A conference took place on the topic of “How to Rebuild Trust Between Israelis and Palestinians” at the University of Denver between the 3rd and 5th of September, 2004, under the sponsorship of The Institute for the Study of Israel In the Middle East at the University of Denver, The University of Oklahoma’s International Program,s Centre, Natanya Academic College’s Strategic Dialogue Centre in Israel, and the Three Cultures Foundation in Seville, Spain.
The combination of participants seems to have been a very good one, although for reasons made clear by the organisers, the two Palestinian politicians who were invited unfortunately cancelled their participation, leaving the floor to American Palestinians only. Although the latter did admirable job, this lack was noticeable.
The papers were mostly commissioned, which gave the conference the cohesive and practical atmosphere that it needed. As a result, specialists such as Dr.Moshe Ma’oz, an authority on Syria, was asked to speak about Egypt, which he did very well, and Garold Mills, whose original training was religious studies and history spoke most instructively about the need for economic trust for a long term solution.
Papers:
The papers covered a wide range of topics and aspects of the general issue:
Shibley Telhami emphasised his pessimism regarding the possibility of rebuilding trust in the near future, pointing out to the lack of leadership on the one hand, and the need for inter-elites dialogue, on the other; a more optimistic view was voiced by Alon Ben-Meir, who provided a general list of pre-requisites for trust-building, first of which is mutual acceptance of the right of self determination of Palestinian and Jewish (rather than merely “Israeli”) in states of their own; the social was addressed by Shaul Gabbay who applied the concept of social capital to trust, pointing out to the need to enlarge the number of elements that will provide outside context to the conflicting parties; track-two negotiations and their relation to trust was spoken of by Menachem Klein, while Maya Melzer-Geva called for a narrative approach to trust building; the women aspect was taken by Camelia Suleiman; Media and their impact were discussed by both Sa’d Abudayeh who compared Jordanian press in July 1994 and July 2004 to show that trust and general attitude was deteriorating towards peace and Israel, as well as by Ted Saad, a New York Palestinian film maker; the issue of water was tackled by Edwin Corr who called for greater equity in its distribution;
The role of other Arab countries in the conflict was pointed out by Adel elAdawy, Moshe Ma’oz and Bahieldin Elibrachi (Egypt), Rateb Amro and Ilai Alon (Jordan), Syria by Dani Yatom ( in a keynote address), and Clifford Chanin, in another keynote lecture addressed the US-Saudi relations, holding that while the interests that forged the decades-long relationship between these two countries have not changed, everything else has, which strains these relationships; the connection between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the one hand, and that between the US and Islam on the other hand was taken up in a keynote address by Dina Kaldi who stressed the issue of Iraq in this context.
Two participants focused on the issues that need attention during future negotiations and trustbuilding. Dr.Reuven Pedatzur spoke about Israeli strategic considerations, and Dr. Assad Busool presented the Palestinian issues which according to him were obstacles for trust building.
Except for a brief detour from the focus on means rather than substance on the first day, which created a moment of tension, the participants adhered to the former, creating an atmosphere of cooperation.
The final session consisted of a roundtable, dedicated to suggesting practical steps. A clear recommendation was made to encourage People-to-people contact. The principal decision, however, was to continue the activity, for which purpose a working committee was appointed. Another decision was to promote Prof. Joseph Ginat’s motion to call for the traditional Islamic institution of hudnah (cease fire) by all parties. He submitted that such a status will put an end to violence, which will allow the immediate beginning of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
Evaluation:
To me it is clear that the topic of this conference is the single most important one of the conflict. The programme, which was organized so that time was put to a very efficient use, without causing a sense of hard labour, did justice to the topic.
Although the papers were of a high academic standard, it seems to me that a requirement of the participants to read in advance some of the vast literature on trust, in psychology, sociology, political science, philosophy, etc. would have elevated the level even higher. I would also ask an expert on trust for an introduction paper. In addition, given the practical objective of the conference, I would have liked to hear more from the diplomats.
Except for by Prof. Ginat and my humble self, the cultural component of trust has not been underaddressed. Most of the speakers (including Arabs!) addressed the concept as though it were a universal concept. The concept of trust in Islamic, Arab, Jewish, and Israeli cultures must be studied thoroughly prior to, or at the very least, simultaneously with, negotiations between the parties.
The idea that concepts are independent of context, in this case, the cultural one, and thus transmittable across societies without proper transformation, is baseless, because even fundamental concepts such as “human rights” are culture-dependent. Trust and distrust is one of these concepts: they are attitudes, a sort of a matrix into which everyone pours the facts so that they fit it. These are of two orders: historical facts, what I call “facts of the first order”, and facts of the second order, which are people’s real beliefs about the above. For the purpose of negotiations, the latter are as important as the former. For this reason they should be studied and related to as an important part of trust building.
This kind of work is a long-term one at the level of elites, after a thorough study of the culture of the other.
The conceivers of the idea of the conference and its organizers, are to be thanked and, it is to be hoped that indeed the decision to carry on with the same topic will prove itself, both on the more theoretical and the practical levels.
Professor Alon continues to be the Negotiations Advisor to Prime Minister Sharon and an SPME Member. He is Professor of Political Science at Tel AvivUniversity and Visiting Professor at the University of Chicago
