrayal of him. Muhammad’s father’s words echoed the great sense of loss:

‘He was an outstanding student who had dreams of attending university and becoming an engineer, but his studies were tragically cut short. He passed away before he could fulfill those aspirations’ (Walla News, 23.5.21). (Supplementary material)

The interviews with the Kiwan family emphasized a rhetoric of altruistic giving which may have helped the family in constructing the meaning of the loss. The boy’s uncle conveyed:

‘We are a family that believes in coexistence and chooses life. We wanted to save lives regardless of religion, race, or gender. As equal citizens in the country, we opt for genuine mutual coexistence, devoid of discrimination. I have every hope that this message will resonate, and it’s heartening that five of the transplant recipients are Jewish – for me, this only reinforces the message’ (Yediot Ahronot, 24.5.21). (Supplementary material)

In the mourning tent, the father was quoted as saying:

The fact that five Jews and one Arab were saved makes his mother and me happy… To me, a person is a person, regardless of their ethnicity (Walla news, 23.5.21). (Supplementary material)

2. ‘In his death, he bequeathed life to other people’

The media coverage was characterized by rhetoric that emphasized that, in their death, each person saved the lives of others. The resonance of this narrative was in line with the media’s aim to emphasize that in the face of death and loss there is social continuity through other people, whether they are members of the same nation, or those who are perceived as enemies.

On the day of Yigal Yehoshua’s funeral, the media reflected the public’s conflicting emotions, oscillating between anger over the abominable murder and awareness that his death had saved the lives of five people.

‘Yigal, who was lynched in Lod, is laid to rest: ‘In his death, he bequeathed life to five people’ (Walla, 18.5.21). (Supplementary material)

The media used the term "lynching," which denotes the violent action of a mob executing or judging a person without due process of law. The second part of the headline ‘In his death, he bequeathed life to five people’ is drawn from the Israeli canon text for Memorial Day ceremonies: "In their death they commanded us to live", and is used to frame Yigals’ death and his organ donation as acts of heroism, meaningful to family and society. The dichotomy, made by the media, between the two parts of the title – ‘who was lynched’ and ‘In his death, he bequeathed life’ - distinguished between those seen as perpetrators and victims. The media framed the ethos of organ donation against the backdrop of this lynching metaphor.

Yigals’ brother seized the moment to deliver a conciliatory message echoed by the media:

‘You gave life to other people thanks to your organs. I hope that the entire audience here will strive for peace in our lives in this country, irrespective of religion or anything else’.

The idealized message presented by the media contrasted with the quotes given by the widow. Using the metaphor of the heart, she said:

‘I don’t want them to make a symbol of Yigal. It’s important to me that they remember his good heart, not the beatings, blood, and stones’ (Shabbat supplement, 20.05. 21). (Supplementary material)

Yigals’ widow’s journey, as depicted through the eyes of the media, reveals her meaning-making, entailing complex emotions after revealing to the media the identity of the transplant recipients, including an Arab woman.

‘There is something so ironic about it, but this is our life’ (Maariv, 20.5.21). (Supplementary material)

When asked if she had any hesitation, the wife, who was still in the early stages of coping with the loss of her husband, invoked the metaphor of the heart once again.

‘It wasn’t so much a deliberation as it was a challenging decision, one of the hardest I’ve had to make. On a rational level, I understood that Yigal was no longer with us. However, it hadn’t fully sunk into my heart. After all, I had just seen him in the room while the machines were still breathing for him. I didn’t feel that he was truly gone. Therefore, emotionally, it was incredibly difficult for me to agree. On the other hand, I had a strong desire to leave something of him in this world, something that would continue to live on in others’ (Yediot Ahronot, 2021). (Supplementary material)

It seems that similar to the Yehoshua family’s case, religious considerations played a pivotal role in the decision to donate the organs of Muhammad Kiwan. The uncle explained:

‘I was with Muhammad’s father when he made the decision. We are people of faith, and Muhammad’s father received confirmation from the mufti that it is permissible to donate to save lives according to Islam, regardless of who the recipients are. His mother was convinced that her womb, which gave birth to Muhammad, is now also giving life to six people – five of whom are Jewish’ (Walla news, 23.5.21). (Supplementary material)

The metaphor "a living womb”, quoted by the journalist, allows the media’s audience to sense the growth that arises from loss – not only the birth of new life, but also the development of deeper connections between Jews and Arabs.

3. Hope for peace and coexistence

The rhetoric of the families, presented in the media reports, echoed the hope for peace and unity among Jews and Arabs even in the backdrop of war. In conjunction with the narratives of Jewish transplant recipients, that primarily underscored how Yigal saved lives through organ donation, the media began sharing the story of a Palestinian resident of East Jerusalem, who after nine years of waiting, received a kidney from the late Jewish donor-Yigal Yehoshua. Through its reports, the media provided a platform for the construction of meaning around the concept of "saving strangers from the other side". Statements quoted from the Palestinian kidney recipient and her daughters reinforced not only the significance of altruistic giving but also how such acts could foster coexistence:

‘We do not support violence, and certainly not the killing of people. We work and live alongside Jews, and we never expected such a conflict. It’s almost surreal that Yigal was killed by Arabs and yet his organs saved the life of an Arab woman. Our message is clear - there are no Arabs or Jews; there are human beings. To us, Yigal is like family, and we deeply regret the tragic circumstances of his passing’ (Maariv, 05.18.2021). (Supplementary material)

The construction of coexistence through organ donation was promoted by the media by citing the Palestinian kidney recipient herself, who stated:

‘I feel much better now. This Jewish kidney has become a part of me’ (Mako, 19.5.21). (Supplementary material)

This metaphor of a “Jewish kidney" transplanted into an Arab woman emphasized the idea that there is no inherent difference between blood types.

Exactly one month after the murder, the media contributed to a sense of public catharsis with this headline:

‘With a racist and nationalist motive: the murder of Yigal Yehoshua in the Lod stone attack is solved. As part of the police investigation, six residents of Lod and two Palestinians from the Palestinian Authority were arrested in recent weeks’ (Maariv, 20.6.21). (Supplementary material)

In addition to this closure, another circle was drawn. Yigal’s wife and their children visited the Palestinian kidney recipient and her family. The media quoted Yigal’s wife’s feelings about the meeting: ‘Her [i.e. the kidney recipient] physical improvement was evident, and I can see her condition slowly improving as she recovers. It’s a heartening feeling that greatly strengthens me’ (Maariv, 20.6.21). (Supplementary material)

One month after Yigal’s murder, the recipient’s daughters visited Yigal’s grave with flowers, although according to the media report they were hesitant to get out of their car. Yigals’ brother reassured them, saying: ‘You are my guests, and I am the host here’.

The apprehension of the perpetrators, and mutual visits between the Jewish donor’s and Arab recipient’s families, fostered in the public a renewed belief in coexistence, and reaffirmed the Yehoshua family’s cherished values promoted by the media, possibly also reshaping the meaning of the murder.

Unlike the Yigal Yehoshua case, the Israeli media provided limited coverage of the organ recipients in the Kiwan case. None of the Jewish recipients visited the family or expressed gratitude. However, the mother of the Arab infant who received a portion of Muhammad’s liver, expressed heartfelt gratitude:

‘We are deeply thankful to Muhammad’s family, who, under such unfortunate and tragic circumstances, made the noble decision to donate his organs’ (Scnieder Center, 24.5.21). (Supplementary material)

It can be assumed that the seeds of the Kiwan family’s exit from the epistemic community to which they belonged were sown at this point.

Our second research question explored the presumed reasons for which the epistemic community of organ donor families during wartime split into two separate communities.

This may be related to the fact that the Kiwan family was deeply hurt by the lack of acknowledgment from the Jewish side. Additionally, the decision to arrest Muhammad’s two friends who were with him in the car at the time of the shooting, along with the police’s statement that the cameras at the intersection where Muhammad was found dead were not operational that day, further complicated matters.

The family’s despair became particularly evident when, one year later, Israeli media announced the closure of the case against the policeman who shot and killed the boy. In response to this decision, Muhammad’s father remarked:

‘It took them a year and a half to dismiss our claims. A policeman shoots and kills a child, and they expect us to have faith in the Department of Internal Police Investigation’s sense of justice’ (Israel Hayom, 15.9.22). The father’s polarized distinction between "them" and "us," echoed by the media, may imply the perception that when it comes to social heroes who donate organs, there is a different standard for Jews and Arabs. (Supplementary material)

Discussion

This article explores a distinctive Israeli epistemic community involving a Jewish and an Arab family. Both families donated organs during wartime, acknowledging the possibility that the organs could benefit perceived enemies. Through analyzing the media coverage of these donations, we uncover the factors that initially formed and promoted this unique community, the construction of meaning, and the subsequent division into two distinct national entities.

Entrance ticket to the epistemic community

The decision to donate organs during wartime, despite the potential allocation to perceived enemies, earned both families ‘a moral beacon’ status (Helzer, 2023) in the eyes of the Israeli media. By directing rhetorical expectations, this transformed them to an epistemic community. This recognition has the potential to assist them in navigating the process of attributing meaning to the death and loss of their loved ones.

The construction of meaning following death plays a central role in the process of adapting to loss (Neimeyer et al., 2000). During the grieving process, reconstruction of meaning becomes necessary for the life story of the deceased, and this new meaning needs to be integrated into the overall meaning system (Park, 2010). This is particularly true for types of death that contradict fundamental constructs, such as death during wartime (Kelmendi et al., 2022).

It seems that both the Jewish and Arab families of organ donors responded to rhetorical expectations of the media regarding values promoting altruism and social solidarity, as these values have the potential to mitigate national conflicts, that disrupt social order (Lebel, 2013). These rhetorical expectations align with the media’s role in fostering a sense of continuity during crises (McQuail, 2010). The content, presented in the interviews with the families, revealed three overarching themes that resonated with the media’s expectations.

The themes echoed by the families through participation in the epistemic community

The themes that arose include: altruistic giving across religions, races, and nationalities; the belief that in his death the donor bequeathed life to other people; and hope for peace and coexistence.

Families involved in organ donations often seek a positive outcome from their tragic experiences. In a study by Boran et al. (2019), 91% of patient relatives, when asked to donate organs, did so with the intention of benefiting others. In a unique Israeli study focusing on heart donations between Jews and Arabs outside of wartime, Ashkenazi et al. (2004) found that altruism surpassed religious and ethnic motivations for organ donation.

In our study, both families emphasized altruistic giving through their linguistic expressions presented in the interviews.

The Yehoshua family talked about striving to find strength and unity while the Kiwan family stated that they want to save lives regardless of religion, race, or gender. The rhetoric employed by the families enhanced the special ‘moral status’ (Helzer et al., 2023), assigned to them by the media, contributing to an idealized presentation of the Jewish donor as a man of action and a giver and the Arab donor as an outstanding student.

The second theme we found, the belief that in his death the donor bequeathed life to other people, was intended to convey the media’s message of the continuity of the deceased through other people, even if they do not belong to the same nationality. One of the rhetorical features used by the media, to echo the messages conveyed by the families, was the use of metaphors. Metaphors play a significant role in framing, as per the Conceptual Metaphor Theory developed by Lakoff and Johnson (2003), shaping unconscious thinking and action. The media uses metaphors, including bodily metaphors, to express powerful emotions (Wudie, 2014) and polarized metaphors to alleviate anxiety, when reporting difficult news stories (Grenier et al., 2005). In reports on the case of Yigal Yehoshua, the media employed rhetorical and artistic techniques, such as using the term lynch to describe the murder, distinguishing between the victim and the attackers, and employing a metaphor accepted in Israeli society to describe those who died in the fight for the country. Kiwan’s organ donation was described matter-of-factly in the Israeli media. ‘However, to emphasize the continuity of life, the media quoted the words of the uncle describing the boy’s mother who was convinced that her womb, which gave birth to Muhammad, now gives life to other people.

The third theme we identified concerns the challenging pursuit of hope for peace and coexistence during wartime (Leshem & Halperin, 2023). The media faces the task of making this hope stand out, requiring special rhetorical efforts. Our findings revealed that this theme particularly resonated with the Jewish family. In the aftermath of Yehoshua’s murder, the media’s emphasis on coexistence aimed to address public dissonance arising from the contrast between a Jew’s death by Arab terrorists and the donation of a kidney to an Arab woman. Daughters of the kidney transplant recipient conveyed the message that Yigal is part of their family, while the Arab recipient stated that ‘the Jewish kidney’ has become a part of her The media played a vital role in addressing the fracture within the concept of coexistence, depicting mutual visits between the Yehoshua and the recipient family, reinforcing the deep bond formed between the Jewish and the Arab family.

Damage to the sense of community Solidarity - The split into two national communities

The sense of universal solidarity, fostered by the media, was fractured when it became apparent that solidarity is particular and contingent on nationality, and the media determines which actors are included or excluded (Wallaschek, 2020). The bi-national epistemic community split into distinct national communities. An examination of the media reports since the organ donation points to two possible factors contributing to this split.

The first factor stems from the lack of gratitude expressed by the five Jewish recipients of Muhammad’s organs.

Prior studies indicate that donor families desire recognition, appreciation, and information (Dicks et al., 2018; Ono et al., 2008). Sque et al. (2018) examined organ donor families’ experiences, emphasizing the interconnected biographies of the donor and recipient as a source of comfort and a way to honor the donor during this challenging period.

The second factor is linked to the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the death of Muhammad Kiwan, in contrast to the swift apprehension of Yigal Yehoshua’s killers, a month after his murder. The media reflected the profound emotions of the Kiwan family, grappling with the loss of their young and talented son, whose promising future was cut short abruptly. The discord arose from donating his organs to five Jews, seen as bearing responsibility for his death. Muhammad’s father expressed frustration that can be identified through his polarized distinction between "them"(the Israeli police) and "us," (the Arab community) echoed by the media. This illustrates the perception that donating to a stranger is often viewed as unrewarding. It can be said that the Kiwan family, unable to find closure regarding the loss of their son, was no longer willing to adhere to the rules of the ‘grief regime’. This implies a reluctance to adopt pro-establishment discourse and behaviors perceived as normative (Lebel, 2013). The Kiwan family, it seems, opts to exist as an independent epistemic community, seeking meaning through the pursuit of justice for the Jewish policeman who shot their son. This choice distances them from the resonance of messages promoting social solidarity and coexistence, reinforcing messages of national division amid feelings of anger and insult.

Limitations

This study has some limitations: it focuses solely on Israeli media, and the researchers are Israeli Jews. Future research should include Arab media for a more comprehensive view, and include researchers from both Jewish and Arab backgrounds. Moreover, the study used media reports to explore the creation of an imaginary epistemic community of organ donors and its role in achieving meaning. Our interpretation is based on what the media chose to present; we cannot know what else was said by the families. It is possible that the families were able to find meaning after the loss regardless of what was reported in the media. Future research including interviews with family members could provide valuable insights into their perspective on the meaning-construction process. Finally, investigation into organ donation coverage during peacetime would reveal how meaning is constructed in different contexts, illuminating potential narrative shifts during conflict.

Conclusion

The present study, to the best of our knowledge, is the first to examine the creation of an epistemic community involving Jewish and Arab families of organ donors during war. These families donated organs to the side perceived as the enemy. The study highlights how the community echoes the hegemonic messages of social solidarity and coexistence conveyed by the Israeli media. Through metaphorical framing, the media grants them a special moral status and idealizes their deceased family member. By participating in the community, the families successfully navigate the process of constructing a new meaning following the loss they experienced. The study also reveals that the willingness to meet the media’s rhetorical expectations is contingent on the gratitude the families receive and on the apprehension of the person responsible for the family member’s death. When these conditions are not met, the epistemic community breaks up into two national groups, emphasizing the division between nations.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.